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

[rowan]

Needs to return to the Southern Hemisphere and rugby traditional rugby stronghold for 2023, which makes South Africa the obvious choice. South Africa is also the second biggest market in world rugby after Britain, it has the best rugby-purpose stadia in the world (and had many football stadiums build or upgraded for the FIFA World Cup in 2010) it hosted a magnificent tournament two decades ago (it will be almost three by 2023), is the only foundation member of World Rugby not to have been involved in hosting it twice so far, and is unique among the foundation members in that it is not a predominantly European nation. Indeed, a World Cup for South Africa is a World Cup for the African continent, a fast-developing region in the international game. My only concern is that the government had recently included rugby among a group of white-dominated sports which were not eligible to host major tournaments until further progress in terms of integration had been made. Has this been repealed?

NB: Italy or Italy/France for 2027. Forget Ireland. Small nation World Cups should have been left behind with the amateur age.

NB: I also believe the tournament ought to be expanded to 24 in 2023. I believe this is going to be discussed. South Africa would certainly be in the best position of the bidding nations to accommodate expansion.

France, Ireland, Italy and South Africa have submitted their bid questionnaires, outlining detailed responses regarding key criteria for hosting one of the world’s biggest, most popular and most successful sporting events.
http://www.worldrugby.org/news/187447

[rowan]

"NB: Italy or Italy/France for 2027. Forget Ireland. Small nation World Cups should have been left behind with the amateur age."

Hopefully we'll see a World Cup in the Western Hemisphere in the 2030s. Argentina and the US were both involved during the initial stages of the bidding process for 2023, which suggests the interest is there, but the former has financial diffculties at present and the focus is obviously on establishing themselves in SANZAAR comeptitions, while the latter really needs to raise the profile of the game in North America, and also the standard of the national team, as taking a pasting in their own back yard at the sport's showpiece event probably won't appeal to the American psyche.

[BBD]

What exactly have Ireland done to piss on your cornflakes?

[Which Tyler]

What exactly have Ireland done to piss on your cornflakes?

I think it's the "being located on the European continental shelf" thing.

[BBD]

Bloody Geographist!

[Digby]

What exactly have Ireland done to piss on your cornflakes?

I think it's the "being located on the European continental shelf" thing.

I seem to recall it being stated that Ireland was too small, they don't have many large cities, they don't have many large stadiums, that the weather will see matches take place in miserable conditions, and that there's nothing to do in Ireland. I'd happen to prefer to see the event go to Italy myself, but the objections Rowan has about Ireland do seem somewhat at odds with reality.

[rowan]

What exactly have Ireland done to piss on your cornflakes?

Geographically tiny, yes, with only one major metropolitan center, partly located in the UK (which means the UK gets a piece of the RWC for the 5th time in 10 tournaments, even though there are more than 100 member nations affiliated to World Rugby), 3 straight tournaments in the NH (even though it is the south which overwhelmingly dominated the game), and lastly crap weather. Also, I am pretty sure they would end up playing games in Britain and possibly France too. We've heard the 'one nation' talk before and it just never seems to work out that way. & if Ireland get it in 2023, expect Scotland to line up for 2031. It'll be their "turn" after all. But all we're really seeing is the Home Unions & France staging the tournament on every second occasion under a different banner. This is anathema to World Rugby's mandate of globalizing the game.

[Lizard]

Having every second tournament in the 5N is basically a set policy for sound financial reasons.

You want to grow the game globally and you point to 100+ IRB members. Well, every regional tournament and IRB development program that had increased IRB membership from 8 in the 1980s is basically funded by the RWC. The IRB has no other serious source of income.

Considering the baseline at the relatively recent dawn of professionalism, Rugby has actually done pretty well.

[rowan]

Precisely why the other 90 odd nations should get a bigger share of the action, instead of being ignored in between World Cups like annoying guests who have outstayed their welcome...

FIFA grew their game by staging the World Cup all around the world. That was one of its primary roles, in fact, to showpiece the game in as many nations as possible, and not until the 13th instalment - when Mexico was required to step in for original choice Colombia - was it staged in the same country twice.

So rugby union has a choice. Does it wan't to continue to be seen as a British-Australasian dominated sport like league that can only stage its World Cup in a handful of nations, and those repetitively, or does it want to really branch out and become a world game.

If the latter is the case, returning the tournament to Africa for the first time in almost three decades is the obvious choice for 2023, while a return to the Home Unions or France for the 5th time in 10 tournaments is the least desirable.

[Stones of granite]

NB: Italy or Italy/France for 2027. Forget Ireland. Small nation World Cups should have been left behind with the amateur age.

You mean that New Zealand should never again host a RWC ?

[Which Tyler]

So.... we need to spread the RWC around more, and smaller nations; whilst never going near any small nations ever again?

[Digby]

Also amusing to note the certainty that we should spread the RWC to new countries and that the best way to do this would be to ignore a country that's never hosted the event in Ireland and return the event to South Africa who have.

[rowan]

"You mean that New Zealand should never again host a RWC ?"

Not for a very long time anyway, though New Zealand is geographically a lot bigger than Ireland - which is about half the size of the South Island. Several decades down the track NZ could easily have a population of 10 million or so.

"So.... we need to spread the RWC around more, and smaller nations; whilst never going near any small nations ever again?"

That's a bit extreme, but you're on the right track, yes.

"Also amusing to note the certainty that we should spread the RWC to new countries and that the best way to do this would be to ignore a country that's never hosted the event in Ireland and return the event to South Africa who have."

Ireland has been a co-host on two occasions, while two further World Cups, including the last, were within swimming distance of the Emerald Isle. Not bad for a geographically tiny nation which has never beaten the All Blacks or made the semis of the RWC.

South Africa, on the other hand, is a nation of 50 million with the second largest player community in world rugby and quite probably the best array of rugby-purpose stadia. Unlike all of the other foundation members of World Rugby it has only been involved in hosting once, way back in the amateur era, and by the time 2023 rolls around an entire generation will have grown up with no memory of that fantastic event. And the majority will have had no chance to see the tournament anywhere else either. A RWC for SA is a tournament for the continent, where rugby is making inroads, so this is certainly in the interests of helping to globalize the game. South Africa is of a good geographical size to host the event, with major cities within driving distance of one another, and also has an ideal climate at the time of year the cup would likely to be played. It also happens to be almost the exact antipodes of Japan, so it's a perfect fit from every angle, provided the government can be persuaded to change its stance. If not, I see lasting damage occuring to the sport's second most successful playing nation.

[Stones of granite]

"You mean that New Zealand should never again host a RWC ?"

Not for a very long time anyway, though New Zealand is geographically a lot bigger than Ireland - which is about half the size of the South Island. Several decades down the track NZ could easily have a population of 10 million or so.

.

I'm curious as what geographical size has to with it. Seems like a totally random metric plucked out of thin air to me.

Ireland has a 30% higher population and twice the number of metropolitan areas than New Zealand. By comparison, New Zealnd is geographically one of the most isolated countries (Polynesian micro states excepted) in the world.

It seems to me that something more primal than logic is behind your opinion on this one.

[Stones of granite]

Incidentally, Scotland is extremely unlikely ever to propose hosting a RWC alone. Perhaps a joint bid with Ireland or someone else, but certainly not on their own.

[rowan]

"I'm curious as what geographical size has to with it. Seems like a totally random metric plucked out of thin air to me.

Ireland has a 30% higher population and twice the number of metropolitan areas than New Zealand. By comparison, New Zealnd is geographically one of the most isolated countries (Polynesian micro states excepted) in the world.

It seems to me that something more primal than logic is behind your opinion on this one."

Geographical size is an obvious disadvantage, and has been cited as such in the media ad infinitum as controversy raged over the preposterous decision to award Qatar the FIFA World Cup. In Ireland you basically have one major center and several smallish cities. The fans are going to be crawling all over each other, and the pubs will be bursting at the seams as there really isn't an awlful lot more to do between matches than sit around drinking beer. Aviva Park notwithstanding the stadia is a bit shabby too and trying to squeeze a 20-team, 48-game tournament into that lot would require a veritable Houdini act. Not to mention the fact expansion to 24 teams is being mooted; something for which the globalizationists among us will be keeping their fingers crossed. I've already stated I'm not a fan of NZ hosting the event, so why pretend otherwise? & my view is solely from the globalization perspective. It is yours which carries the more primal connotation of nationalist tribalism.

"Incidentally, Scotland is extremely unlikely ever to propose hosting a RWC alone. Perhaps a joint bid with Ireland or someone else, but certainly not on their own."

They've all been jointly held in the NH so far and I have no doubt Ireland's will be also, regardless of the usual rhetoric. I wasn't surprised Ireland put a bid in for 2023 because I already knew the Home Unions/France bloc would want it back yet again, and it was too soon for a return to England or France (although the latter have bid anyway). So I think there's a very good chance Scotland will be coerced to front the next UK/France bid in 2031, with England et al hosting the bulk of the games. I've been around long enough to know how World Rugby's core committee members operate.

[Stones of granite]

There are two major cities in Ireland - Dublin and Belfast. Both with excellent transport links to Europe and North America. In terms of area, it is more than 6 times the size of Qatar. Geographical area is not a real constraint, it is an irrelevancy.

[rowan]

There are two major cities in Ireland - Dublin and Belfast. Both with excellent transport links to Europe and North America. In terms of area, it is more than 6 times the size of Qatar. Geographical area is not a real constraint, it is an irrelevancy.

6 times bigger than Qatar? That's still tiny. South Africa is 15 times bigger than Ireland and in fact roughly the size of the Home Unions plus France combined. Belfast has under half a million people, making it smallish by modern standards, which is what I said. South Africa has a dozen cities that are decisively larger than Belfast and about a dozen more of comparable size. All have major rugby purpose stadiums as well as first class football stadiums.

Qatar's size, rather than its fierce summer heat or the fact it is an Islamic country, could rule it out of contention to host the World Cup in 2022, the head of FIFA's inspection team hinted on Thursday. http://in.reuters.com/article/idINIndia-51548220100916

Seems the world's foremost authorities on hosting a major international football tournament disagree with you on that one. Why do you think the FIFA tournament has never returned to Uruguay, after the diminutive South American nation hosted the inaugural event 86 years ago?

[Digby]

There are two major cities in Ireland - Dublin and Belfast. Both with excellent transport links to Europe and North America. In terms of area, it is more than 6 times the size of Qatar. Geographical area is not a real constraint, it is an irrelevancy.

Fine but you're not addressing the big concern that there's nothing to do in Ireland but sit around drinking beer, and even then they'll not be space in the pubs.

[rowan]

There are two major cities in Ireland - Dublin and Belfast. Both with excellent transport links to Europe and North America. In terms of area, it is more than 6 times the size of Qatar. Geographical area is not a real constraint, it is an irrelevancy.

Fine but you're not addressing the big concern that there's nothing to do in Ireland but sit around drinking beer, and even then they'll not be space in the pubs.

. . . in the rain

I've met so many Irish people during my 20 years abroad, and when I ask them why they left the answer invariably involves the 'miserable bloody weather.'

[Lizard]

Who else is mooting a 24-team tournament?

I would love to think there is the depth to do that competitively but I'm not convinced.

The likes of Namibia and Uruguay are not adding much to the tournament as it is. It's hard to see how adding, say, Belgium (currently 24th ranked) will help.

Look at it this way - would 2015 have been improved by adding all of Zimbabwe, Russia, Hong Kong and Spain? That's the 3 failed repechage contenders plus the highest ranked (immediately before RWC2015) team that didn't make the repechage. All but HK are previous RWC contestants but none has ever won a match. Giving these countries another 3 or 4 hidings every 4 or 8 years will not help anyone.

There are also practical difficulties, including the length of the tournament if it becomes an up to 8-match proposition.

I think that there is more to be gained by giving these countries more regular game time against better teams every year.

[Stones of granite]

There are two major cities in Ireland - Dublin and Belfast. Both with excellent transport links to Europe and North America. In terms of area, it is more than 6 times the size of Qatar. Geographical area is not a real constraint, it is an irrelevancy.

6 times bigger than Qatar? That's still tiny. South Africa is 15 times bigger than Ireland and in fact roughly the size of the Home Unions plus France combined. Belfast has under half a million people, making it smallish by modern standards, which is what I said. South Africa has a dozen cities that are decisively larger than Belfast and about a dozen more of comparable size. All have major rugby purpose stadiums as well as first class football stadiums.

Qatar's size, rather than its fierce summer heat or the fact it is an Islamic country, could rule it out of contention to host the World Cup in 2022, the head of FIFA's inspection team hinted on Thursday. http://in.reuters.com/article/idINIndia-51548220100916

Seems the world's foremost authorities on hosting a major international football tournament disagree with you on that one. Why do you think the FIFA tournament has never returned to Uruguay, after the diminutive South American nation hosted the inaugural event 86 years ago?

So what? I don't dispute the size of South African cities compared with Belfast or Dublin. I just think the geographical reasons you give for Ireland not being suitable to host a RWC are simply something for you to hide your anti-European bigotry behind, and as I've shown, doesn't stand up to scrutiny. You're just a bigot.

[Digby]

Seems the world's foremost authorities on hosting a major international football tournament disagree with you on that one. Why do you think the FIFA tournament has never returned to Uruguay, after the diminutive South American nation hosted the inaugural event 86 years ago?

Maybe because they were busy giving the cup to Switzerland and South Korea, despite them being somewhat smaller than the 'diminutive South American nation'

[BBD]

Or maybe Uruguay didn't bribe them enough.Seriously holding the corrupt FIFA up as the example of how decisions are made isn't really helping make the case for why Ireland should be so casually dismissed

[rowan]

Who else is mooting a 24-team tournament?

I would love to think there is the depth to do that competitively but I'm not convinced.

The likes of Namibia and Uruguay are not adding much to the tournament as it is. It's hard to see how adding, say, Belgium (currently 24th ranked) will help.

Look at it this way - would 2015 have been improved by adding all of Zimbabwe, Russia, Hong Kong and Spain? That's the 3 failed repechage contenders plus the highest ranked (immediately before RWC2015) team that didn't make the repechage. All but HK are previous RWC contestants but none has ever won a match. Giving these countries another 3 or 4 hidings every 4 or 8 years will not help anyone.

There are also practical difficulties, including the length of the tournament if it becomes an up to 8-match proposition.

I think that there is more to be gained by giving these countries more regular game time against better teams every year.

T'was widely reported on last year. Here's a BBC account: http://www.bbc.com/news/business-31924309

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.

Russia, Spain and Zimbabwe were not exactly blown off the paddock in every game when they competed either. Zimbabwe almost beat Romania at the inaugural tournament, Spain kept both defending champions SA and co-hosts Scotland (in Edinburgh) to under 50 points, and Russia gave the US a tough work-out and scored over 20 points against Australia (68-22).

A 24-team tournament would actually be slightly shorter than the current 20-team model as a return to 4-team pools would allow for synchronized scheduling and more games at a time. In total there would only be 4 more fixtures, however (52 rather than 48). Effectively it would simply mean one less game for the minnows who don't progress, more meaningful participating by the 'tier 2' teams who would all have realistic prospects of reaching the 2nd round (the Spanish call them 'Octavos).' and more emphasis on the exciting, high-equality post-group stages.

I agree with your last comment.

Maybe because they were busy giving the cup to Switzerland and South Korea, despite them being somewhat smaller than the 'diminutive South American nation'

Switzerland has almost three times the population of Uruguay and was chosen as host of a 16-team tournament more than 60 years ago in what was the first FIFA World Cup in Europe after WWII. It would never get it in the modern era. Korea has a population of 50 million and was basically the junior partner in co-hosting the 2002 WC with Japan. Frankly, it seems you're just arguing for the sake of arguing now.

Or maybe Uruguay didn't bribe them enough.Seriously holding the corrupt FIFA up as the example of how decisions are made isn't really helping make the case for why Ireland should be so casually dismissed

Sure, we all know Qatar got it because they bribed everybody. So FIFA is not a good example for the decision-making process. However, soccer is far and away the world's most popular team sport, it has globalized its sport with tremendous success (a process which began when Joao Havelange, whatever his faults, replaced long-serving conservative Englishman Stanley Rous as president), and it's World Cup is the biggest sport event on the planet. Moreover, it is quite clear that rugby had copied the FIFA model from the outset and owes a great deal to the round-ball code.

I just think the geographical reasons you give for Ireland not being suitable to host a RWC are simply something for you to hide your anti-European bigotry behind,

Anti-European bigotry because I don't think the UK should be involved in hosting every second World Cup That's hilarious. It's your pro-UK Eurocentric bigotry which makes such a scenario seem just fine and dandy to you. Among the prime motives for creating a World Cup (much as the Home Unions opposed it) was to globalize the sport, and my views are in line with that particular ethos. The very fact you have decided to reduce this perfectly civil discussion to wayward insults reflects entirely on yourself, not me.