The Rugby World Cup must expand to 32 teams

totally agree 32 teams would be great and maybe a 2nd tier 16 team comp plus a womens World cup all together would be amazing

I have read many of these comments, there are worthy points made on both side of the argument. I am am 100% behind building the global game. However I believe that a 32 teams involved at this stage is too many. The general rugby public are not ready to be exposed to games like England v. Moldova and the result being 128-0. Those games are not enjoyable to watch and don't help build the sport in the either country. At this point strongly believe that a 24 team competition is the next logical step. It is very frustrating seeing teams like Portugal, Spain, Russia, Uruguay battle to get in, when if they had continuous involvement the game would surely thrive. Good example is looking at Georgia's rise since first competing in 2003. I would favor 6 pools of 4 teams. I would also then favor a round of 16. Therefore adding an extra week of knock out rugby, which of coarse is the most exciting part of the competition. People will complain stating that this is to much and there isn't enough strength in the game to warrant a round of 16, however I argue the point that this is knockout rugby we are talking about, where the underdog is given a chance. Imagine teams like Canada, Samoa, Georgia given a one-off game to qualify for a world cup quarter final, do you think these teams will just lay down and die? I don't think so. Teams to qualify for the round of 16 would be decided like the 1994 FIFA world cup, where the four best third placed teams of each pool. This would encourage the teams to play well during pool play and not allow their for and against build up too much. Currently teams play for for automatic qualification for the next world cup and end up putting b teams out against tier one competition, so they can field their best team against other tier two competition. Using current IRB world rank rankings (29/09/14) the round of 16 would look like this. New Zealand v. Romania South Africa v. Georgia Australia v. Italy England v. Tonga Ireland v. Argentina Wales v. Fiji France v. Japan Scotland v. Samoa Can you honestly say looking at these match up's that they are all completely one sided. Admittedly some would be. But it wouldn't be a complete surprise that Argentina, Samoa or Fiji could rip up the form book. I would expect Italy, Tonga and Japan would make the opposition work for a victory and what an opportunity for the likes Georgia and Romania to test themselves against the best in the world, as after isn't this what it is all about. This goes with out mentioning the teams that failed to qualify for the round of 16, they are as follows (using the IRB ranking 29/09/14) USA, Canada, Russia, Uruguay, Spain, Namibia, Portugal and Hong Kong. I am sure USA and Canada would fight very hard to reach the next round and have the capability to do it. The rest of the teams would of received a good healthy exposure to international rugby and therefore get them hungry for more and help build relationships with other unions, information and ideas on how there own union can develop. By the time the 2019 world cup comes around it would of been 20 years since the last time the number of teams increased. It is only natural to now increase it again, let the game flourish

Dude I wasnt suggesting they (the minnows) just play each other for whole tournament. When the pool matches are done and teams progress, the ones who don't still play against each other for bowl and plate. It gives them exposure and makes the RWC a spectacle. I am pretty bored of watching tier one all the time. The tier 2 sides produce some good rugby. As we know not all tier one sides make it to the quarter finals as well (group 1 next year???) so they can still have quality opposition too. Whats up with the costs thing too? It wouldnt cost that much more and the money generated from games could/would cover the expense (IRB to pick up the tab). The players from some nations also have their own work to account for(Namibia has lots of amatuers) but hey its a RWC and only happens every 4 years. Your negative and elitist view is what kills off tier 2 rugby-lets be inclusive.

I would reduce the Cup competition itself to 16 teams, and run a parallel Bowl or Plate competition at the same time in the same country. That would allow more countries to feel a part of the event yet eliminate some of the lopsided hidings we see in the RWC. You could even make the winner of the Bowl or Plate an automatic qualifier for the next World Cup, so they have something real to play for.

100% agree with your point of view Eddard, people have to stop saying if this team plays the abs they will get beaten by such and such. 32 teams would be great. Like the Soccer it is the progress and fight that these nations show that inspire and will improve them over time with exposure.

Absolutely, the point I'm making is that the qualification to get into the finals needs to be more selective. For the sake of discussion, let's say we take the original Five Nations, plus SANZAR as the seeds. The rest of the world gets to compete however they sit fit for one of eight spots. That way the quality of matches in the finals will be of a higher standard, not NZ (for example) against some mob who's qualified via a repechage (in the current system) or by some other questionable route with 32 teams qualifying. As an example, one of the teams still alive in the 2015 qualifying is Hong Kong, who only a couple of years ago got beat by 90-odd points against Japan. Russia, who are also still alive, were beaten by Japan by 70-odd two weeks earlier. What would those scorelines be against a rampant All Blacks or other top tier team? A 32 team structure for the finals is simply ridiculous and if implemented any time soon would have all manner of 100+ margins being run up and that does not benefit anyone.

A Mandela Nations Cup, held two years before the Official Rugby World Cup could admit teams from each region which are belowthe 20th IRB rank. This could be run similar to the World Cup and held in a Developing Country region. Pools as follows comprise teams from 21-40 in the IRB rankings. But in reality they would need to qualify regionally. The difference between this and current qualifiers, is that this would take top qualifiers and combine them into one International rather than regional tournament. Having it at a different time from the Rugby World Cup makes more sense to get more interest. Final Winner should automatically qualify for the World Cup and Semi-finalists maybe should have better chances to in the later qualifying tournaments. SPAIN KOREA BELGIUM KENYA BRAZIL NAMIBIA GERMANY ZIMBABWE MOROCCO PARAGUAY HONG KONG CHILE NETHERLANDS MADAGASCAR TUNISIA PORTUGAL MOLDOVA UKRAINE POLAND CZECH REP

This is a little unrealistic. As much as thr RWC is about participation it needs to be about quality as well. The scheduling issues need to be over come first to ensure that evety team present has the best chances of being competitive for as long as possible. In NZ the minnows proved that they could compete but unfavourable scheduking eroded that quickly. Adding 12 new slots would dilute the competition. I'm not ruling out an expansuon ti 24 teams in 2019 and beyond. In fact an expansion to 24 could solve many of the fatigue related to scheduling.

That Russia team was well below full strength. Still not a good result.

I love it. 32 teams is the way to go. Everyone needs to stop focusing on the AB's beating teams by large scores. Lets not forget the Wallabies put on 50 points against France just over a week ago. Rugby is massive in Shri Lanka and Mauritius. They are not great at it but they absolutely love it. People also need to focus on games like Chile v Russia and Span v Belgium. That is what the tournament is about, not the mismatch between the AB's and the lowest ranked team in their pool.

That's how the four pool system works with bonus points in play. Tonga had more than one loss and just missed out. Someone had to qualify in second place from that group and France just scraped it. Yes they were poor but that's how it is.

It's not as simple as that. The emerging nations might have good teams now but have they got the structures in place to rebuild when the exceptional players have retired? They might get one off matches now but in a few years time when the results decline the matches will dry up. Mainly due to players falling from their peak and getting on. Coaches get rusty and replaced. Get those structures and player development right before commanding bigger matches and extra competitions. It wasn't done right with Italy. Before they got excepted in to the 5 Nations they had a strong set of results but they didn't have a proper player development set up that was in place to replace those players. Instead they brought in foreigners including Argentinians to try and be competitive. Back play was non existent. Brunel is trying to implement it now and Treviso and Zebre try to play a XV man game rather than the traditional Italian stick it up the jumper. This is why they are struggling at underage results wise as the academy process and youth development is only really starting now.

That means that there will be a stronger 20 team RWC which is a good thing. However adding 12 teams including those with internal problems and have regressed won't benefit the RWC.

They were sponsored by a brewery Super Bock.

Nations Cup in Romania at the moment has Uruguay in it. They actually put up a better fight against Emerging Ireland than Russia. It was their tight 5 play and lack of polish in the backs that held them back. Plenty of endeavour though. The Pacific Nations Cup crosses three confederations.

I would go for many more teams, at least 24 and I can see the advantage in 32. It would dramatically increase interest in rugby in a range of countries in a single blow. It would need an extra elimination round but an extra week in a RWC is a nice thing, and it would allow a few more teams but only as many as are competitive in the world (when I say competitive I don't mean with the global elite teams, by whom the standard of the RWC should not be solely judged, but by the standard of the average team in the competition). Also the number prevent weaker teams having to double up in the same week. The soccer RWC has many very weak teams and one-sided beatings but this is part of the nature of a massive international tournament. The idea that the mismatch doesn't happen in such things and that rugby should avoid it is misguided. Participation has a very direct boost on the profile and interest in the game in emerging rugby nations. The more teams that can reasonably be brought on board, the better.

Soccer is also different in that a 4-0 or 5-1 score line does not look as bad as 90-0 pasting in rugby. As can be seen in the EPL or FA Cup even the minnows can beat the big teams in soccer on their day or at the least compete to a point. Georgia or Uruguay would never beat the ABs or Wallabies even if they played the game of their lives. It just does not really happen in rugby to the same degree. Right now we have about 8 or 9 competitive teams with ABs, Wallabies, SA, England, Wales, France, Argentina and Ireland who are competitive and maybe Scotland as well, with only 5 or 6 being a real chance to win the WC - although only 4 have ever won it. Then there is Italy and the island nations and others. 32 would be too many right now but rugby is getting stronger. Hopefully in 15 years there might be 15 or so reasonably competitive teams.

Canada also beat Fiji and Tonga only 3 days apart last year as well.

I like the idea that some have suggested of creating another tier 3 Tournament contested between the next 20 Nations below the 20 at the current World Cup. They could call it the Mandela Championship and it could be held in the two years before the World Cup so getting it's own prominence. The winner could automatically qualify for the real World Cup plus extra IRB $$ funding. The main benefits are that through television and stadium earnings it could actually earn money to be redistributed back to Developing rugby nations. Also it would give these countries experience of big match tournaments and their players might get pro contracts.

Within regions. Only during the repechage do we get HK v Uruguay or Russia v Kenya.