2023 (expanded) Rugby World Cup for South Africa

First topic message reminder :



The Rugby World Cup should return to South Africa in 2023, and the tournament should be expanded to 24 teams.

The other three candidates are Ireland, France and Italy. Were any of these successful, that would mean a third straight World Cup in the Northern Hemisphere, even though it is the Southern Hemisphere which overwhelmingly dominates.

It would also entail a return to the Six Nations for the fifth time in just ten tournaments, which is a little ridiculous for a sport with over one hundred affiliated member nations and self-professed global pretentions.

Should it go to Ireland, that would also mean, technically-speaking, that the United Kingdom were involved to some degree in hosting the event for the fifth time, given at least a few of the games would be staged north of the border.

France, meanwhile, hosted the World Cup as recently as eight years ago, and was also a co-host in 1991 and 1999.

That leaves Italy, to my mind the most attractive of the European bids, as it is a newcomer to the heavyweight ranks with a large number of registered players. However, World Rugby might want to go with a more established rugby playing nation for its 10th World Cup. Japan is already facing problems as it prepares to stage the 2019 event, with its new Olympic Stadium having now been removed from the venue list.

As for South Africa, it has the biggest and best rugby-purpose stadia in the world - with the possible exception of England, which has just hosted the event for the second time. It has the second largest number of registered players (also behind England), and it is the second most successful rugby playing nation after New Zealand.

By the time 2023 rolls around, an entire generation will have grown up since the last time the tournament was held in South Africa. This, even though the 1995 installment was one of the most successful and spectacular World Cups to date.

So if New Zealand, Austrlalia and England can all host it twice, and France can be involved as either host or co-host on three occasions, why on earth shouldn't it return to South Africa in 2023? Why does World Rugby appear to have lost faith in the republic, having overlooked it for both 2011 and 2019?

It's time to break the cycle. The World Cup can not continue to return to Western Europe on every second occasion. That is a myopic approach and anathema to the globalization cause.

But it does need to return to the Southern Hemisphere in 2023 for what will be the first time in 12 years. Moreover, it needs to return to the African continent, one of the hotbeds of international rugby development in recent decades.

This leads me to my final point in South Africa's favour. World Rugby officials have raised the possibility of an expanded tournament, and this is undoubtedly overdue. Again, with its vast array of rugby-purpose stadia, South Africa's credentials are unsurpassed as a potential host nation for a 24-team World Cup.

The last - and only - increase in teams was from 16 to 20 in 1999. This appears to have been successful, judging by the improved performances of the fringe teams in New Zealand and England.

In fact, no centuries have been recorded since 2003, while Japan's stunning victory over the Springboks this year suggests the days of foregone conclusions is World Cup rugby may be drawing to a close.

That said, a lot of work needs to be done in the interim if the additional teams are going to be genuinely competitive. One of the biggest obstacles to the game's global development is the stratification of its international competitions.

Not only are the elite championships closed-shop, but there is little interaction between the top teams and the emerging nations in between World Cups. How on earth are the up-and-comers supposed to be competitive in the big exam if they have been denied the lessons to prepare in between?

New Zealand and Australia should be playing annual tests with the Pacific Islands and Japan, as should the Six Nations with their Eastern European neighbours. South Africa ought to engage Namibia in a 'Bledisloe Cup'-style annual trophy match, and Hong Kong and Korea should be playing in the Pacific Challenge tournament, alongside the Pacific Islands B teams and Argentina's 'Pampas,' with a possible view to future inclusion in the Pacific Nations Championship.

In addition to this, would it not be a fairly straightforward exercise for Six Nations teams to stop in for tests against Namibia and Uruguay enroute to South Africa and Argentina, respectively - as well as the Pacific Islands while touring New Zealand or Australia?

By the same token, how about the Southern Hemisphere teams playing Georgia, Romania or Russia on their Autumn tours to Europe? Argentina might even take on Spain or Portugal.

If rugby is to more forward, it needs to expand its World Cup, and this can only be successful with a more integrated international rugby calendar.

Sin é wrote:If it was all about the money, you would think that they would have put all the England games in Wembley.

The best attendance at the tournament was Ireland playing Romania, and I'd imagine there would not have been a lot of Romanians at it. Ireland attracted a better attendance than the ABs v Argentina in the same venue. I also pointed out at the time, that tickets to Ireland games were more expensive than to the French games (who were in Ireland's group).

sin e bear in mind that ABs fans and Argentinian fans have a little bit further to travel than Irish ones!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Rugby_World_Cup_Pool_C

According to this the NZ - Argentina game got 89k which is only marginally less. Both games were very close to max capacity and perhaps a few of the tickets were squandered by corporates.

Why would England play at Wembley when Twickenham is the national rugby stadium?

England kindly gave Ireland Wembley so you could boast about attendance figures....

Packing the stadia is hardly likely to be an issue for South Africa, the world's second largest rugby community, and they have the best array of rugby-purpose stadia on the planet - in addition to many fine football stadiums upgraded and in some cases built for the 2006 FIFA World Cup. If it came down to this issue alone, South Africa would have the 2023 tournament in the bag.

Rowanbi wrote:Packing the stadia is hardly likely to be an issue for South Africa, the world's second largest rugby community, and they have the best array of rugby-purpose stadia on the planet - in addition to many fine football stadiums upgraded and in some cases built for the 2006 FIFA World Cup. If it came down to this issue alone, South Africa would have the 2023 tournament in the bag.

and the highest average attendances in domestic rugby by far.

I suspect France would be up there if it were guaranteed bums on seats or more liekly money. Should go to 1 of the 2 newbies though.

Maybe Georgia and Romania can co-host?

Kill two birds with one stone.

No 7&1/2 wrote:I suspect France would be up there if it were guaranteed bums on seats or more liekly money. Should go to 1 of the 2 newbies though.

no 7 & 1/2 there's only one bidder who hasn't host a RWC game.

imagine what happens when Namibia hosts. Population would quadruple for 6 weeks.

I don't think Ireland or Italy have hosted by themselves beshocked. I don't count a game here or there.

Ireland have still had games though, they aren't new. Italy would be new.

I consider Ireland and Italy as new hosts. Fine if you don't.

Ignore evidence as usual if you want. I won't.

If we consider England and New Zealand have only hosted once then yeah I agree.

In 1991 Ireland played all 2 out of 3 of their pool games in Ireland, the 3rd was vs. Scotland in Murrayfield. Their QF was in Ireland, had they reached the SF they would have played in Ireland.

I don't ignore evidence but I don't consider Ireland to have hosted that world cup. Like I don't really consider Wales to have hosted the wc 20 times of whatever it's up to now. Italy and Ireland are new hosts to it and personally I think we should be sharing this round when we can.

I think its a bit unfair on the rest of the world for to say... SA is one country Wales, Scotland and England one country each too etc.

Would sort of mean if on this rotation that UK and Eire get the hosting rights 4 times every 10 RWC whereas SA, AUS and NZ get only 1 time out of every 10.

I understand people want new venues etc but I imagine half of it is the.... "Italy, Ireland, France etc is close, I can get to see some matches".

Maybe there is some personal prejudice on my part too although I did see some matches in 2015 live too. Happy to travel wherever... get away from the missus for starters!!!

My own opinion is that whilst yes its not strictly true that Europe is 1 region, SA is 1 region, ANZAC is 1 region I do think that its more like at best Europe is 3 regions, SANZAR are 3 regions and thats how the rotation should be.

I think it should just be decided on who has the best bid for the aims of World Rugby.

No 7&1/2 wrote:I think it should just be decided on who has the best bid for the aims of World Rugby.

I think there is some room for manuvere though. I.e. One may rank 9.2/10 compared to 9.4/10 but the lesser scored bid may be the right bid for other reasons etc.

Lets be honest any European bid depends on how much they bribe the WRU/SRU on home match allowances right?

no 7 & 1/2 Wales have still been involved in hosting matches in 4 RWCs. Ireland in 2.

You called Ireland a newbie, they aren't a newbie as they've hosted RWC games, no it might not be technically their RWC but still counts as featuring.

Only a mere 12 matches. Still more than 0.

Of course I am used to you ignoring evidence.

Wales were the "hosts" in 1999 but shared the games almost equally.


Italy would be the only one which hasn't hosted a RWC game.

Obviously not. I've never seen any bribes. Given what's hitting FIFA though I'm sure the Sunday Times will be all over it.

Yeah yeah beshocked, and I'm used to you ignoring things to suit.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Obviously not. I've never seen any bribes. Given what's hitting FIFA though I'm sure the Sunday Times will be all over it.

depends how you define what a bribe is.

This is what google states

dishonestly persuade (someone) to act in one's favour by a gift of money or other inducement

When the 07 tournament rights were being contested initially France had not offered anything bar matches in France. It was very close and changed their bid to include Wales and Scotland. The only reason was to win votes. If that isn't a bribe I don't know what is. Legal, perhaps but a bribe is a bribe.

Well, there you go. Get onto the papers mate, as this is a huge story.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Well, there you go. Get onto the papers mate, as this is a huge story.

Its well documented. Nothing nobody doesn't know.

They can't have seen it. If it's a bribe it's huge news following the bribes paid FIFA. Of course it may not be a bribe. Yeah thats it.

fa0019 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Obviously not. I've never seen any bribes. Given what's hitting FIFA though I'm sure the Sunday Times will be all over it.

depends how you define what a bribe is.

This is what google states

dishonestly persuade (someone) to act in one's favour by a gift of money or other inducement

When the 07 tournament rights were being contested initially France had not offered anything bar matches in France. It was very close and changed their bid to include Wales and Scotland. The only reason was to win votes. If that isn't a bribe I don't know what is. Legal, perhaps but a bribe is a bribe.

You say dishonestly persuade. To be honest I think Wales have been pretty up front with their RWC vote.

Gives us games and we'll vote for you.

Other nations - we'll give you games if you vote for us.

No 7&1/2 wrote:They can't have seen it. If it's a bribe it's huge news following the bribes paid FIFA. Of course it may not be a bribe. Yeah thats it.

So you don't see the offering to host  matches in a tournament as a bribe?

Financially there was an incentive, team chances there was an incentive especially given their home match vs. Australia was also in Cardiff. As well as Scotland's match vs. New Zealand.

It was a change of bid which benefited both Scotland and Wales both financially and team wise.

It's not a bribe. Not much else to say.

No 7&1/2 wrote:It's not a bribe. Not much else to say.

They changed the bid and did as much as giving the WRU & SRU money to secure the vote.

It's not a bribe though is it? Everyone knows about it yes? Is anyone getting in trouble? No? You've even said it's legal so not breaching anti bribery laws? So what you really want to say is you think it should be bribery; but isn't.

beshocked wrote:

Sin é wrote:If it was all about the money, you would think that they would have put all the England games in Wembley.

The best attendance at the tournament was Ireland playing Romania, and I'd imagine there would not have been a lot of Romanians at it. Ireland attracted a better attendance than the ABs v Argentina in the same venue. I also pointed out at the time, that tickets to Ireland games were more expensive than to the French games (who were in Ireland's group).

sin e bear in mind that ABs fans and Argentinian fans have a little bit further to travel than Irish ones!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Rugby_World_Cup_Pool_C

According to this the NZ - Argentina game got 89k which is only marginally less. Both games were very close to max capacity and perhaps a few of the tickets were squandered by corporates.

Why would England play at Wembley when Twickenham is the national rugby stadium?

England kindly gave Ireland Wembley so you could boast about attendance figures....

ABs v Argentina was a glamour event unlike Ireland v Romania (which would attract few neutrals and I wouldn't say there would be a lot of Romanians going to it).

If it was all about the money, England would have played in Wembley

Thanks for doing that. It will look good that Ireland had the highest attendance at a world cup not staged in its own country when bidding for RWC23.

Rowanbi wrote:Packing the stadia is hardly likely to be an issue for South Africa, the world's second largest rugby community, and they have the best array of rugby-purpose stadia on the planet - in addition to many fine football stadiums upgraded and in some cases built for the 2006 FIFA World Cup. If it came down to this issue alone, South Africa would have the 2023 tournament in the bag.

The stadia were not packed for SA FIFA world cup. The suggestion made that Ireland would be unable to pack the stadia is nonesense when you consider the attendance for Ireland v Romania in Wembley.

No 7&1/2 wrote:It's not a bribe though is it? Everyone knows about it yes? Is anyone getting in trouble? No? You've even said it's legal so not breaching anti bribery laws? So what you really want to say is you think it should be bribery; but isn't.

would that be legal in business. No

Whether or not it is in the public domain and approved by world rugby doesn't take away the fact they changed the bid, literally promising a voter a sum of money and an improved chance of qualification.

So its not a brown paper bag to an officials grandmother... it doesn't mean its not the same. Not like the WRU or SRU would have not known about the bid change before it was made... well I'd be very very surprised if it was done so.  

Lets not pretend the IRB/WR is not an old boys club where voters scratch each others back. Usually its a vote for me and I'll vote for you next time around stuff but giving them money (indirectly or directly) for me is a bribe and it certainly correlates with any definition of bribery.

Well rugby is now business. I find it hard to believe the authorities are so slow. Giving a guy money for their vote is illegal, and as you said this isn't.

fa0019 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:It's not a bribe though is it? Everyone knows about it yes? Is anyone getting in trouble? No? You've even said it's legal so not breaching anti bribery laws? So what you really want to say is you think it should be bribery; but isn't.

would that be legal in business. No

Whether or not it is in the public domain and approved by world rugby doesn't take away the fact they changed the bid, literally promising a voter a sum of money and an improved chance of qualification.

So its not a brown paper bag to an officials grandmother... it doesn't mean its not the same. Not like the WRU or SRU would have not known about the bid change before it was made... well I'd be very very surprised if it was done so.  

Lets not pretend the IRB/WR is not an old boys club where voters scratch each others back. Usually its a vote for me and I'll vote for you next time around stuff but giving them money (indirectly or directly) for me is a bribe and it certainly correlates with any definition of bribery.

For it to be a bribe, you need to dishonestly persuade. I can't see anything dishonest in negotiating the staging of some games if the bid is won for your vote.

Sin é wrote:

Rowanbi wrote:Packing the stadia is hardly likely to be an issue for South Africa, the world's second largest rugby community, and they have the best array of rugby-purpose stadia on the planet - in addition to many fine football stadiums upgraded and in some cases built for the 2006 FIFA World Cup. If it came down to this issue alone, South Africa would have the 2023 tournament in the bag.

The stadia were not packed for SA FIFA world cup. The suggestion made that Ireland would be unable to pack the stadia is nonesense when you consider the attendance for Ireland v Romania in Wembley.

It may have escape your attention, but football and rugby are different sports. Besides, FIFA rated its 2006 World Cup the most successful to date (at that time). No suggestion was made that Ireland wouldn't be able to pack the stadia either; it simply has far, far fewer stadiums to pack. So in this department it's a no brainer - South Africa all the way.

Actually France is probably ahead here.

Sin é wrote:

Rowanbi wrote:Packing the stadia is hardly likely to be an issue for South Africa, the world's second largest rugby community, and they have the best array of rugby-purpose stadia on the planet - in addition to many fine football stadiums upgraded and in some cases built for the 2006 FIFA World Cup. If it came down to this issue alone, South Africa would have the 2023 tournament in the bag.

The stadia were not packed for SA FIFA world cup. The suggestion made that Ireland would be unable to pack the stadia is nonesense when you consider the attendance for Ireland v Romania in Wembley.

Different sports Sin e; some correlations but not oranges and oranges.

Football is an african game in SA. Tickets were expensive and many people were simply blocked financially from going to see games. Even then it was still something like the 3rd most attended FIFA world cup both in overall numbers and average attendance. Not bad for a nation way out of normal reach of fans the games core fans i.e. Europe, S.America and Asia.
Rugby is different. SA has the best supported domestic game in the sport in terms of average attendances. Those who follow the sport i.e. Whites and Cape Coloured have significantly higher disposable income.

I think its difficult to argue that a RWC in SA will not be well attended.

Sin é wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:It's not a bribe though is it? Everyone knows about it yes? Is anyone getting in trouble? No? You've even said it's legal so not breaching anti bribery laws? So what you really want to say is you think it should be bribery; but isn't.

would that be legal in business. No

Whether or not it is in the public domain and approved by world rugby doesn't take away the fact they changed the bid, literally promising a voter a sum of money and an improved chance of qualification.

So its not a brown paper bag to an officials grandmother... it doesn't mean its not the same. Not like the WRU or SRU would have not known about the bid change before it was made... well I'd be very very surprised if it was done so.  

Lets not pretend the IRB/WR is not an old boys club where voters scratch each others back. Usually its a vote for me and I'll vote for you next time around stuff but giving them money (indirectly or directly) for me is a bribe and it certainly correlates with any definition of bribery.

For it to be a bribe, you need to dishonestly persuade. I can't see anything dishonest in negotiating the staging of some games if the bid is won for your vote.

Bribery isn't purely a voter going to bidders "my vote is up for auction to the highest bidder".

Take bribery in business for instance, common in africa, uncommon for it not to be done to be fair. Putting money in unions pockets is the same as putting a few mill on top of a tender bid in a brown envelope to the voting committee. So they didn't hide it, doesn't mean they directly appealed to a voters pocket rather than the merits of their own bid.

So any joint bid is a bribe then.

The SA FIFA world cup is repeatedly given as an example of SA's ability to stage a successful world cup. I'm only keeping you honest when the size of the stadia and the attendance is brought up.

I'm sure SA, like Ireland will be able to host and attract large attendances. The big difference is though that Ireland, because of its proximity to wealthy countries like the UK, France & Italy will be able to charge more for the tickets.

No 7&1/2 wrote:So any joint bid is a bribe then.

if its an upfront bid i.e. AUS and NZ... no.

If its a bid of say France coming up and saying here is my bid, we're giving Wales and Scotland some home games though for no apparent reason at the start.... fishy but probably just about not bribery.

If you submit bid and last minute change bid from all home matches to offering key voters match rights (with financial and progress positive implications) then yeah its a bribe.

Sin é wrote:The SA FIFA world cup is repeatedly given as an example of SA's ability to stage a successful world cup. I'm only keeping you honest when the size of the stadia and the attendance is brought up.

I'm sure SA, like Ireland will be able to host and attract large attendances. The big difference is though that Ireland, because of its proximity to wealthy countries like the UK, France & Italy will be able to charge more for the tickets.

As I understand World Rugby does not make a proportional take on a tournament. They have a set fee. After that the money is taken by the home union. Whether or not a bid can charge £50 or £70 a ticket does not really matter. Costs will be lower in SA for example, no stadium updates required. Cheaper labour, cheaper costs for administrative issues such as policing so that in part will factor for lower ticket prices.

In the end, World rugby takes the first slice, the rest isn't really a matter for them to worry about.

All the bids were announced saying the Millenium Stadioum would be used way back in the 90s no?

early 00s even.

No 7&1/2 wrote:All the bids were announced saying the Millenium Stadioum would be used way back in the 90s no?

no, I recall having the same debate on this here a few moths back.

The bids was formalised in 2002 only. Decided in 2003. France changed their bid between this to alter for Scotland and Wales home matches. All we know is that it was a fierce competition between England and France and it was tight.

Beshocked,

I thinking its pushing it a bit to say Ireland have 'HOSTED' a world cup.

Yes they've had a couple of games but hosting means being the MAIN country (in my eyes anyway)

Wales have had more games at home (due to voting / politics/ great stadium ), but even they haven't Solely hosted a World Cup.

But I agree it shouldn't always just be the 6n countries and the championship ones. Italy would be an exception for the moment as they haven't hosted it, have big stadiums and would be a great country to watch rugby in.

However move it out to some other places.

Its bound to be in the US sometime soon.

Any link to that and who exactly would profit in monetry terms?

Geordiefalcon I've never said they've "hosted" a world cup. I've said they aren't a new country. They've hosted 12 matches. That's not just a couple....

In 1999 Wales were the "host" but shared it. One of those was Ireland who had almost as many as Wales.

I am challenging no 7 & 1/2 false statement that Ireland are a newbie. They are not.

Italy in comparison have had no games.

Instead of focussing on the old guard which both Ireland and South Africa are part of, I believe that Italy as a country that has never hosted a RWC game should have the honour of being a RWC host.

Ireland have had less games than South Africa but 12 more than Italy.

So England were't the first hosts to go out at the world cup then. Cool.

No 7&1/2 wrote:So England were't the first hosts to go out at the world cup then. Cool.

If England weren't the first host to go out in the pool stages then who was?

Can't be bothered checking. Was it Scotland under this description of host? I'd personally say England were hence my point about Ireland being new hosts.