• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

2023 (expanded) Rugby World Cup for South Africa

Rowan Quinn

Academy Player
Joined
Feb 12, 2008
Messages
12
The Rugby World Cup should return to South Africa in 2023, and the tournament should be expanded to 24 teams.

The other three candidates are Ireland, France and Italy. Were any of these successful, that would mean a third straight World Cup in the Northern Hemisphere, even though it is the Southern Hemisphere which overwhelmingly dominates.

It would also entail a return to the Six Nations for the fifth time in just ten tournaments, which is a little ridiculous for a sport with over one hundred affiliated member nations and self-professed global pretentions.

Should it go to Ireland, that would also mean, technically-speaking, that the United Kingdom were involved to some degree in hosting the event for the fifth time, given at least a few of the games would be staged north of the border. This projects a very poor image to the international community. Is rugby still in its crib? Has it failed to sever the umbilical cord and move away from its original birth place? Is it just another tin-pot code with a limited international following, or is it a genuine global sport that can rotate its showpiece event around the continents?

France, meanwhile, hosted the World Cup as recently as eight years ago, and was also a co-host in 1991 and 1999.

That leaves Italy, to my mind the most attractive of the European bids, as it is a newcomer to the heavyweight ranks with a large number of registered players. However, World Rugby might want to go with a more established rugby playing nation for its 10th World Cup. Japan is already facing problems as it prepares to stage the 2019 event, with its new Olympic Stadium having now been removed from the venue list.

As for South Africa, it has the biggest and best rugby-purpose stadia in the world - with the possible exception of England, which has just hosted the event for the second time. It has the second largest number of registered players (also behind England), and it is the second most successful rugby playing nation after New Zealand.

By the time 2023 rolls around, an entire generation will have grown up since the last time the tournament was held in South Africa. This, even though the 1995 installment was one of the most successful and spectacular World Cups to date.

So if New Zealand, Austrlalia and England can all host it twice, and France can be involved as either host or co-host on three occasions, why on earth shouldn't it return to South Africa in 2023? Why does World Rugby appear to have lost faith in the republic, having overlooked it for both 2011 and 2019?

It's time to break the cycle. The World Cup can not continue to return to Western Europe on every second occasion. That is a myopic approach and anathema to the globalization cause.



But it does need to return to the Southern Hemisphere in 2023 for what will be the first time in 12 years. Moreover, it needs to return to the African continent, one of the hotbeds of international rugby development in recent decades.

This leads me to my final point in South Africa's favour. World Rugby officials have raised the possibility of an expanded tournament, and this is undoubtedly overdue. Again, with its vast array of rugby-purpose stadia, South Africa's credentials are unsurpassed as a potential host nation for a 24-team World Cup.

The last - and only - increase in teams was from 16 to 20 in 1999. This appears to have been successful, judging by the improved performances of the fringe teams in New Zealand and England.

In fact, no centuries have been recorded since 2003, while Japan's stunning victory over the Springboks this year suggests the days of foregone conclusions is World Cup rugby may be drawing to a close.

That said, a lot of work needs to be done in the interim if the additional teams are going to be genuinely competitive. One of the biggest obstacles to the game's global development is the stratification of its international competitions.

Not only are the elite championships closed-shop, but there is little interaction between the top teams and the emerging nations in between World Cups. How on earth are the up-and-comers supposed to be competitive in the big exam if they have been denied the lessons to prepare in between?

New Zealand and Australia should be playing annual tests with the Pacific Islands and Japan, as should the Six Nations with their Eastern European neighbours. South Africa ought to engage Namibia in a 'Bledisloe Cup'-style annual trophy match, and Hong Kong and Korea should be playing in the Pacific Challenge tournament, alongside the Pacific Islands B teams and Argentina's 'Pampas,' with a possible view to future inclusion in the Pacific Nations Championship.

In addition to this, would it not be a fairly straightforward exercise for Six Nations teams to stop in for tests against Namibia and Uruguay enroute to South Africa and Argentina, respectively - as well as the Pacific Islands while touring New Zealand or Australia?

By the same token, how about the Southern Hemisphere teams playing Georgia, Romania or Russia on their Autumn tours to Europe? Argentina might even take on Spain or Portugal.

If rugby is to more forward, it needs to expand its World Cup, and this can only be successful with a more integrated international rugby calendar.
 

The other three candidates are Ireland, France and Italy. Were any of these successful, that would mean a third straight World Cup in the Northern Hemisphere, even though it is the Southern Hemisphere which overwhelmingly dominates.
I know that Japan is technically in the NH, but I feel like it's way close to Aus/NZ than Europe is.

Also New Zealand lost £12.6m from hosting the 2011 RWC (apparently - I remember reading about itbefore, and that figures what google just gave me).
England made £15m profit from hosting the 2015 RWC. And that's with England crashing out in the pools.
Considering all the controversy in Springbok rugby recently, do they have the structure to host a successful World Cup?

To be fair I wouldn't mind seeing the RWC in RSA again - either them or Italy (with RSA being the preference). I just don't see the need to **** on the NH.
 
I think the Saffers would do a good job of hosting the RWC.
Didn't France host it in 2007?
Does Ireland have the Stadia?
Does Italy have the fan base or the interest?
 
no problem with RSA hosting again, would be more interested in Italy or Argentina (south american shared hosting), might make the trip to either of those
 
It goes on too long now never mind with an expanded number of teams!

What you suggest with regard to playing smaller rugby nations is unarguable but this means the possibilities of more games in a season for the top players rather than less which would be the ideal. More games and less money too!

Where the RWC is held is not a matter of who should rightly hold them rather how those who vote upon it "sell" their votes!! I will vote for you if your team will play us or you will vote for us next time type "corruption"
 
It's posible that Argentina and Uruguay will host jointly the Football World Cup 2030 for the centenial of the first World Cup in Uruguay in 1930, so isn't ridiculus to think that these two nations could host the RWC 2027, or better 2031, using the infrastructure of football.
It is not posible for 2023.
 
Last edited:
As much as I'd love my country to host a World Cup again, a lot has to change before that can, or dare I say it, SHOULD happen.

First of all, I think World Rugby should make a stance on the selection policy of SA Rugby, and the political interference that is currently keeping the country on a knife's edge. This year we have municipal elections, and it's clear that the dominant party, the ANC are busy losing ground in the metropolitan areas. Their election campaigns are solely focused on racism and that the black people should keep voting form them. While the opposition parties are calling for a more fair social viewpoint, and the fall of BEE and other racial issues. We even had a representative at the UN end of last year with a report on the mass Genocide currently happening in SA to the white farmers, and the lack of support by the ANC and government in preventing the killings. Now we have a drought in the country, and the farmers are suffering even more.

That along with our intellectually inapt President, our economy is in deep sh**. Look at the Barmy Army singing the current exchange rate just last week during the Joburg test match between South Africa and England:

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/jFE_LHrnz-o" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 
I think the Saffers would do a good job of hosting the RWC.
Didn't France host it in 2007?
Does Ireland have the Stadia?
Does Italy have the fan base or the interest?

The saffers could do a good job, but it would be a gamble.
Yes, France hosted too recently to be a viable option - unless IRB need a guaranteed profit; which they shouldn't after England and Japan.
Yes, Ireland have the stadia - they already have an agreement with GAA. Would be a great option, but I'd rather go for someone who's never hosted before (and should have had either 2015 or 2019).
Italy won't need the local fanbase or interest - though plenty of locals would support; it would be an absolute dream for away fans, and would sell-out. The only question would be whether they could secure the venues they'd need, advertising free as IRB require.

My vote goes Italy > Ireland >> RSA > France

Of course, what Tony says is also true, which makes South Africa the favourites regardless.
 
A 24-team World Cup based on the 1986 - 1994 FIFA model would actually be a little shorter than the 20-team Rugby World Cup, and also involve a just a few more games. There would be six groups of four teams, leading to a second round, quarters, semis and final. With all teams playing one midweek game at the group stages, the 52 games could be played inside 5 weeks. The 20-team Rugby World Cup requires around 3 weeks just for the group stages, due to uneven number of teams and four games apiece, meaning the 48 games require about 6 weeks to complete.
 
The problem with 24 teams is simply in 8 years will any of additional 4 teams provide enough of a threat to cause an upset.

Lets seed 6 groups based on the top 12 teams

Tier 1
New Zealand
Australia
South Africa
Wales
Argentina
Ireland

Tier 2
France
England
Scotland
Japan
Fiji
Italy

Your looking at the bottom 4 of tier 2 before they'd have an upset likely to stop who would be in the top 2
But on top of that 4 3rd place get through so that would be the tier 3 teams

Tier 3
Tonga
Georgia
Samoa
USA
Romania
Russia

So likelihood of one of the big 10 being upset? To the extent they won't make the playoffs? Almost none barring a weird set-up of groups and almighty upset. Not sure that's to the benefit of the competition at all.
 
TRF - There is already a regular international 7s event in South Africa. If it were so volatile and dangeorus as you suggest, that would not be the case.
 
But there is already a regular international 7s event in South Africa. If it were so volatile and dangeorus as you suggest, that would not be the case.
A 7's event requires far less stadia and logistics than a full 15's tournament.
 
NCURD, I thought the same thing about the expansion to 20 in 1999. But we have seen how the likes of Georgia and Namibia have improved. Georgia very nearly beat Ireland in 2007, let's not forget.
 
TRF - There is already a regular international 7s event in South Africa. If it were so volatile and dangeorus as you suggest, that would not be the case.

The SA 7's tournament is held in December, when our Parliament is closed. The tournament is held over 2 days and then it's all done and dusted. Hardly a threat IMHO
 
Of all the 5 nations teams and Tri nations teams Ireland and Scotland are the only ones not to have hosted the tournament, we have the stadia, a far better location for the majority of rugby fans and a thriving rugby community. I think for this one, if Ireland's infrastructure is deemed to be good enough to host we should get it, throw it to Argentina and North America for the following two. I'm obviously biased but I know we'd throw a great tournament.
 
Undoubtedly if Ireland got it, Scotland would have to follow in 2031 - or they'd scream blue murder as the only remaining foundation member not to have played central host to the tournament. But Ireland and Scotland are tiny nations geographically, and have indeed played co-host on a number of occasions. Do we really want the tournament to return to the Home Unions in 2023 for a 5th time and then 2031 for a 6th? There are many other countries with superior credentials interested in hosting this event, most of them on other continents, so what's the priority here: Tradition or globalization of the sport?

- - - Updated - - -

Did politics or crime effect the 2010 FIFA World Cup greatly?
 
Undoubtedly if Ireland got it, Scotland would have to follow in 2031 - or they'd scream blue murder as the only remaining foundation member not to have played central host to the tournament. But Ireland and Scotland are tiny nations geographically, and have indeed played co-host on a number of occasions. Do we really want the tournament to return to the Home Unions in 2023 for a 5th time and then 2031 for a 6th? There are many other countries with superior credentials interested in hosting this event, most of them on other continents, so what's the priority here: Tradition or globalization of the sport?

- - - Updated - - -

Did politics or crime effect the 2010 FIFA World Cup greatly?

no, but why should it?? it was marred with corruption, so our ruling party got their wishes. Soccer is also the sport which the most black people watch and enjoy. It is totally irrelevant to what is currently going on here.

Perhaps you should go and read a few articles prior to posting.
 

Latest posts

Top