SA, France, Italy & Ireland bid to host World Cup X

[Which Tyler]

It's not about what Namibia & Uruguay are doing for the World Cup. It's about what the World Cup is doing for them. & if they haven't shown a great deal of improvement over the years that's partly because they've been neglected in between World Cups. Nonetheless, neither team disgraced themselves last year, and the profile of the sport is undoubtedly a lot higher in Uruguay now than it was in the pre-World Cup era.

Without getting into the rest of it... I completely agree with this.

Remember that all countries who go through qualifying for the RWC get additional funding, and help with coaching etc, to do so; and those who succeed and go to the RWC get even more help; whilst also increasing awareness back home - and if they get an upset there.... that'll give a massive boost to the game back home.

I remember quite liking the RFU's proposal to host the 2007 RWC; though it'd obviously need tinkering with now. I can't remember the details now; but it was something like running a mini-RWC for the "lesser" nations a couple of months before the main event; with the top 8 from the former qualifying for the latter, when the top 12 (or so) nations joined the party. Basically keeping the second event the same; and getting the next 24 or so involved in a tournie structure, with sponsorship, funding and TV etc, and condensing the qualifying rounds down to a few weeks.

[rowan]

I like your spirit but I'm not a fan of 'B World Cups' personally. That seems like a bit of a mickey-mouse, league type concept that wouldn't be a World Cup at all and would probably draw very small crowds. I think England were desperate when they came out with that one, knowing that France had the vote sewn up.

[Lizard]

I just don't buy the assumption that RWC appearances actually help the lower ranked nations.

Has appearing in every RWC done any good for Romania or Canada? Romania has been overtaken by Georgia, which made its gains before first qualifying.

I'll admit that Samoa made its name through World Cups, and that Japan might have turned a corner at the last one, but Namibia and Uruguay have each been to several tournaments with no discernible effect.

[Digby]

I still take a view that Romanian rugby is ahead of Georgian rugby looking at how the unions are run, at how the semi-pro clubs are run, at how they're looking to make the game available and develop future talent. But that Georgian rugby is for now backed by a billionaire and that's making a big difference. Still the FRR have made some big strides in how they run the game in the last year or so on the administrative and disciplinary side, and my feeling is that will pay off down the line.

I also think the RWC has been huge for both Romania and Georgia as they've gotten coverage of the game domestically that they'd never get outside the RWC. They're both looking to build on that, and it is going to take time.

[rowan]

Yes, it's more about what's being done - or not being done - in between World Cups. Why invite these guys in the first place if you're going to ignore them the rest of the time. If you have a 10-team first tier that ignores the rest, then you should only have a 10-team World Cup. Simple as that. Otherwise it's not a level playing field.

Agree with Digby also about Romania being ahead of Georgia, however I understand their player stocks have shrunk rapidly since the end of communism. Georgia, to my knowledge, continues to draw largely on French-based players, and although the game has a high profile there, due in no small part to the Lelos' regular participation at the RWC since 2003, domestic playing numbers were relatively low last time I looked.

[Which Tyler]

I like your spirit but I'm not a fan of 'B World Cups' personally. That seems like a bit of a mickey-mouse, league type concept that wouldn't be a World Cup at all and would probably draw very small crowds. I think England were desperate when they came out with that one, knowing that France had the vote sewn up.

IIRC the secondary would have been a glorified qualifying tournament; but promoted as being part of the ""real" RWC; it also wouldn't have diluted the "real" RWC at all (or at least, not the plan as I'd suggest it now).
It'd probably draw pretty small crowds - but also spread the rugby word out amongst small grounds - not just Kingsholm and Sandy park; but also Truro, Canterbury, Carlisle, Rotherham etc etc - they may only draw in 5-10k, but it would spread the word around the host country, and spread the word around more "minnow" nations media. the secondary wouldn't be expected to raise a profit either - but about exposing more nations to a competitive cup environment, more crowds around the host country to international rugby etc etc - breakeven would be about the highest such a tournament on it's own could ever hope for; and wouldn't be the point.

Get the ticket pricing right, and any ground with a Prem or Champ team ought to sell-out.


As for playing away from RWCs - I certainly still agree that far more should be done; I even like the England tried to lead the way with the Churchill Cup - even if it eventually failed. For the most part, I'm unsure how much the 2nd set of a dozen nations would get out of the occassional thrashing by a top level team; but 2nd XVs should certainly be sent out - I see no non-financial* reasons for each top level team not to send out a 2nd XV to tour each off-season - a 3 match tour of the PIs, Eastern Europe, North or South America, Korea, HK and Japan - plenty of options; which could do wonders for the players involved from both teams.

* unfortunately, the financial reality is very much against such a thing happening.

[Digby]

Romanian rugby shrank very rapidly post communism, the state was the support mechanism and then it was gone, and nobody stepped in to try and help. However they've been building slowly for quite a number of years now, and there are some decent teams and games in their SuperLiga, we'll have to see how whichever team qualifies for Europe (and it'll likely be Timisoara) goes now they've binned that weird Wolves team they were running.

[rowan]

I like your spirit but I'm not a fan of 'B World Cups' personally. That seems like a bit of a mickey-mouse, league type concept that wouldn't be a World Cup at all and would probably draw very small crowds. I think England were desperate when they came out with that one, knowing that France had the vote sewn up.

IIRC the secondary would have been a glorified qualifying tournament; but promoted as being part of the ""real" RWC; it also wouldn't have diluted the "real" RWC at all (or at least, not the plan as I'd suggest it now).
It'd probably draw pretty small crowds - but also spread the rugby word out amongst small grounds - not just Kingsholm and Sandy park; but also Truro, Canterbury, Carlisle, Rotherham etc etc - they may only draw in 5-10k, but it would spread the word around the host country, and spread the word around more "minnow" nations media. the secondary wouldn't be expected to raise a profit either - but about exposing more nations to a competitive cup environment, more crowds around the host country to international rugby etc etc - breakeven would be about the highest such a tournament on it's own could ever hope for; and wouldn't be the point.

Get the ticket pricing right, and any ground with a Prem or Champ team ought to sell-out.


As for playing away from RWCs - I certainly still agree that far more should be done; I even like the England tried to lead the way with the Churchill Cup - even if it eventually failed. For the most part, I'm unsure how much the 2nd set of a dozen nations would get out of the occassional thrashing by a top level team; but 2nd XVs should certainly be sent out - I see no non-financial* reasons for each top level team not to send out a 2nd XV to tour each off-season - a 3 match tour of the PIs, Eastern Europe, North or South America, Korea, HK and Japan - plenty of options; which could do wonders for the players involved from both teams.

* unfortunately, the financial reality is very much against such a thing happening.

Actually, the qualifiers seem to be headed in that direction, culminating in a mini-tournament for the final World Cup spot. I'd be quite happy to see it expanded - even to sixteen teams - but let it operate as a separate event in its own right, and hosted by one of the participants to ensure a vested interest. Also, teams need time to prepare for a World Cup, and having a repechage tournament immediately prior to the tournament proper is obviously impracticable.

Agree with your comments re the Churchill Cup. No sure it really failed, however. It served a purpose at the time and undoubtedly helped North American rugby along. I really think the best way to get the fringe nations involved is to simply include them on the so-called 'autumn' & 'summer' tours. ie Namibia and Uruguay become a regular stop for teams touring SA & Argentina in the summer, respectively (Italy could perhaps play Brazil, Chile, Kenya or Zimbabwe instead), and the Pacific Islands for teams touring NZ & Australia (perhaps playing them in those countries, rather than the islands). Meanwhile, a game or two in North America or Eastern Europe should be regular fixtures for SH teams on the autumn tours. Argentina could possibly play one of the Iberian nations. That would be a good start.

[Lizard]

Italy has withdrawn its bid. Apparently the bid was tied in with Rome's bid for the Olympics which has been canned so the RWC one went with it.

So that leaves:
South Africa, whose government currently forbids the SARU from hosting world tournaments
France, which hosted only 3 editions ago
Ireland, which must now be the front runner


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[rowan]

Yes, you're right. Ireland are the clear frontrunner and basically have it in the bag unless the SA government changes its stance in time. I can't believe the Africans would shoot themselves in the foot like this. They've bid 3 times in a row unsuccessfully, I believe, and were widely regarded as favourites prior to the government's decision. The modern World Cup deserves better than this.

[Lizard]

If the SA govt changes its stance, not just formally allowing the bid but really getting behind it, then it could be a close contest.

There's practically no time difference so the TV rights won't be affected either way. Ireland is more convenient for the travelling fans but SA perhaps has more big rugby stadia (9 at 30,000+) than Ireland (just 1 of 30,000+). Of course if you include GAA grounds, Ireland can match SA in this respect.

I think that the "every 2nd RWC in the 6N" principle is likely to carry the day.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[rowan]

Regrettably I suspect you are right. In fact, we're really only holding out for a dramatic change of heart by the government now. I was hoping this might just all be a cunning little ploy of theirs to first withdraw their support, and then come back in a blaze of glory announcing the wholehearted backing of the 'African majority' for hosting the tournamament and ride that crestwave of euphoria right through to the final accouncement. But, in reality, they were probably never that desperate. All they had to do was put a sensible bid on the table and its doubtful World Rugby would have rejected them yet again. & time is swiftly running out for that scenario anyway.

[Lizard]

Ah well. I don't mind either way. I've enjoyed my trips to both Ireland and SA and would not mind revisiting either. Attending an All Blacks v SA test at Loftus is definitely on my bucket list. (I've already seen Ireland v All Blacks in Dublin - Croke Park)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Eugene Wrayburn]

If the SA govt changes its stance, not just formally allowing the bid but really getting behind it, then it could be a close contest.

There's practically no time difference so the TV rights won't be affected either way. Ireland is more convenient for the travelling fans but SA perhaps has more big rugby stadia (9 at 30,000+) than Ireland (just 1 of 30,000+). Of course if you include GAA grounds, Ireland can match SA in this respect.

I think that the "every 2nd RWC in the 6N" principle is likely to carry the day.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The GAA are fully on board and their stadia will be used.

[rowan]

Just been reading up on the South Africa situation and the union basically is one month left to change the government's mind. The bidding process moves to the next stage on November 1 and it is unlikely the SARFU's will be accepted without government backing. The government has said it will review the situation when it receives its next transformation report, also due in November. Meanwhile, I'd still prefer France to little Ireland, but I think it will be too soon for them to host again, in World Rugby's view.

[Greebo]

Pity about Italy, thought it would do Italian rugby some good. And is s great place to visit.

[rowan]

I think they'd be better co-hosting with the south of France. If Ireland gets 2023, that likely won't be possible till 2031, but if SA gets it then 2027 might be possible. I'm not a big fan of joint bids, but I'm not entirely against them either. For instance, I'd have no problem with a combined North American bid, Uruguay assisting Argentina or Namibia hosting one or two games in a South African-based tournament. What I'm mostly against is repetitive joint bids by the same pairs and groups of nations, particularly those that are passed off as one nation tournaments and somehow never turned out to be...

[Which Tyler]

I don't think a France/Italy joint bid is ever likely. Neither need the other, so why would they introduce all the negatives of a joint bid?

Shame to see Italy withdrawals, they were my favourites, makes the boss greener for Ireland now I guess.

[rowan]

Then why did Italy's bid just collapse? Sure, France doesn't need Italy, but they've had enough bites of the cherry for a while - surely. Co-hosting a tournament in which Italy is the main partner (and gets to host the final) would work quite well, I think. In many ways, the northern region of Italy and the southern region of France have more in common with each other than they do with regions at the other end of their own nations, and these are the rugby strongholds. In fact, the only prospectus I have ever seen for an Italian bid included Marseille among the venues.

[Which Tyler]

Have you not read any of the articles? It collapsed due to lack of political support

[Adder]

I have worked selling and managing group tours of Ireland and Scotland for a year(Horrible Job).

There are very big logistic issues with a World Cup in Ireland. Especially Accommodation-Wise (size and quality). Also, how many big Stadiums are there? I can't see Ireland hosting by themselves. I believe NZ was the last "small destination" hosting a World cup.

France has big issues security wise and hosted it 8 years ago and seem an unlikely candidate to me.

SA is probably the best bet IMO but they have quite a lot of New Stadiums. (my money would be on them hosting).

EDIT: Just read about SA gov... Not too sure what is going to happen.

[Adder]

Then why did Italy's bid just collapse? Sure, France doesn't need Italy, but they've had enough bites of the cherry for a while - surely. Co-hosting a tournament in which Italy is the main partner (and gets to host the final) would work quite well, I think. In many ways, the northern region of Italy and the southern region of France have more in common with each other than they do with regions at the other end of their own nations, and these are the rugby strongholds. In fact, the only prospectus I have ever seen for an Italian bid included Marseille among the venues.

France and Italy are big enough to Host a World cup on their own.
Also, if Nice was once Italian, the French Education and military service has wiped out that part of their culture. Btw French Rugby stronghold is in the South West, not South East. South East is the Racist stronghold of France., mainly due to all the pensioners living there.

[rowan]

Then why did Italy's bid just collapse? Sure, France doesn't need Italy, but they've had enough bites of the cherry for a while - surely. Co-hosting a tournament in which Italy is the main partner (and gets to host the final) would work quite well, I think. In many ways, the northern region of Italy and the southern region of France have more in common with each other than they do with regions at the other end of their own nations, and these are the rugby strongholds. In fact, the only prospectus I have ever seen for an Italian bid included Marseille among the venues.

France and Italy are big enough to Host a World cup on their own.
Also, if Nice was once Italian, the French Education and military service has wiped out that part of their culture. Btw French Rugby stronghold is in the South West, not South East. South East is the Racist stronghold of France., mainly due to all the pensioners living there.

Perpignan, Toulouse and Lyon are all in the South East, and Marseille is the second biggest city so often gets called upon to host major fixtures. South East France shares a common border with northern Italy, which is the stronghold of the game in that country. Just seems like a perfect fit for a jointly-staged World Cup to me, squeezing Rome in there as well. Yes, I've read the articles about Italy's withdrawal from the race for 2023 and it seems they believed it would not be financially viable. Anyway, I'd be happy to see them back as a candidate in the future, preferably as an independent candidate, but if it's a joint bid with France that would work for me too. That's all I'm saying. Similarly, I hope to see the US make a bid for one of the tournaments in the 2030s, whether they go it alone or couple up with Canada for the purpose.

I can't see Ireland hosting by themselves

Me neither, and that's one of my main reasons for opposing them. We've heard all the one-nation promises before.

[Adder]

Then why did Italy's bid just collapse? Sure, France doesn't need Italy, but they've had enough bites of the cherry for a while - surely. Co-hosting a tournament in which Italy is the main partner (and gets to host the final) would work quite well, I think. In many ways, the northern region of Italy and the southern region of France have more in common with each other than they do with regions at the other end of their own nations, and these are the rugby strongholds. In fact, the only prospectus I have ever seen for an Italian bid included Marseille among the venues.

France and Italy are big enough to Host a World cup on their own.
Also, if Nice was once Italian, the French Education and military service has wiped out that part of their culture. Btw French Rugby stronghold is in the South West, not South East. South East is the Racist stronghold of France., mainly due to all the pensioners living there.

Perpignan, Toulouse and Lyon are all in the South East, and Marseille is the second biggest city so often gets called upon to host major fixtures. South East France shares a common border with northern Italy, which is the stronghold of the game in that country. Just seems like a perfect fit for a jointly-staged World Cup to me, squeezing Rome in there as well. Yes, I've read the articles about Italy's withdrawal from the race for 2023 and it seems they believed it would not be financially viable. Anyway, I'd be happy to see them back as a candidate in the future, preferably as an independent candidate, but if it's a joint bid with France that would work for me too. That's all I'm saying. Similarly, I hope to see the US make a bid for one of the tournaments in the 2030s, whether they go it alone or couple up with Canada for the purpose.

I can't see Ireland hosting by themselves

Me neither, and that's one of my main reasons for opposing them. We've heard all the one-nation promises before.

As a Frenchman, I probably have a different perception of what the South West is. Pepignan and Montpellier are either the great South or South East. South East is From Marseilles onwards. France and Italy have complicated administratons and incredibly big Egos., it would be a nightmare organising such a World Cup. Very Scenic Holiday to Organise though.

[Lizard]

I have worked selling and managing group tours of Ireland and Scotland for a year(Horrible Job).

There are very big logistic issues with a World Cup in Ireland. Especially Accommodation-Wise (size and quality). Also, how many big Stadiums are there? I can't see Ireland hosting by themselves. I believe NZ was the last "small destination" hosting a World cup.

France has big issues security wise and hosted it 8 years ago and seem an unlikely candidate to me.

SA is probably the best bet IMO but they have quite a lot of New Stadiums. (my money would be on them hosting).

EDIT: Just read about SA gov... Not too sure what is going to happen.

There are plenty of big GAA stadiums. I don't know what standard they might be though.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of ... y_capacity