The addition of an automatic nine-figure ‘bribe’ to the IRB in order to host the Rugby World Cup is the final straw. The system is broken and is badly in need of a complete rebuild and several doses of castor oil.

But I’ve finally resigned myself to the fact that the IRB will remain broken indefinitely.

When it comes down to it, how could the IRB ever change? The voting system currently in place means that the only way it could change is if the select few countries with the power to change the system all decide to relinquish their power.

That’s an occurrence that rarely if ever happens in real-world politics.

The current voting system within the IRB gives two votes each to England, Ireland, Scotland, Wales, France, South Africa, New Zealand, and Australia.

Argentina, Italy, and Canada get one vote each.

Finally, one vote each is given to Europe, Africa, Oceania, and Asia respectively.

If you divide up the votes by player numbers (according to the IRB figures of 2003), the voting numbers don’t add up. The USA (37,430 players), Paraguay (1,740 players), Uruguay (3,750 players), and Chile (13,710) aren’t even represented at the vote.

Scotland (33,600) and Ireland (52,000) get four votes between them, while Fiji (60,000) has to share its vote with Tonga, Samoa, and the rest of Oceania.

It hardly seems fair. And it would seem that money talks.

Given the player numbers, it’s easy to imagine a very different rugby world if the same money and resources were given to rugby in some of these ‘lesser’ countries.

However, the simple fact remains: a country of 100 players, with a culture of playing rugby from childhood and a structured competition taking them through their adult years, coupled with professional contracts for their best players, will always beat a country of 1000 amatuer players, limited to high school or college competitions only.

Nowhere is this imbalance more clearly demonstrated than the voting for Rugby World Cup hosting nation.

Vote dealing between the European rugby powers is now conducted openly and unashamedly. We repeatedly see the farce of ‘RWC France’, with games in Scotland, ‘RWC Wales’, with games in Ireland, ‘RWC England’, with games in whichever country votes for England.

As long as the Rugby World Cup is allowed to be shared between hosting nations, the vote dealing between those nations will continue.

We all know, and it is widely acknowledged even in the north, that the most successful RWCs have been, and always will be, those hosted by a single country. When this occurs, the country is transformed into a two month rugby festival.

Even when the competition is being played in an area where rugby is not a popular sport, the event itself promotes the game of rugby. 15,000 people watching a game between Romania and Namibia in Launceston proves it.

The only way for the game to move away from the “votes for matches” scenario, is to enshrine the principal that no country with more than one vote at the IRB table may share games. This would mean that lesser nations would still be able to share if absolutely necessary.

Once those rules are established, the Rugby World Cup could alternate every four years between established rugby nations with big purses – who would be expected to pay the hosting fee – and nations where the IRB wants to grow the game.

Japan and Argentina would be obvious choices. But after that, there’s no reason why other minnow nations couldn’t do it (not that Argentina are ‘minnows’ on the field).

The criteria for “ultra-modern, world class” stadiums could be relaxed, as most people watching the game would be watching it on television anyway and most of the revenue is TV driven as well.

I remember being in Cardiff for two Wallaby games at the Millenium Stadium (Wales/Barbarians) and going to a Cardiff versus Cambridge game in the old Cardiff Rugby Club ground next door between internationals.

Standing there, with a Cornish pastie in one hand, and a pint of Brains SA in the other, close enough to the game to smell the linament coming out of the dressing room, and having to pick the mud and bits of electrical tape off the bottom of my shoes, I realised that but for the standard of play, my enjoyment level wasn’t dependent on modern stadiums for absolutely every game.

Obviously I’d miss the modern stadiums if I was knee deep in mud every game, but the novelty of visiting “the stone age” every once in a while is amazingly refreshing.

Many rugby followers fit into the adventure tourist crowd and aren’t reliant on 4-star accommodation. As anyone who has or even attempted to go to a Rugby World Cup can tell you, it is a phenomenally expensive venture.

Some of these minnow nations would offer a much cheaper holiday for the travelling rugby tragic.

The main objective of the hosting choice would be to place it in a nation where the sheer scale of the event, and the number of visitors, would make the experience of the tournament unavoidable for the local population.

This is why America would be a poor choice, but Canada would make sense.

A tournament held across America would be drowned out by the sheer size of the traditional US sports market. The average American would be lucky to hear about the match results or even realise the tournament was on. One American state or region, however (New England for example), might be small enough for the RWC to dominate headlines, while still being large enough to provide crowds and money.

Imagine Romania as host nation.

No Romanian could go to a pub without wondering, “who are these 30,000 Irishmen and Englishmen in town and how come they’re not fighting in the street”?

“This is rugby, not football!,” the crowds would tell them. And maybe, just maybe, the next generation of Romanian schoolchildren would have a few more rugby players.

I wouldn’t mind trekking through the Carpathian Mountains in between matches. The possibilities are there.

The IRB would just have to decide what country has a population of potential converts and the Rugby World Cup would do the rest.

But all of these dreams and ramblings will come to nought.

The current voting system simply doesn’t allow for the growth of any junior member into a competitive rugby nation. Apparently the IRB strongly believes in the axiom, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”

Unfortunately when they say “broke”, they’re talking about a lack of money, not something in desperate need of repair.

I’m sure many would disagree with my ides for the Rugby World Cup, but that’s not the point of my argument.

My point is that you can suggest whatever you like. A new inter-hemisphere club competition, a new set of ELVs, feather boas for referees, anything.

But first you’d have to overcome the inertia of the IRB who are thoroughly entrenched in their own world of back-scratching and secret handshakes.

A world where a place at the table doesn’t mean a slice of the pie.

Enjoy sports? Enjoy a bargain? All Sports Online has your favourite sporting brands at up to 70% off. Online only, premium quality sporting goods and merchandise at discounted prices. Get a deal now.