England must host the 2015 Rugby World Cup
Columnist By Spiro Zavos, 7 May 2009 Spiro Zavos is a Roar Expert
Related coverage
England's Phil Vickery, center, tries to muscle his way through the Italian defence during the Six Nations rugby union international match at Twickenham stadium in London, Saturday Feb. 7, 2009. AP Photo/PA, David Davies
England must host the 2015 Rugby World Cup. There I’ve said it, and I don’t have my fingers crossed, nor am I trying to be sarcastic.
The fact is, for every reason, financial, access to great stadiums, spectator comfort and interest, the need for a geographically compact tournament and in the spirit of rewarding countries that have kept the faith in rugby, England should be awarded the hosting rights to the 2015 Rugby World Cup.
With Australia pulling out for 2015 and 2019, and probably for decades to come, only Italy, South Africa and Japan are left in the race.
It is doubtful whether Italy has the rugby infrastructure to run a World Cup tournament. Anyway, with France hosting the 2007 World Cup, another tournament on the European continent is just not on.
South Africa hosted a most successful World Cup in 1995.
But with New Zealand hosting the tournament in 2011, it is the turn of a northern hemisphere rugby nation in 2015. South Africa’s next best chance is 2019, when it is the southern hemisphere’s turn or the turn of a nation like Japan, which is not aligned to either the northern or southern hemisphere powers.
South Africa, too, will want to demonstrate with the 2010 Football World Cup, the biggest sports event in the world, that it can handle something of the size (admittedly smaller than the Football World Cup) of the Rugby World Cup tournament.
This brings us to Japan.
Eddie Jones and John Kirwan, both big figures in world rugby who coach in Japan, have pushed the claims of Japan. Kirwan, a former All Black, dismayed New Zealanders by disputing New Zealand’s claim to the 2011 World Cup tournament.
The Japanese authorities, too, secretly hired a PR firm (Dentsu, one of the biggest in the world) to employ a British legal firm to white ant the IRB’s decision to grant New Zealand the tournament.
The legal firm challenged the IRB’s decision, a challenge that was rejected. Information detrimental to the IRB was leaked to the media, a tactic that was not appreciated among the power brokers of world rugby.
Dentsu is behind the Japanese bids, and was behind Japan hosting the Football World Cup.
As with the promotion of the Football World Cup, the promotion of a Rugby World Cup held in Japan would be part of a marketing push by Japan Inc. to push the major Japanese major trading companies.
The language used to promote Japan’s bid is all about how Asia needs a World Cup to push the game forward.
The fact is that, while Asia remains to be embraced or to embrace the rugby game, the best growth prospects for world rugby are in the Americas, the former communist countries like Georgia, Russia and Roumania, and Africa, where Kenya, for instance, has developed a formidable Sevens Rugby team.
Eddie Jones, anyway, suggests that Japan is more interested in 2019 than 2015 to host a Rugby World Cup.
This leaves us with England.
England’s bid ticks all the boxes. They are going to use the great venues of Twickenham, Wembley, Old Tafford (Manchester United’s home ground, where rugby Tests have already been played) and the Millennium Stadium (hopefully something will have been done about solving the problem of the perennially slippery pitch by then).
These magnificent stadiums will be packed and they will provide the IRB and the RFU with a largesse of income that will enable the reserves to be built up and huge sums of money to be spent developing and promoting rugby around the world.
There is also the consideration that England will be user-friendly for the thousands of spectators from around the world who will come to England to watch the event.
The geographical compactness of England will enable a World Cup feeling to permeate the country for the seven weeks of its duration. Journalists, for instance, and spectators who can afford to, will be able to go to many more matches than, say, they were able to in France.
I know that in 1991, England produced a very poor World Cup tournament. There was an arrogance with the officials running the tournament, and a certain incompetence that mitigated against the success of the tournament.
The fact that matches were played in Ireland, as well as England and Wales, also tended to diminish from the sense of a World Cup in England.
The RFU will have the example of England running the Olympic Games in 2012 in London. The expertise gathered from that exercise will be invaluable for the RFU three years later in hosting the Rugby World Cup.
One of the major figures involved in England’s Olympic Games preparation is Sir Clive Woodward. I nominate him as the CEO of the England’s Rugby World Cup committee.
Two other points should be made.
First, the imperative in presenting a World Cup tournament as a spectacle that enthralls viewers around the world might, just might, encourage the RFU to be more amenable to needed reforms in the laws of the game and in its administration.
Second, rugby received a huge boost from the successful World Cup in 2007 in France. Eight years on, with a successful World Cup in England rugby could and should top that boost and entrench itself as a very viable alternative to football.
This would be virtually inevitable if, in the spirit of making rugby as accessible to world audiences as possible, England would lead the way to creating one rugby season around the world, a reform that would create the chances of many more northern and southern hemisphere contests.
So for many reasons, England must host the 2015 Rugby World Cup.
There, I’ve said it again.
Recommend this story.
- Explore:
- 2015 Rugby World Cup, England rugby, Rugby Union, Rugby World Cup
May 7th 2009 @ 9:01am
pothale said | May 7th 2009 @ 9:01am | Report comment
Cookie, sweetheart. England is one of the few choices left. Australia, Ireland and Scotland all withdrew in the last week. England refused to do a deal involving the 4 Home Nations (thank god). They want to host it themselves and make use of one ‘external’ stadium – the Millennium in Wales.
The tourney in NZ in 2011 is odds on to lose money. It will not leave the IRB flush with money to expend on development of the game. So the IRB and the game needs a banker for the WC in 2015. And not just the IRB, the game needs to have a guarantee in place – a strong one.
As Spiro points out, the alternatives for 2015 to the UK (which is what England is part of anyway when it comes to the Government putting up the stake money), are Italy, SA and Japan. If tradition is followed (though I don’t see why it should be), then SA won’t get it, cos it’s our turn (I swear children are running this thing sometimes). So then it’s either Japan or Italy. No one else has put their hand up for the €80m. Would Japan be a banker in 2015? Possibly. Do they have the stadia infrastructure and the capacity to create the other facilities? Yes they do. Will they get the stadium numbers? I don’t know – it’s not a national sport, and it ain’t a sport at which they excel – so less attractive to the indigenous population – maybe I underestimate that.
Italy have the infrastructure. They may have the money. But they won’t guarantee the crowds as well as England.
As Spiro points out, England ticks all the boxes. It’s easily accessible from an international point of view. Biggest playing population in the world. Big fan base. And they have the guaranteed money and revenues that the game needs.
It’s a no brainer. Let them at it. The UK loves hosting these kind of things. Trust me. They’re gonna do the Olympics in 2012 – all they have to do is throw a few plastic dust covers over the various bits and pieces and take em off again for the WC in 2015. Why waste more money elsewhere?
True Tah -
You ask why doesn’t Ireland host the WC alone. Real simple. We’re a small country – 5m pop – and have bugger all stadia that would be needed for the gig. Croke Park, Lansdowne, and then you’re into much smaller GAA stadia – not enough and not good enough. And if you think the recently demised Celtic Tiger has got 80 euro to rub together never mind €80m, think again.
Wouldn’t want it, never want it. Some things are better left to bigger economies and countries. I think NZ are mad to be running the next one – but maybe they haven’t got anything else to keep them busy.
I say leave it to UK, France, Australia, SA, Italy and let them round robin it every four years. It’s 20 years before they have to do another one. And if there’s an occasional Japan or East European country in there from time to time, it’s nearly quarter of a century before your turn comes around again. Makes sense really.
May 7th 2009 @ 9:08am
Jerry said | May 7th 2009 @ 9:08am | Report comment
Pothale – “The tourney in NZ in 2011 is odds on to lose money. It will not leave the IRB flush with money to expend on development of the game. So the IRB and the game needs a banker for the WC in 2015. And not just the IRB, the game needs to have a guarantee in place – a strong one.”
That’s perpetuating a myth. Any loss will be on the part of the NZRU and/or NZ govt (as underwriters), the IRB will make a substantial profit roughly equal to what they made from the 2007 tournament.
May 7th 2009 @ 9:08am
pothale said | May 7th 2009 @ 9:08am | Report comment
Vincent – have you ever looked at the size of the UK or Great Britain to be precise? It’s pretty small in world terms. There’s no great geographical difference between hosting it in England as opposed to on the island of Great Britain. That would include Scotland and Wales but so what? It’s one piece of land. I wouldn’t involve Ireland. It’s a separate island. And a separate Government and budget. As I’ve already said above, we couldn’t afford it. For England, read UK – there’s no difference really when it comes to hosting an event like this.
May 7th 2009 @ 9:11am
pothale said | May 7th 2009 @ 9:11am | Report comment
Jerry – has the money been given to the IRB already? And how much is it?
May 7th 2009 @ 9:17am
sheek said | May 7th 2009 @ 9:17am | Report comment
Spiro,
The other night I watched ‘Paths Of Glory’ which starred Kirk Douglas playing a French Colonel during WW1. After an aborted attack on a German fortification, the commanding General demanded 3 scapegoats from the division be shot as an example against perceived cowardice (initially he demanded more than 3 scapegoats).
This despite the fact the decisions surrounding the attack were scandalously flawed. The Generals, & not the troops, are the ones who should have been on trial. The 3 scapegoats were drawn by lots, or chosen by junior officers. Their trial was a farce, merely designed to give the pretence of justice being served.
I have of course, seen the movie previously. But I wondered how the men of that unfortunate division might have handled this unjust situation differently.
Colonel Dax (played by Douglas), who attempted to defend the scapegoats, at one stage offered to be shot himself. The commanding General would have loved nothing better! Then it occurred to me if the whole division had stood firm & demanded “they all be shot”, that would have put the Generals in an unenviable situation.
It would have “smoked” them out, & highlighted their incompetence & injustice. But of course, we’re talking about a movie set in 1916, when unquestioning respect for authority was different to today.
The point of the story is also relevant to the outrageous & unjust fee guarantee demanded by the IRB to host nations wishing to stage a World Cup. If the leading nations banded together, they could toss this unjust system out the window.
Ultimately, power resides in the people. The never-ending problem is always attempting to find the unified, collective will.
May 7th 2009 @ 9:18am
Jerry said | May 7th 2009 @ 9:18am | Report comment
Hasn’t been given to them, but it’s being held in a trust account I believe. Regardless, the NZ govt has underwritten the tournament fee so the IRB will get their money unless the entire country goes bankrupt.
The IRB makes its money off the tourment fee (48 million pounds for 2011) plus sponsorship and tv rights. Despite the time zone difference, it’s not anticipated that tv revenues will be substantially less and sponsorship will be unaffected.
May 7th 2009 @ 9:20am
Taylor Bridge said | May 7th 2009 @ 9:20am | Report comment
Japan it should be. Only if you want to build towards a world game, then possibly USA/Canada in 2019. Not England( UK)/Ireland/ France until maybe 2023.
May 7th 2009 @ 9:21am
Vincent said | May 7th 2009 @ 9:21am | Report comment
Pothale, thinking of reasons why the Wales 1999 World Cup was such a disaster was exactly the thinking that that sort of location intelligence did not work. I could be wrong but wasn’t PART of the reason the distributed locale of games in poor remote stadia? I personally would not want to travel across borders chasing rugby games. So yes I agree it could be hosted across the UK but is it ideal?
May 7th 2009 @ 9:33am
Mark said | May 7th 2009 @ 9:33am | Report comment
God forbid Rugby actually get out of its comfort zone and go somewhere new. UK is like a safety net for the IRB. Its not even worth talking about.
Here in the USA, its a struggle to even get a look in. The stadiums and facilities here are far more superior to anything the UK can cough up. San Fran and LA alone could hold it.
May 7th 2009 @ 10:12am
pothale said | May 7th 2009 @ 10:12am | Report comment
Wales 99 World Cup? What borders? There are no borders – not in a national sense – it’s one country. Wales and Scotland are separate named bits in it. If you’re in London, and you wanna go to Edinburgh, you get on the road, train or plane, same as millions of people do every year in the UK. Ditto Cardiff where they’ve held Heineken Cup finals, FA cup finals, etc for people travelling all over the UK, Ireland, France. We’re not talking the USA here. Or South Africa even. It’s 1,273 flying kms between Cape Town and Durban apparently (have been working out my itinerary for Lions tour), That’s more than the width of Ireland and Britain combined, if I have my sums right. As Spiro points out correctly, the country is geographically compact.
Anyway, the point is somewhat moot – since they’ve chosen stadia in England and Wales only. None in Scotland. And Ireland aren’t involved in the bid so you can relax.
Mark – Stadiums and facilities are far more superior in US to anything the UK can cough up. Have you been in the suggested stadia? What makes US ones ‘more superior’ as you put it? Do they have seats or something?