2023 (expanded) World Cup for South Africa

[rowan]

The 2010 FIFa World Cup was the most profitable ever at the time, making almost 3.7 billion dollars for the organization, up almost 25% on Germany 2006. It has since been surpassed by 2014 Brazil, however. Almost 3 million people attended matches at the 2010 event. I wonder why the FIFA World Cup has never gone back to England, though they've bid a number of times since hosting it half a century ago.

[Which Tyler]

Football =/= Rugby
There are really quite a lot of difference if you look closely

[Owain Glyndwr]

The 2010 FIFa World Cup was the most profitable ever at the time, making almost 3.7 billion dollars for the organization, up almost 25% on Germany 2006. It has since been surpassed by 2014 Brazil, however. Almost 3 million people attended matches at the 2010 event. I wonder why the FIFA World Cup has never gone back to England, though they've bid a number of times since hosting it half a century ago.

I guess you missed the whole bribery scandal that's brought down the FIFA hierarchy then?

[Owain Glyndwr]

Sure, I think perhaps my comment wasn't clear enough or it has been misunderstood. I was replying to a question over how the tournament was going to be financed in new host nations, and my reply was intended solely to demonstrate there was no risk to World Rugby. I'm quite happy to concede that England and France are probably the two most lucrative host nations at the moment due to population, TV & sponosrship potential and the strength of their respective currencies. But we can't stage it in those two countries all the time, or if we did that would be to neglect the international market and stifle the opportunities for growth. That's a shoot-yourself-in-the-foot approach, by any standards.

The current system is basically "turn-about" between a money-pit and other rugby nations (principally the SH giants so far). This is not a coincidence but a deliberate plan to ensure the tournament is spread about but every second time a decent return is made.

1987: NZ/Aust (rugby)
1991: UK/Ire/Fr (money-pit)
1995: SA (rugby)
1999: Wal & co (money-pit)
2003: Aust (rugby)
2007: France (money-pit)
2011: NZ (rugby)
2015: Eng (money-pit)
2019: Jap (rugby)
2023: ??? (money-pit)

The obvious gaps are Ireland, Italy and Argentina. If it's to go back to a SH giant, then it does seem to be SA's turn. I believe that the traditional rugby nations should have a go before we get too concerned about spreading the game further via the RWC.

It is not an exaggeration to say that virtually all (i.e. in excess of 90%) of World Rugby's income is from the RWC, and it is this income that actually goes to support the game in minor countries. Holding the World Cup in the UK/France every second time is what allows the Africa Cup, Asian 5 Nations, Pacific Nations Cup etc to be held at all. Lessening that income stream would threaten the annual test programmes of the very nations you want to assist! The chance of hosting a prohibitively expensive tournament with no chance of winning in exchange for your annual tournament being binned doesn't seem very appealing to me.

I think you're mixing up money-pit with cash-cow.

mon·ey pit
noun informal
an ongoing drain on financial resources, such as a house in frequent need of costly repairs or improvement.
"your bargain fixer-upper need not become your money pit"

[Owain Glyndwr]

Exactly. Ireland would get massively up for it and in terms of ease of travel for English/Welsh/French fan is practically a home event. Time differences are no issue and weekend (or even day) trips would be an option (unlike SA). For those doing longer trips, following your team around a smaller country is actually preferable. Even the worst, All-Ireland schedule (playing pool games in Belfast, Dublin, Cork and Galway, for example) would be far better than Namibia's 2003 schedule (Gosford NSW, Sydney NSW, Adelaide SA, Launceston TAS) or anyone in Pool D who all started in Perth then flew across a continent to play in two separate Eastern capitals, thousands of km apart.

Have you ever been to Ireland? Don't under estimate how fecking long it takes to get places there. And there's no way anyone's doing a day trip. Even flying into Dublin from the UK, you're never going to get the timing right on flights to be able to rock up stress free before k.O. *AND* get home in the same evening.

[Eugene Wrayburn]

Exactly. Ireland would get massively up for it and in terms of ease of travel for English/Welsh/French fan is practically a home event. Time differences are no issue and weekend (or even day) trips would be an option (unlike SA). For those doing longer trips, following your team around a smaller country is actually preferable. Even the worst, All-Ireland schedule (playing pool games in Belfast, Dublin, Cork and Galway, for example) would be far better than Namibia's 2003 schedule (Gosford NSW, Sydney NSW, Adelaide SA, Launceston TAS) or anyone in Pool D who all started in Perth then flew across a continent to play in two separate Eastern capitals, thousands of km apart.


Yes, I agree that a World Cup in Ireland would practically be a home event for the other 3 Home Unions. That's one of my main arguments against it, in fact, because three of those nations (plus a portion of Ireland) are actually the same nation under the same government, and they are simply rotating te final among themselves to more or less collectively host it every second time. Meanwhile other continents are lucky if they see it once a generation.

Regarding time differences - South Africa is only an hour ahead of the UK, so it's not a factor.

So Ireland is easy to get around. Why not stage the next tournament in Fiji, then, or Swaziland for that matter? The World Cup has developed into one of the world's major sports events and has outgrown small nation hosts, as 2011 quite clearly demonstrated. In Ireland the fans would be climbing over the top of each other. There are only two major cities and one major rugby stadium. The list of stadia they are likely to use was published in a prominent UK newspaper not so long ago, and comprised largely of creaky old Gaelic football and hurling venues - with almost half of them under 30,000 capacity. South Africa has dozens of rugby-purpose and football stadiums with a 30K capacity or over, spread around at least a dozen major cities. There is no comparison to Australia, which is a continent (but nonetheless staged a successful RWC). In South Africa fans could quite easily bus it between venues.

I guess that depends on your definition of "easily".

I don't think 2011 demonstrated that it's outgrown small nation hosts at all. Although isn't that a complete contradiction to you suggestion that the RWC should go around the wider world. Now it simply seems that your looking for any old reason for it to be South Africa every time. Needs to be SH, but can't be NZ they're too small, right?

As for the stadia, if you had a passing interest in the RWC you'd have noticed that the most recent RWC had about half the venues with low-ish capacities.

[Which Tyler]

Have you ever been to Ireland? Don't under estimate how fecking long it takes to get places there. And there's no way anyone's doing a day trip. Even flying into Dublin from the UK, you're never going to get the timing right on flights to be able to rock up stress free before k.O. *AND* get home in the same evening.

Given all of that, it's amazing that people already do precisely that in the EPCR and Rabo - although I do easily believe that it's not stress free.
Of course, most will stay the night - but hey, it's Ireland, who the hell wouldn't want to stay for the evening? Most do so because they WANT to, not because they HAVE to.

[Eugene Wrayburn]

Exactly. Ireland would get massively up for it and in terms of ease of travel for English/Welsh/French fan is practically a home event. Time differences are no issue and weekend (or even day) trips would be an option (unlike SA). For those doing longer trips, following your team around a smaller country is actually preferable. Even the worst, All-Ireland schedule (playing pool games in Belfast, Dublin, Cork and Galway, for example) would be far better than Namibia's 2003 schedule (Gosford NSW, Sydney NSW, Adelaide SA, Launceston TAS) or anyone in Pool D who all started in Perth then flew across a continent to play in two separate Eastern capitals, thousands of km apart.

Have you ever been to Ireland? Don't under estimate how fecking long it takes to get places there. And there's no way anyone's doing a day trip. Even flying into Dublin from the UK, you're never going to get the timing right on flights to be able to rock up stress free before k.O. *AND* get home in the same evening.

I did a day trip to Belfast in the summer for rather less happy reasons. It's eminently doable, though quite why you'd want to I'm not entirely sure. Travelling from Belfast to Dublin or Belfast to London/derry is relatively straightforward. Like NZ or SA you'll need a car if you're touring but that's about the height of the difficulty.

[UKHamlet]

Exactly. Ireland would get massively up for it and in terms of ease of travel for English/Welsh/French fan is practically a home event. Time differences are no issue and weekend (or even day) trips would be an option (unlike SA). For those doing longer trips, following your team around a smaller country is actually preferable. Even the worst, All-Ireland schedule (playing pool games in Belfast, Dublin, Cork and Galway, for example) would be far better than Namibia's 2003 schedule (Gosford NSW, Sydney NSW, Adelaide SA, Launceston TAS) or anyone in Pool D who all started in Perth then flew across a continent to play in two separate Eastern capitals, thousands of km apart.

Have you ever been to Ireland? Don't under estimate how fecking long it takes to get places there. And there's no way anyone's doing a day trip. Even flying into Dublin from the UK, you're never going to get the timing right on flights to be able to rock up stress free before k.O. *AND* get home in the same evening.

I did a day trip to Belfast in the summer for rather less happy reasons. It's eminently doable, though quite why you'd want to I'm not entirely sure. Travelling from Belfast to Dublin or Belfast to London/derry is relatively straightforward. Like NZ or SA you'll need a car if you're touring but that's about the height of the difficulty.

I've done numerous day trips to Ireland, both flying and on the ferry. To be fair, the latter actually took more than 24 hours, but I did leave both termini in the same day.

[Lizard]

You would also expect the likes of RyanAir to put on special flights to make it even easier.

[rowan]

Now it simply seems that your looking for any old reason for it to be South Africa every time. Needs to be SH, but can't be NZ they're too small, right?

In fact, it seems quite clear to me that some are looking for any old reason for it NOT to be in South Africa. Yes, I think the tournament has outgrown small nation hosting. Average attendances at the 2011 World Cup were the lowest so far in the professional era, and lower even that South Africa in 1995. It was basically a case of sending the tournament back to its amateur roots in farmsville. Very uninspiring. But NZ hasn't actually bid for the 2023 World Cup, and neither has Australia, so they're irrelevant. So we look at the 4 official bidders and form our opinions on a number of factor, among them geography. I think most of us would like to see the event moved around the globe rather than hosted regularly in one spot, so a move to the Southern Hemisphere is surely preferable to a third straight World Cup in the Northern Hemisphere. That's not going to be the definitive criteria in the final analysis, but it is certainly a point in favour of the South African bid, and to suggest it isn't simply amounts to denialism.

[Eugene Wrayburn]

Now it simply seems that your looking for any old reason for it to be South Africa every time. Needs to be SH, but can't be NZ they're too small, right?

In fact, it seems quite clear to me that some are looking for any old reason for it NOT to be in South Africa. Yes, I think the tournament has outgrown small nation hosting. Average attendances at the 2011 World Cup were the lowest so far in the professional era, and lower even that South Africa in 1995. It was basically a case of sending the tournament back to its amateur roots in farmsville. Very uninspiring. But NZ hasn't actually bid for the 2023 World Cup, and neither has Australia, so they're irrelevant. So we look at the 4 official bidders and form our opinions on a number of factor, among them geography. I think most of us would like to see the event moved around the globe rather than hosted regularly in one spot, so a move to the Southern Hemisphere is surely preferable to a third straight World Cup in the Northern Hemisphere. That's not going to be the definitive criteria in the final analysis, but it is certainly a point in favour of the South African bid, and to suggest it isn't simply amounts to denialism.

Average attendances in NZ were lower because NZ has small grounds, not because NZ is a small country.

Lumping Japan in to NH and pretending that there is a commonality between a RWC in Japan and Ireland/Italy is disingenuous at best. Given that near 90% of the worlds population lives in the NH, the argument that it's the SH's turn, whilst conveniently ignoring that South Africa has actually held it before can't even kindly be called disingenuous.

[Lizard]

Now it simply seems that your looking for any old reason for it to be South Africa every time. Needs to be SH, but can't be NZ they're too small, right?

In fact, it seems quite clear to me that some are looking for any old reason for it NOT to be in South Africa. Yes, I think the tournament has outgrown small nation hosting. Average attendances at the 2011 World Cup were the lowest so far in the professional era, and lower even that South Africa in 1995. It was basically a case of sending the tournament back to its amateur roots in farmsville. Very uninspiring. But NZ hasn't actually bid for the 2023 World Cup, and neither has Australia, so they're irrelevant. So we look at the 4 official bidders and form our opinions on a number of factor, among them geography. I think most of us would like to see the event moved around the globe rather than hosted regularly in one spot, so a move to the Southern Hemisphere is surely preferable to a third straight World Cup in the Northern Hemisphere. That's not going to be the definitive criteria in the final analysis, but it is certainly a point in favour of the South African bid, and to suggest it isn't simply amounts to denialism.

Average attendances in NZ were lower because NZ has small grounds, not because NZ is a small country.

Lumping Japan in to NH and pretending that there is a commonality between a RWC in Japan and Ireland/Italy is disingenuous at best. Given that near 90% of the worlds population lives in the NH, the argument that it's the SH's turn, whilst conveniently ignoring that South Africa has actually held it before can't even kindly be called disingenuous.

If you consider the SH as being only NZ, AU and SA, then it probably is SA's turn in 2027. Aussie and NZ have each sole-hosted once and together once. If Argentina maintain their current standards, I would argue that in fact they should be ahead in the queue.

[rowan]

Average attendances in NZ were lower because NZ has small grounds, not because NZ is a small country.

Lumping Japan in to NH and pretending that there is a commonality between a RWC in Japan and Ireland/Italy is disingenuous at best. Given that near 90% of the worlds population lives in the NH, the argument that it's the SH's turn, whilst conveniently ignoring that South Africa has actually held it before can't even kindly be called disingenuous.

Small countries have small grounds. Half the stadiums Ireland are expected to use should they host in 2023 are under 30K capacity.

Fact: Japan is in the NH. It is practically the antipodes of South Africa, and about as far from Australia & NZ as Britain and France are from SA.

The NH's population is not the issue, it is the rugby-playing population and the number of suitable host nations. In this respect the hemispheric divide is much more evenly balanced. Though I'm not suggest it should alternate between the hemispheres indefinitely. That cycle has already ended, with Japan gaining 2019. But long-term there needs to be a continental rotation of the event to promote and foster the game internationally.

[Eugene Wrayburn]

Average attendances in NZ were lower because NZ has small grounds, not because NZ is a small country.

Lumping Japan in to NH and pretending that there is a commonality between a RWC in Japan and Ireland/Italy is disingenuous at best. Given that near 90% of the worlds population lives in the NH, the argument that it's the SH's turn, whilst conveniently ignoring that South Africa has actually held it before can't even kindly be called disingenuous.

Small countries have small grounds. Half the stadiums Ireland are expected to use should they host in 2023 are under 30K capacity.

Fact: Japan is in the NH. It is practically the antipodes of South Africa, and about as far from Australia & NZ as Britain and France are from SA.

The NH's population is not the issue, it is the rugby-playing population and the number of suitable host nations. In this respect the hemispheric divide is much more evenly balanced. Though I'm not suggest it should alternate between the hemispheres indefinitely. That cycle has already ended, with Japan gaining 2019. But long-term there needs to be a continental rotation of the event to promote and foster the game internationally.

Repetition does not improve argument. Since you refuse to engage with the range of grounds I just won't bother making the point any more.

So despite suggesting that we should look to widen the rugby world you only want to look at the rugby playing world. That's contradictory but fine. In which case alternating hemispheres is a ludicrous idea because there are not equal numbers of rugby playing countries in the hemispheres capable of or interested in hosting the RWC.

You've now rowed back from pretty much every point you've made on the subject - other than "SA should host the cup". I'm not sure there's any more to be said. Do engage with the actual rugby discussions on the games you watch. It's always good to have a different perspective.

[canta_brian]

I think Ireland are feeling a bit of a backlash from the shared hosting for votes that happens in the NH. In the last 2 NH world cups, New Zealand has played France in a Quarter Final in Cardiff. The first was in a world cup being played in France, the second in a world cup being played in England.

So long as the NH keep giving each other home field advatage (yes, aware that France managed to play away from home in their own WC) other nations will see NH 6 Nations hosted tournaments as an old tie carve up.

[Eugene Wrayburn]

I think Ireland are feeling a bit of a backlash from the shared hosting for votes that happens in the NH. In the last 2 NH world cups, New Zealand has played France in a Quarter Final in Cardiff. The first was in a world cup being played in France, the second in a world cup being played in England.

So long as the NH keep giving each other home field advatage (yes, aware that France managed to play away from home in their own WC) other nations will see NH 6 Nations hosted tournaments as an old tie carve up.

Ireland's not been part of one of those for some time though - in fact only really once, in 1999, since the 1991 tournament was a jointly held one. In any event there isn't any handing of home advantage because the ticket process is the same for all venues and the "home" team is drawn by lot. I can see the wisdom in using the best rugby stadium in the world when it's a very short distace away and closer than other venues in the same country.

[rowan]

Repetition does not improve argument. Since you refuse to engage with the range of grounds I just won't bother making the point any more.

So despite suggesting that we should look to widen the rugby world you only want to look at the rugby playing world. That's contradictory but fine. In which case alternating hemispheres is a ludicrous idea because there are not equal numbers of rugby playing countries in the hemispheres capable of or interested in hosting the RWC.

You've now rowed back from pretty much every point you've made on the subject - other than "SA should host the cup". I'm not sure there's any more to be said. Do engage with the actual rugby discussions on the games you watch. It's always good to have a different perspective.

I'm only repeating answers to questions I'm repeatedly asked. I have given my views on the range of grounds, mentioned an article I read in a respected British daily which listed the stadia likely to be used for an Irish World Cup. It was unimpressive - especially by comparison to South Africa's.

I conceded that the days of alternating betweeen the hemispheres was over, but that the time has come for continental rotation, which the tournament having grown too big for small nation hosts. Aside from which of the current bidders is unsuccessful, there is a strong likelihood of Argenina and the US joining the race for 2027, Australia might do so too, and apparently even Russia has expressed interest in staging the tournament in the future. There's simply no need to be sending it back to the Home Unions every second time. That doesn't mean geography should be the defining factor, of course. It just means that where all - or most - other aspects of the bid are more or less equal, it ought to come into play.

If you want to interpret any of this as 'rowing back' it doesn't really bother me. This is not a United Nations Summit Meeting. We're just a bunch of guys discussing rugby on a forum and sometimes we will adjust our views. That's the point, isn't it? But as a matter of fact I think I've been fairly consistent on this particular issue.

[Lizard]

Ah, now Russia would be a great host. I can't imagine money being any issue!

[rowan]

I think geography is a major factor but not the defining factor - or the only factor that really matters, to put that in simpler terms for you. If all bids are more or less equal and meet the required criteria, then obviously you'd want to stage it in an entirely different geographical location from the last one in order to encourage the game's international development - a stated objective of World Rugby's.

The list of stadia you presented was slightly different from the one I saw in the British press a while ago. I believe a couple of those stadiums may have issues. All of the larger venues are Gaelic and hurling stadiums, fairly antique, and likely in need of alterations and upgrading for a Rugby World Cup. Also, the larger stadiums are based mostly in one city. In South Africa we can find dozens of large stadiums, mostly built specifically for rugby and/or football, many of which were upgraded for the 2010 FIFA World Cup, and which are spread throughout a dozen or so major metropolitan centers.

1 Soccer City 94,736 Johannesburg Gauteng South Africa national football team, Kaizer Chiefs
2 Ellis Park Stadium 62,567 Johannesburg Gauteng Lions, Golden Lions
3 Odi Stadium 60,000 Mabopane Gauteng Garankuwa United
5 Mmabatho Stadium 59,000 Mahikeng North West training ground for North-West University
6 Cape Town Stadium 55,000 Cape Town Western Cape Ajax Cape Town
7 Moses Mabhida Stadium 54,000 Durban KwaZulu-Natal Amazulu
8 Kings Park Stadium 52,000 Durban KwaZulu-Natal Sharks, Natal Sharks
9 Loftus Versfeld Stadium 51,762 Pretoria Gauteng Bulls, Blue Bulls
10 Newlands Stadium 51,100 Cape Town Western Cape South Africa national rugby union team, Stormers, Western Province
11 Nelson Mandela Bay Stadium 48,459 Port Elizabeth Eastern Cape Southern Kings, Eastern Province Kings
12 Royal Bafokeng Stadium 42,000 Rustenburg North West Platinum Stars
13 Peter Mokaba Stadium 41,733 Polokwane Limpopo Polokwane City
14 Mbombela Stadium 40,929 Nelspruit Mpumalanga Pumas, Mpumalanga Black Aces
15 Free State Stadium 40,911 Bloemfontein Free State Bloemfontein Celtic F.C., Central Cheetahs, Free State Cheetahs
16 Orlando Stadium 40,000 Soweto Gauteng Orlando Pirates F.C.
17 Johannesburg Stadium 37,500 Johannesburg Gauteng training ground for Lions and Golden Lions
18 Charles Mopeli Stadium 35,000 Phuthaditjhaba Free State Maluti FET College F.C.
20 EPRU Stadium 33,852 Port Elizabeth Eastern Cape no current tenant
21 Athlone Stadium 30,000 Cape Town Western Cape Santos
Rand Stadium 30,000 Johannesburg Gauteng training ground for Orlando Pirates
Olympia Park 30,000 Rustenburg North West no current tenant

[Eugene Wrayburn]

I think geography is a major factor but not the defining factor - or the only factor that really matters, to put that in simpler terms for you. If all bids are more or less equal and meet the required criteria, then obviously you'd want to stage it in an entirely different geographical location from the last one in order to encourage the game's international development - a stated objective of World Rugby's.

The list of stadia you presented was slightly different from the one I saw in the British press a while ago. I believe a couple of those stadiums may have issues. All of the larger venues are Gaelic and hurling stadiums, fairly antique, and likely in need of alterations and upgrading for a Rugby World Cup. Also, the larger stadiums are based mostly in one city.

Unless you are arbitrarily and bizarrely stopping at 3 stadiums for "the larger stadiums" that's simply not true as you'll discover by the simple expedient of reading.

[rowan]

I was referring to the list of stadiums I saw in the press, not the list presented here, but actually you are right about that. I went back and checked and only three of the 12 stadiums listed in the article were in Dublin.

[Lizard]

Aside from all that, would you actually want the perpetual mess that is the SARU anywhere near the organisation of a Rugby World Cup? Besides, their CEO has some allegedly very sticky fingers as well.

RWC2023, brought to you by the same people that brought you the Southern Kings...

[Lizard]

Aside from all that, would you actually want the perpetual mess that is the SARU anywhere near the organisation of a Rugby World Cup? Besides, their CEO has some allegedly very sticky fingers as well.

RWC2023, brought to you by the same people that brought you the Southern Kings...

I'm pretty sure a fair few of their players saw the headlines and thought "no wonder I haven't been paid on yonks."

And no doubt they are thrilled at being put in the African Conference that plays all its inter-group games against NZ teams - they've got the Chiefs in PE, then the Cru (who are coming off a bye) in Christchurch only 6 days later, followed by another 6 day turnaround to meet the Canes at the Cake Tin. Later in the season, just after they fly home from Argentina, the Blues come visiting and the defending champs show up a few weeks after that.

[rowan]

The whole Super Rugby competition has been turned into a mess by the inclusion of Japan. I suspect that had more to do with NZ & Australia than it did with SA.

Btw, 2022 Commonwealth Games going South Africa's way - just a year before the 10th Rugby World Cup. Seems they're not too concerned about the crime situation over there.