Is this the end for the RWC?

Matt, you make some interesting points, but you are wrong on the voting for 2011... the RFU voted for the RWC 2011 to be held in NZ. It's a point of fact, not specualtion. Whoever the Japanese employed to be celebrity backers, the Englsih vote was for NZ. Australia voted for Japan. As for IRB investment in the game, it isn't in dispute, the issue is the price tag asked for hosting the RWC event. And as for allowing the poorer nations to srip the wealth from the richer nations, it would be a mess, we're involved in sport, not some communist revival... a poor NH rugby scene, a poor England rugby scene, would be the death of the pro game... the point is that you grow any sport from particiaption up... from kids and grass roots players, not by shoving top tier games into non-playing nations and hope they get excited... you'll could conceivably do both, but if you can only do one, grow it in the kids. But investment is one thing, demanding a guarantee of the sum required is just ludicrous and means that future RWC events could only be held in a couple of countries.... is that what you want?

I sometimes wonder whether we're all a little overly critical of the IRB and think that the world will just fall at the feet of rugby union as soon as you pass a kid an oval shaped ball? Firstly, I reckon the IRB has done a heck of a lot to develop the game. They have set up a lot of tournaments and granted a lot of money to a lot of unions, of a variety of tiers. And, if you really think about it, how long has the IRB had sufficient money to invest in the growth of the game? Maybe 9, since the 1999WC? You're kidding yourself if you think you can make a noticeable change to the sporting makeup of a nation in that period of time?! But recently we have seen the fruits of the IRB money. Nations that have absolutely no money of their own to put into their rugby have been able to compete with very large and wealthy nations. There has also been a huge growth in the exposure of the game at youth, amateur, womans, sevens, club and professional international areas of the game. Rugby Union has never been stronger and it is as much to do with the IRB and their funding as it is to do with the wealthy clubs in Europe and the SANZAR nations. The only problem is that, understandably, the big unions want to grow the game but don't want to sacrifice their own success as martyrs for the growth of potential rugby nations. In this sense the makeup of the IRB voting system needs a review, but the first thing that would happen if the minority nations (like USA, Canada, Georgia, Fiji, Samoa etc) gained more power (as the poor minorities) would be the stripping of the wealth of the big nations and their money being distributed to the poor. Some might relish that thought, but whatever the setup their will always be people looking after their own agendas first and foremost. As for England bidding for the 2015 in the first place, is that a little hypocritical when they were one of the strongest backers (Martin Johnson, current England Coach and one time Japan 2011WC celebrity supporter) of Japan to hosting a WC? That campaign was based on the 'dream' of growing the sport in one of the worlds largest population bases and suggested that Japan was more than ready to host an International tournament for the oval ball for the first time ever. At the time (and still) numerous Japan WC2011 supporters slated the decision to give NZ the hosting rights as being another endorsement of the back slapping old boys mentality. Yet, many of the same backers of Japan (The RFU and ARU) are now aiming to beat out Japan's 2015 bid. Especially, interesting is that of England (which will probably involve Wales and or Scotland too) which for my mind seems to do least for the growth of rugby than any of the bids. But the fact remains that Baron is only keen to not endorse the money because he doesn't think that England will make a profit from the tournament. This because the RFU will have to guarantee a sizeable chunk of money to the IRB, which they will duely put into their war chest for the global crusade of rugby growth. But what then of the NZRU and the fact that they have happily promised the IRB it's money for the 2011 WC knowing fullwell that it will have to lose money to have the privelige of hosting the golden event of it's beloved game. This loss however has been offset by the NZ governments underwriting the tournament, safe in the knowledge that the 4th largest sporting event is worth more than just the hosting costs (I'm talking tourist dollars and global advertising). So, maybe if the RFU were truely interested growing the game (in places other than England) then they'd either take the personal hit (to their substantial bank balance) or just let Japan host the 2015 event (as they so openly promoted in the first place). Either way the IRB will have even more money to invest in the continued growth of the game in nations where it is needed.

It would be interesting to know if the IRB were having discussions like these Tah.

Benjamin, how about a championship between the winners of CONSUR (South America minus Argentina), NAWIRA (North America), CAR (Africa minus South Africa), European Nations Cup, Asia (minus Japan) and Oceania (minus the big guys) - maybe professional players could be limited per team, or teams with a balance of professional guys would be ineligible. It would certainly give an incentive for teams to play for - imagine Chile playing Uganda, or Papua New Guinea playing Moldova.

Guys, there is a European Nations Cup (the Six Nations B). Here's a brief wikipedia. You should goodle it if you get the chance. 'The European Nations Cup, ENC or sometimes noted as the Six Nations B is the European Championship for tier 2 and tier 3 rugby union nations. The Championship is split into 7 divisions with 5 or 6 teams in each. The divisions play on a two-year cycle with the teams playing each other both home and away. At present, there is no promotion or relegation between the ENC and the Six Nations. The current champions are Georgia, who won the 2006/2008 First Division title.'

bob, I do have an English passport virtue of one of my parents and Ive been there a couple of times, but that is pretty much the extent of me being English. TBH I understand the English RFU actually did come up with a similar idea a while ago, so I can't take the whole credit for it. It should be called the Nations Cup, and played in an alternate year to the World Cup. If the IRB funded it, it would make a big difference. I dont know if amateur sides from the bigger nations could qualify, if they did, then Argentina would probably win in a canter. The main issue would be a nation like Georgia, which has no professional comp, but a fair % would be playing professionally in France.

True Tah, I take my hat off to that idea... it would work really well and give the emerging nations a real crack at something valid. As it stands, the lower tier nations are there to make up the numbers, but how to get the idea into the realms of teh IRB when they seem locked into some corporate old boys club? Rugby has to shake off the old school tie shackles if its ever going to be as great as it could be. But your idea is bloody genius.... are you sure you aren't English????! (lower class and unappreciated, like myself?!)

bob, england would have a population of about 50 million, I get your point though...I almost dropped my green tea when I read about the 100 million pound fee, and it is greed that is driving it. Maybe the IRB should have two world cups, one for the elites (i.e. squads with professionals, which would have maybe 12 nations maximum??) and one for amateurs - a good example of this is CAR in Africa, where South Africa compete, but the squad is amateurs, they were beaten by Madagascar is a tight game in front of 30k in Tana...if th Boks had played the Makis, they would have scored well over 100 points, maybe even cracked 200.

ohtani's jacket, I have to agree that whilst rugby is global sport one one level, it is most certainly isn't a global sport at elite level. The issue seems to me that the game has to grow in each nation at its own pace and into its own particular form, mirroring but probaly not competing with the power base nations. The problem the IRB have is that they have set the bar on RWC profis so high that they are effectively denying future involvement from almost anyone except Japan and the USA. Without wanting to sound bitter, union is a game for the grass roots, it's a culture, a way of life, and not really a global business. The problem seems to be that the IRB are awash with middle managers and the old school tie boys, trying like mad to hold onto power and drive a sport in an inorganic, unnatural direction. They cannot be trusted, and their shortcomings need to be addressed. If England, with 750,000 registered players, a population of 70 million, and the rishest pro-scene in the world, with readymade stadia and transport links cannot make it pay, it can't be made to pay... that's not to say it wont make a profit and be a great spectacle, but what the IRB ask is just too much. I am not sure the IRB are teh right people to run the game and keep its integrity.

Thanks Yikes. Well in that case it was their fault for playing a European ref in such temperatures.

Benjamin - the selectors panel I think currently consists of: Tappe Henning (Sth Africa), Michel Lamoulie (France), Bob Francis (New Zealand) and Steve Hilditch (Ireland). It is led by IRB Council member David Pickering (Wales). The final member is Kevin Bowring (Wales) who is a representative of player coaches. http://www.sarugby.com/news/News/article/sid=6277.html

Well, I have to say a Japan RWC would be fantastic, very well managed and do a lot for the game in asia, and a Dubai RWC would be well supported by expats and easy to get to for a lot of people, but I am not sure it would do much for the growth of rugby. A new IRB seems a good idea to me.

Very interesting read sheek, i really dont take to much notice of what happens with the rugby game world-wide as i always thought your mob were doing rather well.

Part of my frustration with the IRB, is this - I don't think it's that difficult to develop rugby union world wide, except that egos & politics get in the way. As is usually the case with most things. When rugby went professional in 19995-96, the game had the opportunity to look at other sports, pick the best bits out, & learn from their mistakes. But noooooooooo, not only was rugby determined to make the same mistakes as other professional sports, but come up with a few doozies of their own. How incredibly stupid! The good points. A 20 team world cup every 4 years, with qualifiers for most countries. The NH 6 nations & SH 3 nations. The second tier European nations comp, with promotion & relegation. Africa & Asia have their own comps now, plus the Pacific Nations Cup. Areas of improvement. What to do with Argentina? Realistically, they should be part of SANZAR. But where would that leave USA & Canada? There's a requirement for 6 nations comps in Europe & Africa, but a number of 3 nations comps elsewhere. SANZAR - South Africa, New Zealand & Australia; Pacific - Fiji, Samoa & Tonga (or 5 nations with NZ A & Oz A); Americas - Argentina, USA & Canada; Asia - Japan, Korea & China. Of course, you can more comps below the big 3 in each of Americas & Asia. I know a lot of this is already happening, but you need more formality of structures. Also, the IRB is kidding itself if it plants these comps without feeding them. No sustenance in the form of financial assistance, & this comps die off & countries lose interest in the sport. The most damning thing is the IRB's greed. You could almost accept it if you could see the money being ploughed back into the game, especially developing countries. What is the IRB waiting for? Another ice age? One can be cynical about where the money is going - into individual's pockets, & those of their hangers-on? There are of course many more issues, but I've been instructed to vacate the computer so my daughter can continue her homework! So for the time being, this'll have to do.

The Pacific Nations Cup? I'm glad some people are so easily pleased. I don't think that, or the Churchill Cup, makes up for such epic mismanagement over the years.

Rugby was never a big game in Romania, when they did record those victories, it was when the communist government was in power, and Romanian rugby players were effectively professionals, there were minimal efforts to develop the domestic game, and when communism fell, so did rugby. I hope the IRB does not miss the same opportunity with Georgia, I agree with Benjamin that more needs to be done with them, there is momentum with them, they have attracted crowds of up to 60,000 in their games with Russia, the Georgian president was quoted as saying he wanted the Georgian Government to help set up a proper national rugby competition (although he might have been trying to appeal to voters, and one can only imagine the chaos caused by the Russian conflict). Tim Lane is their coach, and he wants to bring the Georgian team to Australia to play games next year. I dont know how the IRB allocates its funding, but one thing I have to question is its growth strategy...quite frankly (and this is along your lines OJ) some countries will never ever be interested in rugby, places like China, which the IRB seems to be focusing on, at the expense of places like Georgia and Madagascar, which are both areas where the game is far more likely to grow...maybe the IRB like the rest of the world is seduced by China's population?? The Chinese government actually banned the game for a period, and I just dont think the Chinese people will ever take to rugby...however both Georgia and Madagascar are both bloody poor countries, and the IRB may not be interested in such nations. Having said that, the game in Madagascar has grown despite IRB involvement, maybe they would be better off without the IRB stuffing things up for them?

the pacific nations cup was an IRB supported tournament and it was very good for all concerned.

Who appoints the referees to specific games then?

Did it ever occur to anyone that perhaps rugby just isn't a global sport?

Fair enough Yikes, so he will just be defending vigorously the deficiences of one of his colleagues selections.