Just how big will the 2015 WC be ?

First topic message reminder :

There is an interesting article on the BBC, the last world cup in 2011 is ranked the 4th highest behind London's Olympics, the 2014 World Cup in Brazil and 2012 Paralympics. So do we think that the next one could be bigger ?

http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/30326825

In terms of economics where does the money come from. NZ games were often night games, which gave European/SA fans a chance to watch it. Similarly many of the games in France were late at night. Too late to necessarily be a commercial sop to the UK. Is the global sports market an issue here. Rugby is a relatively small game. In terms of fans we are talking about the Europe we are really talking about the UK, Ireland, France, and parts of Northern Italy. I suspect that markets like Japan and the US have a big punch relative to the actual size of the playing population.

Games in France 2007 were on here between 2pm and 9pm.
Games in New Zealand 2011 were on here between 2am and 9am.

Personal experience is the French ones were a better time.

The 9pm rugby during the French RWC lead to some brilliant atmospheres though. I live in Guildford which is a pretty non-rugby town, but every bar/pub you went to had it showing and was packed to the rafters with punters watching the games and loving it.

I can't imagine the same happened for the 9am games in NZ

blackcanelion wrote:In terms of economics where does the money come from. NZ games were often night games, which gave European/SA fans a chance to watch it. Similarly many of the games in France were late at night. Too late to necessarily be a commercial sop to the UK. Is the global sports market an issue here. Rugby is a relatively small game. In terms of fans we are talking about the Europe we are really talking about the UK, Ireland, France, and parts of Northern Italy. I suspect that markets like Japan and the US have a big punch relative to the actual size of the playing population.

That's if you assume that the viewing population is larger than the playing population. I can't speak for Japan, but in the US I think tv interest in the RWC is probably fairly limited.

I was in New York in 1992 during the Olympics, and while that's a long time ago I think it provides a vignette of US sports broadcasting that's probably still true. There were two unusual features that year: having lost the basketball to the Russians in 1988 with the usual NCAA level team, the US sent the first Dream Team (i.e. a squad comprising the most valuable players in the NBA and therefore, by some distance, the best players in the world). Secondly, Carl Lewis had had a poor showing at the trials, meaning that the US 100m squad was below par.

The coverage of the basketball was all-encompassing, with endless build up and post-match analysis and "will they win?" over a tournament where the only things in doubt were the winning margin in the final and who would pick up the minor medals. The coverage of the 100m - the blue riband event of the Olympics - consisted of the race itself and one post-race question: "So, Linford, was it good to win this time?"

US media aren't usually interested in things the US can't win. Maybe the coverage of the US-All Blacks match is a sign of things changing, but I can't see RWC being more than a minor distraction in a market where the NFL and College gridiron seasons will be in full swing.

Give them time, and that might change, but today the big tv markets for rugby remain the UK and France. Given that South Africa, Argentina, Italy and Ireland are all on timezones that work well with GMT, an NH RWC is likely to be at a good time for 80+% of today's potential audience.

Biggest TV markets shouldn't constantly determine 'Home advantage' in a competitive sport though.  

It's a valid argument that Uk or France would have the biggest TV/sponsorship-advert watching rugby audience yes; but that biggest rugby watching audience is no justifiable reason why the UK or France should claim more than their fair share of Hosting opportunities.

Hosting is an advantage (however small in practice or big in theory) and therefore Hosting needs to be shipped around so that fairness rather than audience numbers remains the justifiable criteria.

SecretFly wrote:Biggest TV markets shouldn't constantly determine 'Home advantage' in a competitive sport though.  

It's a valid argument that Uk or France would have the biggest TV/sponsorship-advert watching rugby audience yes; but that biggest rugby watching audience is no justifiable reason why the UK or France should claim more than their fair share of Hosting opportunities.

Hosting is an advantage (however small in practice or big in theory) and therefore Hosting needs to be shipped around so that fairness rather than audience numbers remains the justifiable criteria.

The issue here is that the IRB only has one material source of income, and that's the RWC. If it doesn't go to a major market every other cycle, the IRB would either have to spend less on developing rugby or find another source of income (from where?). It will be great if Ireland can make 2023 work, because it will prove that there is another potential large market; the advantage it has over Wales or Scotland is enough large stadia to make the ticket sales work.

The rugby world Cup is the biggest thing for all Country's, because every country wants to win the Rugby World Cup.

BUT, i do think that next 2015 will be really big for New Zealand. the reason i say this is because New Zealand since winning the Last rugby World Cup. Have been the most consistant winning team on the planet.

New Zealand will go in defending the title.

So all the pressure will be on them to prove that the choking tag in Rugby World Cups is well and truly dead in the water.

majesticimperialman wrote:The rugby world Cup is the biggest thing for all Country's, because every country wants to win the Rugby World Cup.

BUT, i do think that next 2015 will be really big for New Zealand. the reason i say this is because New Zealand since winning the Last rugby World Cup. Have been the most consistant winning team on the planet.

New Zealand will go in defending the title.

So all the pressure will be on them to prove that the choking tag in Rugby World Cups is well and truly dead in the water.

Your post makes no sense. They've been the "consistant winning team on the planet" for a long time now. Also surely as they are defending the title (as you said), the choking tag is already gone?
Also, next 2015? When was the first?

There's only one team all the pressure is on and that's the hosts.

risca rev disagree. The pressure is on all.

No team can slip up

England have the most pressure sure but with this pressure comes benefit. They've got home advantage, large depth in the squad, a favourable schedule and will start favourites in all their games (you might see that as a disadvantage but it's better than almost guaranteed lost like those playing NZ and SA have).

The opportunity to potentially avoid SA and NZ before the final is a very nice one.


secretfly constantly baffled why home advantage is irrelevant to you. For example NZ have shown that home advantage is important to them in RWCs with their only victories being on their own patch.

beshocked wrote:

secretfly constantly baffled why home advantage is irrelevant to you. For example NZ have shown that home advantage is important to them in RWCs with their only victories being on their own patch.

They've been out and out number 1 side on the planet now for virtually the entire duration of the rankings system, with only a few months of blips taking them to 2nd. They've won games in every Nation they've popped into. There have been 7 world Cups. Only 7. They've won two of them. Nobody has won more yet. Rather than me admitting that New Zealand need home advantage to win a WC, it's you that need to admit that they'll be favourites for the next one - because bookies don't believe you. Let's wait a little longer (there have been I think 20 football world cups!) before we write in stone that New Zealand needs home advantage to win six or seven games of rugby on the trot.

BUT home advantage isn't irrelvent, it's overused by some in the arguments they use. A post above clearly has me saying that no one country should get to host the WC simply because of a big TV audience as the 'advantage' has some merit and too many hostings is an unfair advantage.
BUT as Home Advantage isn't a guarantee of the Home side winning then I say the overuse of it in discussion kills debate. Debate is only guff of course but that's what these sites are for - guff. Yet if you're constantly told its pointless even mentioning possibilities because Home advantage pretty much always kills them, then the guff becomes pointless. "I think team C will have a chance....." "Don't think mate, they don't have home advantage and haven't beat us in Twickers in donkey's years".................................. end of debate.

I have never claimed Home advantage is irrelevent only that it isn't a 100% guarantee and therefore open to - debate.

SecretFly wrote:

beshocked wrote:

secretfly constantly baffled why home advantage is irrelevant to you. For example NZ have shown that home advantage is important to them in RWCs with their only victories being on their own patch.

They've been out and out number 1 side on the planet now for virtually the entire duration of the rankings system, with only a few months of blips taking them to 2nd.  They've won games in every Nation they've popped into.  There have been 7 world Cups.  Only 7.  They've won two of them.  Nobody has won more yet.  Rather than me admitting that New Zealand need home advantage to win a WC, it's you that need to admit that they'll be favourites for the next one - because bookies don't believe you.  Let's wait a little longer (there have been I think 20 football world cups!) before we write in stone that New Zealand needs home advantage to win six or seven games of rugby on the trot.

BUT home advantage isn't irrelvent, it's overused by some in the arguments they use.  A post above clearly has me saying that no one country should get to host the WC simply because of a big TV audience as the 'advantage' has some merit and too many hostings is an unfair advantage.
BUT as Home Advantage isn't a guarantee of the Home side winning then I say the overuse of it in discussion kills debate.  Debate is only guff of course but that's what these sites are for - guff.  Yet if you're constantly told its pointless even mentioning possibilities because Home advantage pretty much always kills them, then the guff becomes pointless. "I think team C will have a chance....."  "Don't think mate, they don't have home advantage and haven't beat us in Twickers in donkey's years".................................. end of debate.

I have never claimed Home advantage is irrelevent only that it isn't a 100% guarantee and therefore open to - debate.

Home advantage certainly was not an advantage for England against the Boks and All Blacks this Autumn.

You think we would have been closer playing away?

Lorddowlais yes that's because they are the best two teams in the world, plus England made some foolish errors and had injuries which had an effect too.

secretfly there have been 7 world cups and the only 2 that NZ have won were on their own patch despite as you say being - the number 1 side for most of the ranking system.

NZ might well win the next world cup but so far they haven't outside NZ despite being the bookies favourites.

Over used argument? Not all. You just dislike it because you disagree with the importance of home advantage. I believe in factors like home advantage,psychological factors that other people ignore as well the normal ones like form and players on the field.

Home advantage is just one factor but it's generally important - NZ override this generally because they are the best side in the world - they also hold a psychological edge over many sides.

Home advantage doesn't mean instant win but a daunting record isn't necessarily easy to crack.

Scotland haven't beaten England for years at Twickenham - of course it's not just home advantage, England have been a stronger side for years too but Scotland don't have the same psychological barrier against England in Scotland. Also England probably feel more confident against Scotland at Twickenham and why not?

Beshocked, believe what you will - not my objective to change your poinions.

I'll continue to believe what I believe.  

You mention Home Advantage, Psychological factors, team form, individual player form.  I believe in all those things too (and more!! -  reading a ref's interpretations skillfully, coaching tactics adopted or ignored, fitness levels achieved by the team in advance of world cup etc)
- I agree on all your things and add quite a few more of my own.

BUT we'd differ greatly on the percentages that these many aspects have in a total package of factors.  You would place home advantage much higher than I would.  

That's the simple fact, we disagree on percentages.

I agree - let's not make this a habit secretfly!
.