2023 (expanded) Rugby World Cup for South Africa

by Rowanbi Sat 30 Jan 2016, 9:36 am

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.

by LeinsterFan4life Sat 13 Feb 2016, 7:42 pm

Rowanbi wrote:
aucklandlaurie wrote:
Big problem with South Africa is the social issues, for the most part stemming from its Government.

Im sure there used to be a term of the IRB's charter/constitution that teams were to be selected on merit, (definitely in the Olympic charter) for World Rugby to now go and hold the sports highest tournament in South Africa would be an endorsement of the South African Governments sustained pressure on South African Rugby for racial transformation.

See I didnt use the word "quotas" once.

Won't be an issue, or World Rugby wouldn't have put SA on standby for Japan last year. It's clearly an internal issue which effects no one but South Africa. & for World Rugby, an organization with 100 members but a white, English-speaking dominated central committee, to effectively penalize the South African government's efforts to speed up the integration process would be perilous. They are neither that stupid nor that reckless.

For me the future host that will bring a lot of excitement to the game will be the USA, and Id further love to see them hold some games in Honolulu.

Absolutely. But they won't be ready for a couple of decades yet. Rugby remains little more than a novelty sport state-side. It's 110,000 registered players compares to 8 million registered American football players, and would scale down to around 1,500 in New Zealand - roughly on a par with American football in New Zealand, interestingly enough.

There are much better (and less racist Very Happy

) ways to speed up integration. Imagine the amount of white players these quotas will put off playing rugby. Imagine the amount of players that will be forced to go abroad to peruse a career in rugby. Imagine the pressure that will be put on coaches to make sure they play enough black players. This will end players careers! This has absolutely no place in sport, let alone rugby. If the IRB give SA a world cup, then they have truly lost the plot.

by aucklandlaurie Sat 13 Feb 2016, 7:47 pm

LF4L. being from the Northern Hemisphere would you guys have noticed recently a few South African under 20s players now going to ply their trade in Europe, nothing to be gained by staying home and being a Springbok?

by LeinsterFan4life Sat 13 Feb 2016, 7:52 pm

aucklandlaurie wrote:
LF4L. being from the Northern Hemisphere would you guys have noticed recently a few South African under 20s players now going to ply their trade in Europe, nothing to be gained by staying home and being a Springbok?

Not yet but that will certainly be a thing in the future. A lot of senior players are now over here and more are coming every year, in greater volumes. With the likes of Zane Kirchner already getting picked in senior squads because of his skin colour (Meyer had been under pressure for years to pick black players) we will see plenty of SA players representing other countries.

by Rowanbi Sat 13 Feb 2016, 7:59 pm

aucklandlaurie wrote:We are talking about an event over 8 years away, by then Rugby in South Africa will be almost over, and the South african Government wont give a damn, and the major implosion of the sport will be due to the Nations team the Springboks not being selected on merit.

If the ANC want to see more "black" kids playing Rugby, then they need to invest more resources into schools rugby, at the moment they are cutting investment to education full stop let alone kids sport. Its easy to control a population of many millions especially if they are uneducated.

I think those are fairly baseless assumptions. The game has a long and proud history in the republic, it retains a huge following (best crowds in the world at club games; second only to England in terms of playing numbers), and although the integration of the non-white majority hasn't gone as smoothy as we might've hoped in the post-Apartheid era, it is clear that this community is becoming increasingly involved. That process received a vital kick-start when South Africa hosted the highly successful (and memorable) 1995 Rugby World Cup.

How the game is run in South Africa is an internal issue which does not effect anyone else. As you point out, the 2023 event is (almost) 8 years away. & I think we can be fairly certain that Jacob Zuma won't be in office much longer. So it all comes down to conjecture, and I personally don't share your pessimism.

Am sure if the rugby world cup was to go to the US, it would be a hit.

Absolutely! But all in good time. Staging it in the US too soon - ie before the sport has sufficient profile in a giant nation obsessed with its mainstream pro leagues - could be a serious miscue that would prevent rugby from ever being taken seriously there in the future. Pro rugby is a step in the right direction, but its starting out with five teams and could take literally decades to really establish a following. I only hope I live to see the day a RWC is held in the US...

by aucklandlaurie Sat 13 Feb 2016, 8:00 pm

Yes only 2 hours ago I was watching W P Nel playing for Scotland, its not that long ago he was playing for the Cheetahs in Super rugby.

Rowan I think we can all be a bit more than certain that Jacob Zuma will not be President of South Africa after 2019, by 2023 he could be back in jail, but the ANC will still be in power.

by Pot Hale Sun 14 Feb 2016, 11:55 am

The RWC should be going to new territories and countries that haven't had an opportunity to host it by themselves. Perhaps the USA should step in to replace South Africa's bid for 2023 and increase the chances of another new territory hosting it?

SA's stadium infrastructure looks a bit haphazard really. The 10 largest stadia include a motor racing track, a training ground football pitch and a cricket ground - not really suitable for a RWC tournament with some ramshackle grounds in there - some investment needed to upgrade them similar to other countries. And the geographic location of the remaining stadia means they would be clustered in one relatively small area of the country with Cape Town as a singular but pleasant outpost.

Italy, Ireland or the USA would make a lot more sense, and meet the objective of the Big 5 nations not constantly dominating "ownership" of the RWC.

by doctor_grey Sun 14 Feb 2016, 1:03 pm

What I was told by people in the NFL (on whose athletes I work) is they were blown away by the recent RWC in England. The crowds, excitement, and commercial potential of the RWC all made strong impressions on league management and many of the owners. The NFL is so good they could sell sh!t to a manure farm. The American sponsors, such as AIG, current sponsor of the All Blacks, can merchandise anything to anyone, any time, anywhere. Eight years to prepare the nation for a Rugby World Cup (and thereby grow Rugby in parallel) could easily be done.

Every stadium would be 80,000 plus and ultra modern, something no other nation could come close to promising. If smaller buildings are needed for some games, the soccer stadia which are all in the 20,000-35,000 range are also modern buildings and would work fine. Again, something no other nation could claim. So the time frame for an American RWC in 8 years is not an obstacle, and would be functionally and commercially deliverable, and a big success.

I still think Italy is the better place for 2023 simply because it is a different cultural experience than in any other nation so far, and could put Italy over the top as a Rugby nation. As I have said before, Ireland would be a grand time. Other than that a US or US/Canada RWC would be logical.

by Sin é Sun 14 Feb 2016, 1:21 pm

westisbest wrote:Would like to see the world cup in USA to.

Brought soccer on big time after USA 94.

That was a good world cup.

Am sure if the rugby world cup was to go to the US, it would be a hit.

Sure it would propel rugby also.

The soccer world cup brought on Women's soccer big time - no effect on men's soccer. Basically their league attracts European players at the end of their careers. It has not produced any top class male players and their pro players are paid poorly.

by Sin é Sun 14 Feb 2016, 1:58 pm

Since the IRB (World Rugby) was founded in Dublin and their headquarters are still here, I'd imagine Ireland has quite a bit of influence in the upper echelons of World Rugby. Lets not forget that World Rugby also enjoys a tax free status in Ireland, so they actually owe a lot to Ireland. Its about time that World Rugby thanked Irish people for hosting the sporting organisation.

Right. So the FIFA World Cup should go to Switzerland then - straight after Qatar??

Switzerland has hosted a World Cup (1954). It has also hosted the European Championship in 2008. By the way, FIFA was founded in France, not Switzerland. They moved there because of the tax breaks.
----------

The size of the stadia/no of tickets sold are irrelevant to World Rugby as they get a set hosting fee and the hosting country has to cover the cost of that fee with ticket sales.

So profits to the hosting nation mean nothing then? The 2015 tournament has apprently injected 1.5 billion pounds into the UK economy. Might be nice to see more countries benefitting in similar manner from the sport's showpiece event, don't you think? The lack of wealth among the non-white majority of South Africa has been mentioned more than once. Well, what better way to repay the tremendous contribution SA has made to the game over the decades, and to encourage its non-white (ruling) majority to embrace the sport? A 4th straight rejection, on the other hand, will undoubedly have the opposite effect. To neglect such a major, established market would be foolhardy.

Don't be greedy now! SA will have a Lions Tour in 2021 which is worth a lot to the local economy. Thats all give from NH countries as they get practically nothing out of it. The last tour the Australia I believe was worth 40m to ARU alone. The participating NH Unions get about 1m each. About time the Irish people were repaid for their generous tax concessions to World Rugby anyway.

btw, I'd imagine that having a Lions Tour 2 years previous to the 2023 world cup will be a big negative for a World Cup in SA two years later.

-----

timezone for sale of tv rights and sponsorship and that there is a good spectacle for TV.

SA is an hour ahead of Britan. Not a problem.

I know. Hosting the world cup in the NH countries makes it very easy for the population of SA to catch it.

------

by Rowanbi Sun 14 Feb 2016, 2:30 pm

Switzerland has hosted a World Cup (1954).

When it was a 16 team European-Latin American event. & this was in the decade following WWII. No comparison to the modern era. & Ireland has co-hosted to RWCs, so that's about the same. Anyway, the idea that Ireland should host the World Cup because World Rugby is based in Dublin is as ludicrous as the notion Switzerland deserves the 2026 FIFA World Cup because football's HQ is in Zurich. That's the point I was making.

Don't be greedy now! SA will have a Lions Tour in 2021 which is worth a lot to the local economy. Thats all give from NH countries as they get practically nothing out of it. The last tour the Australia I believe was worth 40m to ARU alone. The participating NH Unions get about 1m each. About time the Irish people were repaid for their generous tax concessions to World Rugby anyway.

I'm not being greedy. I'm not South African. My only allegiance is to the game of rugby and what is in the best interests of its global development. Besides, didn't somebody around here claim the previous Lions tour didn't put that many bums on seats? Ask South Africans which they'd prefer - a RWC or a Lions tour? & why wasn't this 'logic' (to use the term loosely) applied to Australia & NZ's previous bids? What's with all the anti-SA prejudice here? Also, you overlooked that the SANZAR trio make annual tours to the Northern Hemisphere. Anyway, Lions tours are irrelevant to the issue at hand. This is just more clutching at straws.

Hosting the world cup in the NH countries makes it very easy for the population of SA to catch it

Again you've missed the point. The original comment was that Ireland's time zone was somehow an advantage over SA. It's not an advantage at all, clearly.

The 2023 World Cup should go to South Africa because it has the best stadia, the second largest rugby community in the world, a highly successful national team and perfect geographical and climatic conditions. A RWC will be a World Cup for the African continent and help promote the game throughout the region. In addition to which, they will have waited almost a decade since doing such a fantastic job in 1995 at the end of the amateur era, whereas the three other previous winners have all hosted the event at least twice. In fact, all of the other 7 'foundation' members have all been involved in hosting the event at least twice. Italy for 2027. Ireland ( which voted against the concept of a RWC at the outset), is simply too small to host the tournament in the modern era - particularly with talk of expansion

by Sin é Sun 14 Feb 2016, 3:16 pm

rowanbi wrote:
When it was a 16 team European-Latin American event. & this was in the decade following WWII. No comparison to the modern era. & Ireland has co-hosted to RWCs, so that's about the same. Anyway, the idea that Ireland should host the World Cup because World Rugby is based in Dublin is as ludicrous as the notion Switzerland deserves the 2026 FIFA World Cup because football's HQ is in Zurich. That's the point I was making.

Switzerland has hosted a World Cup, the only one they bid for. They obviously don't want to host another one. They did host the European Cup in 2008, so at least they have recently hosted a major tournament.

Wales was the host of the 1999 World Cup. How you can claim that Ireland was a co-host when all it did was hold a couple of games along with England, Scotland and France. The opening ceremony and the final were played in the new Millennium Stadium in Cardiff.

The IRB (now World Rugby) was founded in Dublin. FIFA was not founded in Switzerland. There is a difference, but I do think its an important point and valid reason that the people of Ireland have granted tax exemption to World Rugby (and there would be no tax payable for income generated from a World Cup that was held in Ireland).

I'm not being greedy. I'm not South African. My only allegiance is to the game of rugby and what is in the best interests of its global development. Besides, didn't somebody around here claim the previous Lions tour didn't put that many bums on seats? Ask South Africans which they'd prefer - a RWC or a Lions tour? & why wasn't this 'logic' (to use the term loosely) applied to Australia & NZ's previous bids? What's with all the anti-SA prejudice here? Also, you overlooked that the SANZAR trio make annual tours to the Northern Hemisphere. Anyway, Lions tours are irrelevant to the issue at hand. This is just more clutching at straws.

You are being greedy on behalf of SA. SA are getting a Lions Tour (something none of the NH get) 2 years prior to a world cup which would more than likely affect attendances on either tournament (and income) - rugby fans are unlikely to travel to both tournaments if they are held in the same country within two years.

A Lions tour is worth a lot to the hosting country as they don't have to pay a fee and the Lions play 10 games and tour the country, not 2 or 3. It was worth 40m to the ARU 2 years ago. The SH countries are financially reliant on the Lions because its such a money spinner for them.

Any prejudices I may have are more pro-Ireland/Italy than anti SA.

The point about the Lions is that a) its a money spinner for the hosting Union and b) 1000s of rugby fans tour with the Lions who might not be inclined to go back to a world cup 2 years later.

Again you've missed the point. The original comment was that Ireland's time zone was somehow an advantage over SA. It's not an advantage at all, clearly.

No, you missed the point which is that in the case of SA & Ireland, both are good. A further advantage is that Ireland is very close and has a close association with the emerging American market of USA & Canada.

The 2023 World Cup should go to South Africa because it has the best stadia, the second largest rugby community in the world, a highly successful national team and perfect geographical and climatic conditions. A RWC will be a World Cup for the African continent and help promote the game throughout the region. In addition to which, they will have waited almost a decade since doing such a fantastic job in 1995 at the end of the amateur era, whereas the three other previous winners have all hosted the event at least twice. In fact, all of the other 7 'foundation' members have all been involved in hosting the event at least twice. Italy for 2027. Ireland ( which voted against the concept of a RWC at the outset), is simply too small to host the tournament in the modern era - particularly with talk of expansion

Perfect geographic and climatic conditions - what about altitude. Thats unfair on everyone else!

Ireland has not hosted a World Cup no matter what way you try and claim it. Ireland (along with England, Scotland and France) gave Wales a dig out because they have only one stadium which was new at the time to them.

As for expansion, if anything all sport will become more of a tv/couch experience. Attendances are getting smaller, not bigger. Large stadia will not be needed. Thabo Mbeki was in Ireland last week to give a lecture and he made the point that the SA economy had serious problems and it was going to get worse.

by Rowanbi Sun 14 Feb 2016, 4:07 pm

They obviously don't want to host another one.

I imagine they know they wouldn't stand a chance with a solo bid in the 21st century.

Wales was the host of the 1999 World Cup. How you can claim that Ireland was a co-host when all it did was hold a couple of games along with England, Scotland and France

Fact: Ireland was a co-host. They'd had a dozen games over 2 tournaments, two further World Cups were played within swimming distance of their shores. Not bad for a geographically tiny nation whose nation team has never won a playoff game nor reached the semis of a RWC, and NEVER beaten the All Blacks.

The point about the Lions is that a) its a money spinner for the hosting Union and b) 1000s of rugby fans tour with the Lions who might not be inclined to go back to a world cup 2 years later.

Sure, but it's irrelevant to who will host the 2023 World Cup. You could have said the same thing about 2003 and 2011 going to Australia and NZ respectively. & again, what about those annual Auturmn tours? The British & Irish aren't doing anyone any favors; at least, none that aren't reciprocated.

No, you missed the point which is that in the case of SA & Ireland, both are good

You're getting confused again. That was my original point - precisely. So let's just agree on that one and move on.

A further advantage is that Ireland is very close and has a close association with the emerging American market of USA & Canada.

Hardly close, unless you call South America close to SA? & that's also an emerging market (as if Africa, of course). Entirely different time zones as well. & what about all those African-Americans? Shouldn't there be some kind of association with the continent on that basis? Your arguments are getting weaker and more far-fetched.

Perfect geographic and climatic conditions - what about altitude. Thats unfair on everyone else!

Nothing wrong with it. Some great rugby is played on the Veld. You just need to adjust your strategies a little, which adds variety. Certainly beats playing in freezing temperatures and rain.

Fact: Ireland has co-hosted two RWCs - total 12 games, including 3 playoffs, despite their very mediocre record at the event - which they voted against at the beginning.

Thabo Mbeki was in Ireland last week to give a lecture and he made the point that the SA economy had serious problems and it was going to get worse.

So only wealthy nations should host the event? The 2015 RWC injected 1.5 billion pounds into the British economy. Sounds like SA could use that sort of money, and what better way to help out a long-time friend?

by aucklandlaurie Sun 14 Feb 2016, 4:32 pm

I dont know why it keeps being repeated on here that Ireland "hasnt won a play off WC game nor never beaten the All Blacks" as some sort of basis to belittle Ireland?

Japan has never beaten the All Blacks or made it through a Rugby World Cup business end yet they are hosting the next World Cup.

by No 7&1/2 Sun 14 Feb 2016, 4:56 pm

If Africa are an emerging market its another reason not to give it to SAbut another nation in Africa.

by Rowanbi Sun 14 Feb 2016, 7:31 pm

aucklandlaurie wrote:
I dont know why it keeps being repeated on here that Ireland "hasnt won a play off WC game nor never beaten the All Blacks" as some sort of basis to belittle Ireland?

Japan has never beaten the All Blacks or made it through a Rugby World Cup business end yet they are hosting the next World Cup.

Interesting comment after all the belittling of South Africa that's been going here. But Ireland's dismal record at the RWC is being brought up - together with its modest geographical proportions - to demonstrate the absurdity of comparisons with South Africa. That's been mentioned already in this thread, but it needs mentioning again because the same old comparisons keep being made. South Africa has 55 millon people and is bigger than France and Spain combined. In fact, it's about five times the size of the UK and 15 times the size of Ireland Japan, at least, has more than twice the Uk's population and is about 50% bigger geographically.

by No 7&1/2 Sun 14 Feb 2016, 7:36 pm

Which again has nothing to do with hosting.

by Rowanbi Sun 14 Feb 2016, 7:44 pm

No 7&1/2 wrote:Which again has nothing to do with hosting.

Population and geography, you mean? It has a lot to do with hosting one of the world's major international sporting events. You wouldn't hold it in Fiji, would you?

by No 7&1/2 Sun 14 Feb 2016, 7:50 pm

All the possible hosts, including the better options in Italy and Ireland, pass the tests so nowt to do with it. As you said earlier it shoud go to 1 of them as the debut hosts.

by Pot Hale Sun 14 Feb 2016, 8:10 pm

Rowanbi wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:Which again has nothing to do with hosting.

Population and geography, you mean? It has a lot to do with hosting one of the world's major international sporting events. You wouldn't hold it in Fiji, would you?

Funnily enough that was what you said to a whole load of NZ fans on the Silver Fern forum.

You don't seem to be able to grasp the different and interlinking concepts of size, proportion, capacity and capability. For you, size seems to be everything.

What do you hope to achieve by posting this topic on so many different rugby threads?

Do you think you have persuaded anyone of the merits of your argument with the reasoning you have set out? On any of the fora you've gone onto? Or why have you been banned from most of them?

You have no problem in denigrating all of the other proposals in order to advance your own point. Yet complain when others point out inconsistencies on the SA side.

You maintain that SA has an incomparable array of stadia compared to other nations, yet can't even nominate the ones that SA should use. You say you "couldn't be arsed" when it's obvious to other posters here that you simply don't know. Evidence is the fact that you supplied a list of stadia that included a motor racing track, an antiquated soccer training pitch and a cricket ground and invited others to take their pick. Equally, you don't know the status or scope of stadia in other potential bidders.

Perhaps be mindful of the old adage of when in a hole, first thing is to stop digging.

Your argument has hit the buffers and you are just spinning your wheels in throwing out the same old points over and over to no avail.

You are behaving like an internet troll as you have done on other fora with the ultimate consequent result.

by Rowanbi Sun 14 Feb 2016, 8:19 pm

The shoot the messenger approach now? Gee, that's original. Personally I'm not in the habit of insulting people nor attacking them personally. I haven't done that here or anywhere else. As for SA's stadia, I posted a list taken directly from a reliable source. You've twice ignored the fact I put the motor racing circuit in brackets to discount it from the equation. That still left around 20 major rugby & football stadiums, I believe. You demanded I pick a dozen for a RWC. Why should I? I'm not your secretary.

by Rowanbi Sun 14 Feb 2016, 8:27 pm

Sooo, lets get this discussion back on the tracks once again, shall we . . .

Almost four decades after admitting France to the fold, World Rugby has failed to kick on and introduce more non-English speaking nations to its core committee. Of the eight unions which hold the balance of power with two votes apiece, seven represent countries which were once part of the British Empire; France being the exception. Moreover, while the organisation now boasts 100 members and 17 affiliate unions, South Africa is the only country on the the central committee with a non-white majority. In 1991 four more members were added to the World Rugby council, including three non-English speaking countries. However, quarter of a century later the newcomers still only have one vote apiece, giving them second class status. Fiji has no direct representation, even though World Rugby statistics show they have more registered players than core committee member Scotland. So what is it about rugby that it refuses to fully embrace the non-white, non-English speaking nations of the world? Could it be the legacy of a sport which had its origins in the exclusive environment of the public school system during the height of the British Empire? Following the collapse of the apartheid system South Africa were awarded hosting rights to the first World Cup they were actually eligible to compete in. President Nelson Mandela handing over the trophy to his countrymen, after their dramatic win over New Zealand in the final, remains one of the sport's most iconic moments. That was 21 years ago. The transition to majority rule was still at a superficial stage and had barely impacted on the local rugby community. But a great deal has changed since then, and somehow the SARFU - even South Africa itself - appears to have fallen out of favour with rest of the World Rugby core committee. While both New Zealand and England have both hosted the World Cup tournament twice, and France and Australia have both served as host nation and co-host nation, South Africa has bid three times to stage the tournament again this century and been overlooked on each occasion. Their rugby stadiums are second to none, they have a vast array of football stadia upgraded not so long ago for the FIFA World Cup, they have the second largest rugby community in the world (behind England) and they remain one of the game's major super powers. Meanwhile, the rugby's showpiece event has been returned to Britain or France on every second occasion. Beyond this, there is the issue of international rugby scheduling. Relatively few fixtures are played by the tier 1 nations against their tier 2 and 3 opponents. In fact, the tier system itself is fairly new and only serves to compound the problem by separating the haves from the have nots. They are certainly not based on form alone, for Fiji and Samoa cannot be rated inferior to Italy. All the tiers really do is provide a convenient excuse for the so-called elite to go on ignoring the rest of the rugby community most of the time between World Cups - when they actually need them to make up the numbers and help turn a tidy profit. Moreover, rugby's two major annual international championships remain closed shop. The 6 Nations and the Rugby Championship do not include promotion-relegation, meaning there is no way for any other teams to become involved. The addition of Italy at the turn of the century was the former competition's first expansion in 90 years! Little wonder, therefore, that we are seeing more or less the same teams popping up in the World Cup quarter-finals every four years, and that no tier 2 team has managed to reach that stage at the last two editions. Surely it's time for the sport to kick on and create a more democratic administration, open up its annual championships to all worthy contenders, encourage a more integrated scheduling programme, and introduce continental rotation of its quadrennial world championship instead of sending it back to Europe every seond time.

by doctor_grey Sun 14 Feb 2016, 8:39 pm

Pot Hale wrote:What do you hope to achieve by posting this topic on so many different rugby threads?

by No 7&1/2 Sun 14 Feb 2016, 8:42 pm

Whats your point Row? Other than you'd prefer Italy or Ireland to host.

by Rowanbi Sun 14 Feb 2016, 8:43 pm

doctor_grey wrote:
Pot Hale wrote:What do you hope to achieve by posting this topic on so many different rugby threads?

A constructive discussion.

by Sin é Sun 14 Feb 2016, 9:50 pm

[quote="Rowanbi"]They obviously don't want to host another one.

rowanbi wrote:I imagine they know they wouldn't stand a chance with a solo bid in the 21st century.

Really? On what grounds? Bribes not big enough? They are no Qatar Rolling Eyes

Wales was the host of the 1999 World Cup. How you can claim that Ireland was a co-host when all it did was hold a couple of games along with England, Scotland and France

Fact: Ireland was a co-host. They'd had a dozen games over 2 tournaments, two further World Cups were played within swimming distance of their shores. Not bad for a geographically tiny nation whose nation team has never won a playoff game nor reached the semis of a RWC, and NEVER beaten the All Blacks.

If Ireland was a co-host in 1999 they would have got automatic qualification (like Wales did) and would not have had to play Georgia & Romania to qualify to play in it. Its also normal for a co-host to either hold the opening or closing game.

-------

The point about the Lions is that a) its a money spinner for the hosting Union and b) 1000s of rugby fans tour with the Lions who might not be inclined to go back to a world cup 2 years later.

Sure, but it's irrelevant to who will host the 2023 World Cup. You could have said the same thing about 2003 and 2011 going to Australia and NZ respectively. & again, what about those annual Auturmn tours? The British & Irish aren't doing anyone any favors; at least, none that aren't reciprocated.

It is relevant if the Lions will next be in SA in 2021, 2 years before the 23 World Cup. People from NH are not going to travel twice within 2 years.

The Annual Tours are reciprocated by the NH teams touring each summer, i.e., Ireland are playing 3 games in SA next June, with tours from NH teams going to Aus, New Zealand and Argentina etc. Ireland are also travelling to Chicago to play the ABs next autumn. After the 2011 World Cup, Ireland travelled back to NZ to play 3 tests.

The Lions Tour is financially beneficial to the ARU, NZRU and the SARU. As mentioned the tour wiped out most of the ARU's debt in 2013 (approx. 40m). The home Unions who participate in the tour only get 1m each - i.e., the ARU made 40 times more than any of the home nations unions.

-------

A further advantage is that Ireland is very close and has a close association with the emerging American market of USA & Canada.

Hardly close, unless you call South America close to SA? & that's also an emerging market (as if Africa, of course). Entirely different time zones as well. & what about all those African-Americans? Shouldn't there be some kind of association with the continent on that basis? Your arguments are getting weaker and more far-fetched.

I said the American market of USA & Canada which are both wealthy emerging nations. I can't see North Americans travelling to SA for a weekend which happens quite often between the US & Ireland for American football games (40,000 came over for Notre Dame v. Navy 3 years ago).

Perfect geographic and climatic conditions - what about altitude. Thats unfair on everyone else!

Nothing wrong with it. Some great rugby is played on the Veld. You just need to adjust your strategies a little, which adds variety. Certainly beats playing in freezing temperatures and rain.

Strategies my arse. Altitude affects performance and a disadvantage to everyone except those used to it (i.e., South Africans).

Fact: Ireland has co-hosted two RWCs - total 12 games, including 3 playoffs, despite their very mediocre record at the event - which they voted against at the beginning.

Nope. Its not a fact. Ireland did not host a World Cup. Wales did.

Thabo Mbeki was in Ireland last week to give a lecture and he made the point that the SA economy had serious problems and it was going to get worse.

So only wealthy nations should host the event? The 2015 RWC injected 1.5 billion pounds into the British economy. Sounds like SA could use that sort of money, and what better way to help out a long-time friend?

Since World Rugby is dependent on the income to fund less itself and aid less well off countries in growing the game, yes, the country needs to be able to guarantee the fee.

You won't get that kind of injection into the economy since there is a Lions Tour to SA in 2021, 2 years before the 2023 world cup.

by Rowanbi Sun 14 Feb 2016, 10:08 pm

Really? On what grounds? Bribes not big enough? They are no Qatar

Yes, everybody knows Qatar bribed FIFA. Much has been written about its tiny geographical proportions and lack of suitable venues.

If Ireland was a co-host in 1999 they would have got automatic qualification (like Wales did) and would not have had to play Georgia & Romania to qualify to play in it. Its also normal for a co-host to either hold the opening or closing game.

Ireland hosted a number of the games = co-host.

It is relevant if the Lions will next be in SA in 2021, 2 years before the 23 World Cup. People from NH are not going to travel twice within 2 years.

The Lions toured SA 2 years before the 2011 RWC in NZ, they toured Australia 2 years before the 2003 RWC in Australia, and they had also toured Australia in 1989, just 2 years after the RWC was co-hosted by NZ & Australia.

I said the American market of USA & Canada which are both wealthy emerging nations.

If Irish Americans were so interested in sports in Ireland why doesn't the US have professional Gaelic and hurling leagues?

Altitude affects performance and a disadvantage to everyone except those used to it

Like the slush & mud & freezing cold in rainy Ireland, you mean?

Since World Rugby is dependent on the income to fund less itself and aid less well off countries in growing the game, yes, the country needs to be able to guarantee the fee.

That's a no-brainer. They wouldn't be bidding if they couldn't pay the fee.

by Pot Hale Mon 15 Feb 2016, 12:04 am

And on and on the troll goes.

by Rowanbi Mon 15 Feb 2016, 12:36 am

Yes, you certainly do. I've answered your questions yet again. If the discussion bores or annoys you, just walk away and let it go.

Meanwhile, another nice thing about a South African World Cup is it's a kind of a midway junction between Australasia, Europe and Argentina. Cool

by Pot Hale Mon 15 Feb 2016, 12:41 am

No you've conveniently ignored them.

Care to explain why you've posted this thread on a number of different rugby fora and why you've identified as a serial internet troll and been banned?

by aucklandlaurie Mon 15 Feb 2016, 7:11 am

Rowanbi wrote:
doctor_grey wrote:
Pot Hale wrote:What do you hope to achieve by posting this topic on so many different rugby threads?

A constructive discussion.

Constructive discussion!!!! your posts remind me of some cretin trying to smash his way through a concrete wall by repetitvly crashing into it with his skull, while all along not looking the least bit laterally to his right where there stands a wide open doorway.

Im just hanging around to see how long it takes before you realise why your head hurts. (and to see if we can get this up to 21 pages)

by fa0019 Mon 15 Feb 2016, 9:38 am

aucklandlaurie wrote:
Rowanbi wrote:
doctor_grey wrote:
Pot Hale wrote:What do you hope to achieve by posting this topic on so many different rugby threads?

A constructive discussion.

Constructive discussion!!!! your posts remind me of some cretin trying to smash his way through a concrete wall by repetitvly crashing into it with his skull, while all along not looking the least bit laterally to his right where there stands a wide open doorway.

Im just hanging around to see how long it takes before you realise why your head hurts. (and to see if we can get this up to 21 pages)

Isn't this the Warren Gatland strategy (copied from Douglas Haig's WW1 trench strategy) when facing the 3N teams?

by Pot Hale Mon 15 Feb 2016, 11:27 am

fa0019 wrote:
aucklandlaurie wrote:
Rowanbi wrote:
doctor_grey wrote:
Pot Hale wrote:What do you hope to achieve by posting this topic on so many different rugby threads?

A constructive discussion.

Constructive discussion!!!! your posts remind me of some cretin trying to smash his way through a concrete wall by repetitvly crashing into it with his skull, while all along not looking the least bit laterally to his right where there stands a wide open doorway.

Im just hanging around to see how long it takes before you realise why your head hurts. (and to see if we can get this up to 21 pages)

Isn't this the Warren Gatland strategy (copied from Douglas Haig's WW1 trench strategy) when facing the 3N teams?

Well Quentin/Rowan does come from New Zealand....

by Sin é Mon 15 Feb 2016, 1:21 pm

[quote="Rowanbi"]Really? On what grounds? Bribes not big enough? They are no Qatar

Yes, everybody knows Qatar bribed FIFA. Much has been written about its tiny geographical proportions and lack of suitable venues.

And ?

If Ireland was a co-host in 1999 they would have got automatic qualification (like Wales did) and would not have had to play Georgia & Romania to qualify to play in it. Its also normal for a co-host to either hold the opening or closing game.

Ireland hosted a number of the games = co-host.

No automatic qualification. Not a co-host, just like Wales was not a co-host of the 2015 world cup even though a couple of games were held in Cardiff.
-------
It is relevant if the Lions will next be in SA in 2021, 2 years before the 23 World Cup. People from NH are not going to travel twice within 2 years.

The Lions toured SA 2 years before the 2011 RWC in NZ, they toured Australia 2 years before the 2003 RWC in Australia, and they had also toured Australia in 1989, just 2 years after the RWC was co-hosted by NZ & Australia.

Just because it happened, doesn't mean it worked. Australia was meant to be a co-host with NZ anyway.

-----
I said the American market of USA & Canada which are both wealthy emerging nations.

If Irish Americans were so interested in sports in Ireland why doesn't the US have professional Gaelic and hurling leagues?

Why would Gaelic & hurling be professional in the US since its amateur in Ireland Rolling Eyes

(though a recent exhibition game held in Boston attracted 30K to it. It wasn't even proper hurling!

Altitude affects performance and a disadvantage to everyone except those used to it

Like the slush & mud & freezing cold in rainy Ireland, you mean?

SA is the only country that plays at high altitude. Every other country in the world (bar Australia) plays in the 'mud, slush and cold of rainy Ireland).

---

Since World Rugby is dependent on the income to fund less itself and aid less well off countries in growing the game, yes, the country needs to be able to guarantee the fee.

That's a no-brainer. They wouldn't be bidding if they couldn't pay the fee.

Maybe the fee would be better spent on housing, health and education in SA. The Brazilian Gov. have received much criticism for wasting so much money on the World Cup/Olympics when there is such need in the country.

by aucklandlaurie Mon 15 Feb 2016, 2:42 pm

Pot Hale wrote:
fa0019 wrote:
aucklandlaurie wrote:
Rowanbi wrote:
doctor_grey wrote:
Pot Hale wrote:What do you hope to achieve by posting this topic on so many different rugby threads?

A constructive discussion.

Constructive discussion!!!! your posts remind me of some cretin trying to smash his way through a concrete wall by repetitvly crashing into it with his skull, while all along not looking the least bit laterally to his right where there stands a wide open doorway.

Im just hanging around to see how long it takes before you realise why your head hurts. (and to see if we can get this up to 21 pages)

Isn't this the Warren Gatland strategy (copied from Douglas Haig's WW1 trench strategy) when facing the 3N teams?

Well Quentin/Rowan does come from New Zealand....

In fairness to Warren, if all hes got is a squad of headbangers then why not?

In so far as Quentin/Rowan is concerned, Us kiwis are proud to call ourselves Kiwis, we dont fudge the issue, and us kiwis are a lot smarter than this guy.

by aucklandlaurie Mon 15 Feb 2016, 2:49 pm

Sin e, I think the issue with altitude is that it doesnt put everyone on a level playing field.

A World Cup held in South Africa would have games at both altitude and sea level, unless every team gets games at both, then there can be a perceived unfairness especially if you dont get out of your pool and all your games were up on the veldt.

by fa0019 Mon 15 Feb 2016, 3:14 pm

aucklandlaurie wrote:Sin e, I think the issue with altitude is that it doesnt put everyone on a level playing field.

A World Cup held in South Africa would have games at both altitude and sea level, unless every team gets games at both, then there can be a perceived unfairness especially if you dont get out of your pool and all your games were up on the veldt.

I don't think its as simple as that. If all your games are on the highveld and you're there for 6 weeks it will be a benefit vs. someone who isn't. However for teams going back and forth its a little meaningless. Will South Africans benefit from that? Arguably yes if many are from the highveld and their bodies are conditioned for playing to such conditions.
However Joburg is the capital of SA (well unofficially at the very least) so its not SA simply cheating to give their players an upperhand and whilst they do play there regularly the also regularly play in Cape Town and Durban... in 1995 whilst they were pool winners their SF was in Durban for instance.

by Sin é Mon 15 Feb 2016, 3:27 pm

There is a benefit from training at high altitude - many athletes train at high altitude so that they can perform better at sea level. For instance, we had the England rugby squad training in Colorado prior to the world cup (and I think the Welsh went to the Swiss Alps).

The disadvantage is having to play at altitude while not having the advantage of having previously trained or played there.

by fa0019 Mon 15 Feb 2016, 3:43 pm

Sin é wrote:There is a benefit from training at high altitude - many athletes train at high altitude so that they can perform better at sea level. For instance, we had the England rugby squad training in Colorado prior to the world cup (and I think the Welsh went to the Swiss Alps).

The disadvantage is having to play at altitude while not having the advantage of having previously trained or played there.

That is true but from what I understand its lost pretty quickly and in addition, stay too long and the body quickly adapt to their new surroundings and the difference is lost. Touring sides who play in the highveld tend to travel as late as possible to counter this. That's what I've heard but I also recall Shaun Edwards saying something similar during the 09 lions tour.

by R!skysports Mon 15 Feb 2016, 4:27 pm

Maybe we should just give it to Qatar

:-)

by SecretFly Mon 15 Feb 2016, 4:32 pm

So this guy wants Saracens to be given the WC!!!? Run

by Rowanbi Mon 15 Feb 2016, 4:38 pm

Maybe the fee would be better spent on housing, health and education in SA. The Brazilian Gov. have received much criticism for wasting so much money on the World Cup/Olympics when there is such need in the country.

That's an internal issue. World Rugby will base its decision on what is in the best interests of the tournament, not the host nation. Also, proceeds from such events tend to vastly exceed expenditure, and many are in favor of the less wealthy nations having their chance to host them.

SA is the only country that plays at high altitude.

So what? The 1995 World Cup was held in SA - and it was one of the best. Nobody complained about the altitude then, did they? This is precisely why continental rotation of the tournament is so important. Staging it in basically the same corner of Europe every second time is a huge advantage to the various host nations and co-hosts, due to both proximity and familiarity with the local conditions. Relatively few nations outside of the UK would be familiar with the freezing, dark, rainy winters of ireland. Aside from SA and Australia, the Pacific Islands would most certainly be disadvantaged - as per usual.

by No 7&1/2 Mon 15 Feb 2016, 4:50 pm

How would they be disadvantaged. If Juninho can excel in Middlesbrough, Hughes can excel in Ireland, for England.

by SecretFly Mon 15 Feb 2016, 5:00 pm

Rowanbi wrote:Maybe the fee would be better spent on housing, health and education in SA. The Brazilian Gov. have received much criticism for wasting so much money on the World Cup/Olympics when there is such need in the country.

That's an internal issue. World Rugby will base its decision on what is in the best interests of the tournament, not the host nation. Also, proceeds from such events tend to vastly exceed expenditure, and many are in favor of the less wealthy nations having their chance to host them.

SA is the only country that plays at high altitude.

So what? The 1995 World Cup was held in SA - and it was one of the best. Nobody complained about the altitude then, did they? This is precisely why continental rotation of the tournament is so important. Staging it in basically the same corner of Europe every second time is a huge advantage to the various host nations and co-hosts, due to both proximity and familiarity with the local conditions. Relatively few nations outside of the UK would be familiar with the freezing, dark, rainy winters of ireland. Aside from SA and Australia, the Pacific Islands would most certainly be disadvantaged - as per usual.

Just hold on a sec though. The WC - held all of eight times so far. Eight World Cups. Some of you guys when you argue details of the World Cup make it sound like it's been going for as long as the Olympics. Eight World Cups.

1st one held in New Zealand and Australia - two very familiar seasonal hunting grounds for SA rugby. They know the conditions, the cafes, the taxi fares etc, etc.... Comfy
2nd held in Europe
3rd held in South Africa. South Africans know their way around the cities and know where to get the best sun-bloc brands...
4th held in Europe
5th held in Australia. Back to more comfortable temperatures and a more familiar accent for the boys from South Africa
6th held in Europe
7th held in New Zealand. Home from home for the South Africans that love visiting the Lord of the Rings film locations.
8th held in Europe.

So what's the point here? A two way tennis game between the participants of the Six Nations and the participants of what was once the TriNations and is now the Championship? A ball over and back across a net and you complain that the rain in Ireland is only appreciated by their neighbours in the UK. They hate the rain too!! Why do you think you see so many of them backpacking in Australia and New Zealand when you take your yearly journey to those places for the Championship?

As for Japan, for I assume Japan is the sticking point.... they're virtually a SH Nation in all but name.... very cosy and familiar place for SH players....

by fa0019 Mon 15 Feb 2016, 5:06 pm

fly

Western Europe is pretty close together. SA & NZ are 12,000 km away. Its a bit of a difference.

by No 7&1/2 Mon 15 Feb 2016, 5:15 pm

Different countries as you well know.

by fa0019 Mon 15 Feb 2016, 5:21 pm

7.5 yes but it was arguing because SA plays in a tournament with NZ & AUS that it should be as happy as say Scotland, Wales, Ireland, France were in 2015 as in 2011 when NZ hosted it.

That is not very water tight.

Scotland, Wales, Ireland, French and English fans have a maximum distance of 800km to cover for any matches. Cape Town to Joburg is further than that let alone Joburg to Sydney/Auckland.

Its nowhere near the same. A world cup in NZ benefits SA as much as it would Ireland or Wales or Scotland.. probably more Irish, Welsh and Scottish fans travelled to NZ too (although this time because of the general economic strength of the nations in question). If anything a world cup in Europe is the next best alternative for SA... its on the same time zone meaning matches will be on prime time viewing and its a single stop (albeit 11hrs) from home.

by SecretFly Mon 15 Feb 2016, 5:23 pm

fa0019 wrote:fly

Western Europe is pretty close together. SA & NZ are 12,000 km away. Its a bit of a difference.

It's just about as far to go for South Africans no matter where the WC would be held (outside SA) - so again, I'd be missing the point as to why Ireland shouldn't get it because it's in Europe and has rain. Why should SA get it? Because it's far away? I feel a Father Ted joke coming on.

SA are familiar with the stadiums, the people, the customs, the nature of Australians and New Zealanders because they have been partners for a long time now in that yearly dance they call the Championship. When European sides go there, they're suffering as outsiders.... not as familiar, not being able to handle the temperatures as well etc etc.....

So, my point is simply that it's cyclical..... the 3 big SH sides get their way one time, the next time the 6N partners get things their way....

by No 7&1/2 Mon 15 Feb 2016, 5:33 pm

fa0019 wrote:7.5 yes but it was arguing because SA plays in a tournament with NZ & AUS that it should be as happy as say Scotland, Wales, Ireland, France were in 2015 as in 2011 when NZ hosted it.

That is not very water tight.

Scotland, Wales, Ireland, French and English fans have a maximum distance of 800km to cover for any matches. Cape Town to Joburg is further than that let alone Joburg to Sydney/Auckland.

Its nowhere near the same. A world cup in NZ benefits SA as much as it would Ireland or Wales or Scotland.. probably more Irish, Welsh and Scottish fans travelled to NZ too (although this time because of the general economic strength of the nations in question). If anything a world cup in Europe is the next best alternative for SA... its on the same time zone meaning matches will be on prime time viewing and its a single stop (albeit 11hrs) from home.

It should be about the best bid full stop. If we want each continent to have it's turn rather than base it on the actual bids it should be going to both Americas then Africa, but not SA as they've had their turn.

by Pot Hale Mon 15 Feb 2016, 7:54 pm

No 7&1/2 wrote:

It should be about the best bid full stop.

That's the summary right there.

by Rowanbi Mon 15 Feb 2016, 9:54 pm

That is not very water tight.

It's not remotely water tight and they know it. They've basically got the entire world outside of Western Europe down as one geographical block. That's Eurocentric to an extreme. But they know this as well. England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland actually have the same prime minister. But they would claim that Africa, Asia, Oceania & South America are all one geographical block and basically all non-Western European teams are playing "at home" when one of these continents hosts the event. It's absurd and they know it. The point is, they are simply not mature enough to accept the South African bid is decisively superior and that they have been defeated on every front in their attempts to deny this. Do you think they could just let it go and walk away like normal people on a normal forum? No chance. Along comes the shoot-the-messenger approach, the hypocritical claims of "trolling," and finally the attempts to destroy the entire thread by throwing in nonsensical arguments - South Africa is too poor, no one wants to play at altitude, the Irish American connection is somehow crucial (but the African American connection apparently doesn't matter at all), etc, etc.

by Sponsored content