2023 RWC Host Poll

[Digby]

Bid details announced so far by Ireland look really strong

[rowan]

Yes, it does - basically because there's no competition coming from anywhere. I'm still not enthused by either a small nation World Cup nor the prospect of the event returning to the Home Unions - yet again. That aside, the organizers could do worse than stage it in Ireland. South Africa really needs to pull itself together and start campaigning with a gusto, because I really do think they are the favorites, for many practical reasons, provided they actually put in a decent bid. Anyway, if Trump can win the US elections, anything can happen. Maybe France will get it again!

[rowan]

I really sense another double-whammy coming on - most likely Ireland 2023/SA 2027. That will appease both camps, smoke-screen the event's return to the Home Unions once again (as Japan 2019 did for England 2015), allay any outrage on the part of the SARU at being overlooked yet again, and of course keep everyone happy as far as geographical rotation goes (although it will be a third consecutive tournament north of the equator). I'm not saying this is what I want. Far from it. But that's how I think it's shaping up, with just two candidates left standing and both of them champing at the bit. It could be SA 2023/Ireland 2027, but the reverse is more plausible, for expansion is more likely to come in the latter year than the former and SA is obviously better equipped to deal with that. & naturally there will be the usual rhetoric about Ireland being the last small nation tournament (until NZ decides to bid again) and the last in the Home Unions for a while (until Scotland inevitably demands its turn in 2031). The big losers if this occurs will be Argentina, as they'll obviously have to wait until the 2030s.

Update: Seems I forgot about France 2023 certainly too soon for them, but SA 2023/France 2027 could also be a possibility - albeit it a remote one, IMHO.

[rowan]

& France are starting to hype up their bid now too. http://www.independent.ie/sport/rugby/w ... 71458.html

Still, I think it's too soon for France again. I agree Ireland are favourites, as much as the idea of a small nation World Cup in this day and age seems like a massive step backward, as does a return to the Home Unions for the 5th time in 10 tournaments (partly or otherwise), and this will almost certainly mean no expansion to 24 teams in 2023.

The reason for this, however, is that South Africa have not been hyping their bid at all, and let's remember it almost never went ahead due to government restraints (since lifted). But the silence of the SARFU right now is deafening. Of course, we still have 10 months ahead of us, as the decision will be made in November. (Neither has there been any further talk of expansion - tellingly)

All things being equal, SA ought to be favourite, given their geogaphical location and the great advantages they have over Ireland in terms of stadia, population, rugby tradition and climate, etc. But they have a lot of work to do if they want to mount a serious challenge to the Irish bid, notably in terms of promoting their own and getting the other voting unions on side.

As it stands, to reiterate my earlier comments, I think the most logical (and diplomatic) outcome might be another double-layered announcement, with the 2023 tournament going to apparently eager-and-ready Ireland, and an expanded 24-team event going SA's way for 2027 - thus giving them time to prepare for it and sort their internal issues out.

[Beerlicious]

Interesting thread. I read Rowan's very same opinion, stating over and over again, how South Africa is the place to be in another forum (t2forum) going on and on and on and on for ever. Well until he was banned in the end

I do love the witty replies of the other posters though.

All things being equal, SA ought to be favourite, given

"- their geogaphical location" = middle of nowhere, with no people living there compared to Ireland and those surrounding little countries called GB and France
"- and the great advantages they have over Ireland in terms of stadia" = valid point, but you have to fly those distances in between (actually bigger distances than to fly over from most of European rugby places.
"- population" = this is Europe. a flight from Germany to Ireland and back is 2,5 hours and 100€. There are one or two more people living close by in comparision to SA, but yeah, the rugby watching masses of Central Africa, Botswana and the Congo will make up for that, after they drove those 3-4 days by car there.
"- rugby tradition" = yeah, there is no rugby tradition in Ireland. At all. Never was. Never will be. It's basically doomed.
"- climate" = yeah, can't wait to those warm and happy beach days in Johannesburg in September. Those average 9°C are really way better than those bloody chilly cold 14°C average in Dublin during that time of the year.

I mean seriously. South Africa does have points going on for them and you could just bring on one single point and repeat points debunked a thousand times before by probably 100 posters and not a single one saying your points are actually valid

My heavy favourite was Italy. This was the whole package (hotels, climate, culture, stadias etc.). Now it is France, but just because Ireland will be extremely expensive due to not having enough hotel beds (this would have been an argument), but I'll still fly in for a game or two if Ireland hosts it. So simply a personal thing about attending it

[rowan]

Er, you seem to be comparing South Africa to Europe, not Ireland. We could turn that around and compare the entire African continent to Ireland, that's assuming black people count too . . .

[Beerlicious]

Er, you seem to be comparing South Africa to Europe, not Ireland. We could turn that around and compare the entire African continent to Ireland, that's assuming black people count too . . .

So how many Africans do you expect to attend this world cup from outside of South Africa?

Off course you have to compare the countries including their "catchment area". And easier access from many European cities to Ireland than between different cities in SA.And this area has a lot of people in it. While the catchment area of SA is literally Zero outside from its own country.

To answer to your "race card" Assuming Germany has about the same ratio to different African countries of people attending a RWC, I would still bet, that there are more Germans at a world cup in Ireland than Africans in South Africa for a world cup. That's assuming German people count too...

[rowan]

& how many Germans are you expecting to attend? & it's not a race card to point out that you blatantly ignored the rest of Africa in making your convenient comparisons to Europe.

So you think small distances between one city and a bunch of towns are an advantage, somehow. Ok, next World Cup in Fiji. Maybe we could go to Luxembourg after that. How about Swaziland for Africa?

Ireland's rich rugby culture includes zero World Cup semi-finals. South Africa's includes two World Cup trophies and the best all-time record of all playing nations behind NZ. It is also the second biggest rugby playing nation, in terms of numbers, after England.

You've been dubunked by zillions of posters zillions of times. Time to sober up and stop making a fool of yourself.

[Puja]

His point was more that, while there are many more people in Africa than Europe, there are many more rugby fans willing to travel in Europe to Ireland than in Africa to South Africa. A South African RWC would be mostly attended by South Africans. One in Ireland would have much more diversity of attendants.

And why does the success or failure of a nation's team determine rugby culture?

I'm actually leaning towards SA's bid at the moment, but random accusations and hyperbole are not helping your argument.

Puja

[OptimisticJock]

German lives matter.

[rowan]

There are no random accusations or hyperbole - and least of all race cards - in pointing out that someone included the European public in their argument whilst ignoring the African community. & it's absurd to suggest the Germans, for example, would be any more interested in a RWC than,say, the Zimbabweans. So your own ad hominem approach is not working.

Besides, the population of SA is easily enough on its own to ensure packed crowds, and the republic is practically in the same time zone as Europe, so no disadvantage there. You yourselves are pointing out that Ireland would need outside help to match that, so we're not really talking about Ireland at all, are we? No, once again this will be a World Cup for the Home Unions - their fifth (partially or otherwise). Comparing Ireland to South Africa in rugby is simply quite ludicrous, and everyone here knows it.

& I was talking about rugby culture, so obviously you have to look at playing numbers, attendance figures and success to gauge that. Your tactic here is clearly to disregard anything that is in South Africa's favor and react as though it were a criminal act just to bring it up. That's not helping your argument.

[Puja]

Rowan, you are aware that I said I was in favour of South Africa? I was merely stepping in because you were implying that relatively calm posts were ignoring Africans and wanting to take the world cup to Luxembourg.

I was hoping to calm things down and get a nice healthy debate going, rather than bandying insults back and forth. Seeing as how that approach got your above post in response, I don't know that I'll bother again.

Puja

[rowan]

Once again, there were no insults involved; a bit of sarcasm at most; and certainly nothing that required 'calming down' - at least, not from my end. I maintain that the original comment I referred to was indeed ignoring Africans, by suggesting Ireland had an advantage over "isolated" South Africa by virtue of its close proximity to the rest of Europe. Anybody can see that ignores the rest of Africa. It is also, in my view, a very Eurocentric attitude, and I am not European, which probably explains why I do clash with many of the (presumably European) users of this forum. But that's actually the basis of a healthy debate. If we all agreed with each other, it wouldn't be very interesting at all, now would it?

Oh, & here are some of the comments Beerlicious - with a history of 5 posts on this forum -made with his very first (heavily sarcastic) response to my original post, entirely without provocation. I assume you missed them:


. . . read Rowan's very same opinion, stating over and over again, how South Africa is the place to be in another forum (t2forum) going on and on and on and on for ever. Well until he was banned in the end

. . . you could just bring on one single point and repeat points debunked a thousand times before by probably 100 posters and not a single one saying your points are actually valid

[Eugene Wrayburn]

I do love that the person drawing an equivalence between travelling around Africa, a truly massive continent, to travelling around between France and Ireland is accusing the other person of being racist. The mercator projection has nothing on you.

[rowan]

Strange comment. We had one person claiming Ireland's size was not a problem because it was on Europe's back doorstep, but at the same time describing South Africa as "isolated," then a response from yours truly suggesting that this ignored Africa - which it did. But that no more implies North Africans travelling to a South African World Cup than the Europe's back doorstep comment does Siberians travelling to an Irish World Cup. Unless, of course, you don't regard Russia as being European - which itself would be racist. But it is, sorry to tell you, and guess what: Tangier at the northern tip of Africa is about a thousand kilometres closer to Cape Town than Vladovostok at the eastern extreme of Russia is to Dublin.

So obviously our heavily sarcastic new arrival was referring to Western Europe, as obviously I was referring to Southern Africa, and meeting sarcasm with sarcasm by asking why that didn't seem to count.

Time to move on from that one, gentlemen, as Puja has suggested.

[OptimisticJock]

By fuck you're boring.

[rowan]

Interesting that I was the one singled out by Puja for insults when anyone can see the opposite is clearly the case.

[OptimisticJock]

If you're insulted by being called boring you need to man up.

[rowan]

Just pointing out the hypocrisy, is all. If you've got a problem with that, then it's you who needs to man up.

Obviously the points I am making in relation to South Africa's RWC bid are a little scary for some folk here, or else they wouldn't be working so hard at derailing the topic entirely.

[OptimisticJock]

Aye mate

[Beerlicious]

So how many Africans do you expect to travel from their homes in other African countries to South Africa?

You asked how many German based people I would expect. Well 500.000 watched the last RWC final, 3,2 Million the Olympic 7s final at 1am. So probably between 5-20000 will fly over those two hours for a one or two day trip. Off course including some expats living here.

How many relevant expats live in Zimbabwe? How many Zimbabwean people can afford to travel there? How many from Namibia or other countries? I can hardly see them being more than those 5k I assume...

Next point, if you answered the first point. South Africa is a great country. But how many can afford the tickets? I doubt it is more than the population of the combined Ireland. Even the Fifa WC 2010 was half empty and soccer is the number 1 sport for most people in SA

[Digby]

Are the Saffers back in the bid now, i.e. they're no longer banned by their own government from bidding?

[rowan]

Are the Saffers back in the bid now, i.e. they're no longer banned by their own government from bidding?

Thy've received the green light and are one of the three official remaining bidders, alongside France & Ireland.

So how many Africans do you expect to travel from their homes in other African countries to South Africa?

You asked how many German based people I would expect. Well 500.000 watched the last RWC final, 3,2 Million the Olympic 7s final at 1am. So probably between 5-20000 will fly over those two hours for a one or two day trip. Off course including some expats living here.

How many relevant expats live in Zimbabwe? How many Zimbabwean people can afford to travel there? How many from Namibia or other countries? I can hardly see them being more than those 5k I assume...

Next point, if you answered the first point. South Africa is a great country. But how many can afford the tickets? I doubt it is more than the population of the combined Ireland. Even the Fifa WC 2010 was half empty and soccer is the number 1 sport for most people in SA

I have no idea how many Africans would travel to a World Cup in South Africa. You would have to ask them. But in addition to South Africa, there are half a dozen nations in southern Africa with more registered players than Germany (by World Rugby statistics); four of which actually share a border with South Africa (ie can bus or train in), while two further East Africa nations, Kenya & Uganda, which have regular contacts with the republic, also both have more registered players than Germany. There are already quite regular rugby contacts between all these nations & SA, in fact, at various levels. Indeed, this is becoming a very fertile region for rugby development, as results at XVs as well as VIIs level have shown.

As for how many can afford to attend the World Cup, am I to assume then that you regard Africans as being "too poor" to host the tournament? Again, I can only view this as a discriminating and Eurocentric perspective. Not all Africans match the UNICEF famine relief appeals we see on our TV screens, you know. If they can pack the stadiums out for club football, they can certainly pack them out for a Rugby World Cup which the international body boasts is the third or fourth biggest sports event on the planet. & are you so sure everyone in Ireland has so much money to throw around that they would attend the games? It's not exactly the number one sport on the island . . .

South Africa itself has 350,000 registered rugby players, second only to England and substantially more than Ireland, Wales & Scotland combined. Your response to this, evidently, is to try and pass Ireland's bid off as a 'European' bid, and thereby negate many of SA's obvious advantages. But if you play that game, then we have to perceive this as being a choice between Europe for the 5th time in 10 tournaments, or South Africa's for just the 2nd - the last being way back in the amateur era. That was, however, a highly successful event which actually drew greater attendances than the 2011 edition in New Zealand.

So ignore SA and the African continent at your peril. The Springboks have the second best record in international rugby and have long been one of its four major pillars, alongside the Home Unions, France and Australasia. But right now the double World Champions are on the decline, and a 4th straight failure to win the rights to stage the game's showpiece event - when all of the other eight foundation members have been involved in hosting at least twice (including the Celtic trio who have never even made its final) - could just about be the final nail in the coffin.

On the other hand, nothing could serve to revive interest in the sport and unify the public behind it more than if they were given the chance to stage the World Cup again. A World Cup for South Africa will be a World Cup for Africans.

[Beerlicious]

I have no idea how many Africans would travel to a World Cup in South Africa. You would have to ask them.
But in addition to South Africa, there are half a dozen nations in southern Africa with more registered players than Germany (by World Rugby statistics); four of which actually share a border with South Africa (ie can bus or train in), while two further East Africa nations, Kenya & Uganda, which have regular contacts with the republic, also both have more registered players than Germany. There are already quite regular rugby contacts between all these nations & SA, in fact, at various levels. Indeed, this is becoming a very fertile region for rugby development, as results at XVs as well as VIIs level have shown.

That's why you don't plan a RWC with the hope of Germans filling up the visitor ranks . But we are not talking about registered players. We are not talking about rugby development. We are talking about the number of people probably coming from another country nearby to a RWC. And to deny that the number in Ireland will be a lot higher than in SA and lead to a way bigger catching area overall is "special".

As for how many can afford to attend the World Cup, am I to assume then that you regard Africans as being "too poor" to host the tournament? Again, I can only view this as a discriminating and Eurocentric perspective. Not all Africans match the UNICEF famine relief appeals we see on our TV screens, you know. If they can pack the stadiums out for club football, they can certainly pack them out for a Rugby World Cup which the international body boasts is the third or fourth biggest sports event on the planet. & are you so sure everyone in Ireland has so much money to throw around that they would attend the games? It's not exactly the number one sport on the island . . .

So nearly everyone in Ireland should have the money to attend a game, yes. The minimum wage is 8,65 €, so a day's work should pay everyone in Ireland a ticket, a pint and soem pastry at a RWC game. If they go is another story.

I don't regard Africans as "too poor" to host a tournament. But to use population as an argument FOR South Africa is simply wrong.
So I just said, that a lot people might not be able to afford a ticket. In 2011 the median monthly income in SA for whites was 10k Rand (= 692 Euro), Indian 6800 (471 Euro), Colored 3030 Rand (209 Euro) and for black-African 2380 Rand (164 Euro). So you have to say, that the median South African doesn't even earn half of what the minimum-wage Irish earns per month. So I hope the conclusion is allowed, that there might be vastly more Irish in percentage who could afford to see a game and quite probably the same number overall if you compare the whole populations (not even considering, that every single Irish is in driving distance of every single game, and driving distance even means going back home after the game and arrive the same day)

You were talking about soccer, and there the FIFA WC failed to attract people from elsewhere. Instead of 600k tourists, there were "just" 300k. BTW there were 3900 visitors from Zimbabwe and 1200 from Namibia. To this event, not too bad considering both nations had no teams in the FIFA WC, but nothing to write home about. Especially Zimbabwe was the top visitor nation from within Africa. (source: https://tkp.tourism.gov.za/Documents/Im ... %20Cup.pdf page 20). The soccer league you talk about filling stadiums attracts around 5k per game in average btw.

Yes there are other things to consult, and this doesn't stop SA to successfully host a tournament. But again, it is not an argument FOR them but if a RWC would be held there, it would be instead of this facts.

South Africa itself has 350,000 registered rugby players, second only to England and substantially more than Ireland, Wales & Scotland combined. Your response to this, evidently, is to try and pass Ireland's bid off as a 'European' bid, and thereby negate many of SA's obvious advantages. But if you play that game, then we have to perceive this as being a choice between Europe for the 5th time in 10 tournaments, or South Africa's for just the 2nd - the last being way back in the amateur era. That was, however, a highly successful event which actually drew greater attendances than the 2011 edition in New Zealand.

I wouldn't use NZ as the reference attendance-wise, but yes true. Rugby is quite popular in SA. I never wrote it was an European bid, but if you talk about a possible attendance you have a look at what's around the host place. I mean, why shouldn't you?
Yes, there are some good arguments why a RWC should be in South Africa. But to keep on going to bring up some arguments which simple aren't in favour of a SA-bid is not helping either.

[rowan]

Looks like a case of going around in circles here. But in a nutshell (excuse the pun) what you're actually presenting is not the case for Ireland, but the case for Europe, and then juxtaposing that against "isolated" South Africa - disregarding the rest of the continent as basically too poor. & Obviously that's an entirely Eurocentric view. But the Home Unions and France have already co-hosted the event 4 times, while Australia and NZ have both been involved twice, so given that South Africa is the 2nd biggest rugby playing nation and its 2nd most successful, as well as one of the four pillars of the game historically, the question ought not to be why they should receive the World Cup - but rather why they shouldn't . . .