Greedy IRB demands massive up-front World Cup fee

[Wally]

THE International Rugby Board has made an audacious dash for cash by deciding to slug countries an exorbitant $207million tournament fee to host the 2015 World Cup. And if any country wants to host the 2019 World Cup, it will cost a whopping $248m.

When the IRB announced after its meeting in Hong Kong on Tuesday that the hosts of the 2015 and 2019 World Cups would be decided in July next year, a major detail was left out - massive up-front tournament fees.

The Herald was told last night that the IRB had decided it would charge the 2015 World Cup host nation a tournament fee of £100m ($A207.38m). The 2019 host would be hit with a £120m ($A248.75m) fee.

This initiative surprised, even astounded some leading IRB delegates, who argued that it was unreasonable considering that many other major sporting organisations did not charge a tournament fee for world events.

This move would ensure that only a few rich rugby nations, such as England and France, could bid for World Cups from 2015 as countless fringe nations would shy off even contemplating staging the event because it would be far too expensive.

It is understood that the Australian IRB delegates were the only ones to argue at the meeting against the excessive tournament fees.

But Australia encountered widespread opposition from numerous other countries, including Scotland, Ireland and Wales - who are not in a financial position to host the tournament but could clearly see a financial windfall coming their way involving the minimum of effort. More money going into the IRB coffers means a bigger slice coming their way.

As one international rugby official told the Herald last night: "The Rugby World Cup is only just over 20 years old, but in that time the IRB had become excessively and unnecessarily greedy."

This tournament fee comes on top of the host nation having to bear all the costs of the tournament, while the IRB, through Rugby World Cup Limited, will continue receiving from the tournament all commercial revenue, including broadcasting rights, sponsorship, corporate hospitality and travel packages.

As Australia discovered when it hosted the 2003 World Cup, officials had to be shrewd to finish with a profit. The cost of staging the 2003 tournament was $120m and estimations are that the 2015 tournament will probably cost three times that.

The costs in 2003 were offset by ticket sales, which saw Australia eventually finishing with a net profit of $83m, of which the IRB received $40m - which was a tournament fee of sorts, but came out of profits and was not an up-front figure.

According to the 2011 World Cup fact sheet, New Zealand, in a partnership involving the New Zealand Rugby Union and the New Zealand Government, has "guaranteed to deliver a minimum guarantee to the IRB".

Now, in July next year, a country interested in hosting the tournament in 2019 must decide and even gamble 10years out from the actual event whether that they can provide an "ironclad guarantee" of $248m to the IRB.

That is why some IRB officials believe the only countries who may contemplate being a World Cup host would be England, France and possibly Australia and Japan. England are the favourites to host the 2015 edition, while Australia may be among the candidates, along with Japan, for the 2019 tournament.

The IRB has stressed that it wants the 2015 World Cup to make a considerable profit, especially as the 2011 event in New Zealand will not be as lucrative as the previous two tournaments in France and Australia.

Not surprisingly, the IRB press release that followed the Hong Kong meeting emphasised how the World Cup had become a money-spinner.

IRB and Rugby World Cup chairman Bernard Lapasset said the 2007 World Cup "generated a surplus of over £120m which has been reinvested into the game through grants to unions, the underwriting of international tournaments and the funding of targeted strategic high performance programmes".

WHAT OTHER SPORTS DO

CRICKET WORLD CUP
■ No charge to host nation.

■ ICC sells media rights, takes majority of ticket revenue.

■ ICC pays dividend to all Test nations who play.

■ Host nation gets normal dividend plus host bonus.


FOOTBALL WORLD CUP
■ No charge to host nation.

■ Host nation guarantees FIFA will not lose money.

■ FIFA sells TV rights.

■ FIFA claims large percentage of marketing and other media rights and ticket sales.


OLYMPIC GAMES
■ No charge to host nation.

■ IOC sells media rights and signs global sponsorship deals.

■ Hosts retain 95 per cent of ticket sales.

■ IOC contributes $US1 billion to host to help stage Games.

rugbyheaven.com

 

[Haysie]

This is an un-necessary risk taken by the IRB which could potentially see it falling apart beneath the delegate's and head's feet.
It's just stupid I think, it's a bit of tall poppy syndrome whereby the larger and traditionally older (+British and European) countries want to hold the World Cup close to their hearts.
It would be so much better for the game as a whole to be held somewhere exotic (Japan, Argentina, Fiji) so that the rugby world could experience something they otherwise wouldn't. Many are bored of British rugby at the moment.

 

[Bullitt]

Many are bored of British rugby at the moment.[/b]

WTF? Whats that got to do with the price of sliced bread?

Anyway, back on subject.

I cannot tell if this is a marvelous piece of tabloid journalism (especially as rugbyheaven.com is rugby's answer to "The Sun", however the ***s in this case being the journalists themselves), or if indeed the IRB, showing the same moral fibre as the rest of the unions old-boys network, are inded screwing the game over for another quick buck as they did by sending the 2011 tournament to New Zealand.

As the RWC is still a relitively young tournament it still needs to learn to walk before it can run. Putting sanctions on all but the richest of nations is suicidal - £100m is more then even the RFU make in a year, who's anual profit margin has sat just below the £80m mark for the past 3 years.

Unless there is a massive rethink on strategy, the World Cup will end up becoming a joke seen as a fun toy of the Tier One nations.

First the IRB wanted to ban our minnows, now they simply want to price them out the market.

Naughty IRB, shame on you. :toss:

 

[Haysie]

Same story on FOXSportsNews on Austar here too, so unless they've taken the story straight from the site then it's legit.
What I meant by the last sentence was that the prospect of a World Cup being held in a country that it already has been (3 times?) would not be as appealing as a country that has been 'uncharted' by such a large event. Imagine the impact that the millions of rugby fans around the world could make on an economy such as Japan's or Argentina's.

 

[Enguelaz]

I can't understand how this helps developing Rugby as a sport. In my mind this should be the number 1 task of the IRB... instead they became a f#cking bank machine.
That's what you get when you elect mafia-like people like Lapasset at he head of the IRB. The guy's a muppet, it's mainly because of him and his stupidity that France had to play its 1/4 Final in CARDIFF during the Rugby WC in FRANCE... how dumb is that!?!
Bottom line is it get more and more political as it goes, you can bet that NZ will win 2011 just because they host it, and the direction the IRB is going with that up-front fee basically rules out any emerging rugby nation... soon we'll have RWC starting straight up in the 1/4 finals... i can comprehend how these people can't see they screwing things up real bad...

 

[Prestwick]

This has to be a wind up. Nobody, not even the RFU could find a £100 million price tag on hosting the RWC making financial sense. There'd be no way that anyone would be able to make any money out of hosting the competition in the first place!

Also, I'm being quite cynical here, but I wonder if 'being the only one to argue against' is part of a clever tactic to show the ARU in a better light both at home and abroad since the fiasco of RWC 2007. Being seen to fight the corner of the minnows puts them in a better position to court favour when negotiating with the likes of USA Rugby and JRFU for expanding Super Rugby.

Many are bored of British rugby at the moment. [/b]

1. What has this got to do with anything in this thread?
2. For the record, bumper crowds year on year in the GP prove this statement wrong emphatically.

 

[Haysie]

This has to be a wind up. Nobody, not even the RFU could find a £100 million price tag on hosting the RWC making financial sense. There'd be no way that anyone would be able to make any money out of hosting the competition in the first place!

Also, I'm being quite cynical here, but I wonder if 'being the only one to argue against' is part of a clever tactic to show the ARU in a better light both at home and abroad since the fiasco of RWC 2007. Being seen to fight the corner of the minnows puts them in a better position to court favour when negotiating with the likes of USA Rugby and JRFU for expanding Super Rugby.

Many are bored of British rugby at the moment. [/b]

1. What has this got to do with anything in this thread?
2. For the record, bumper crowds year on year in the GP prove this statement wrong emphatically.
[/b]

I thought I'd explained pretty well, but I'll do so again. The NON-BRITISH rugby world is bored with British Rugby. Games that are won over aerial bombardments just aren't appealing to the greater world anymore. A World Cup played in these countries will surely only promote the style of rugby that they are playing, while the rest of the world is having plenty of fun with the new ELVs? It's all well and good for GP crowds to rock up in massive numbers but after all they're only pumping money that they've recieved from the country back into the country. Especially with the current exchange rates, and the GBP refusing to be amalgamated into a Euro, I feel it is a disaster waiting to happen. A case in point is the Olympics that London will be hosting. I'll go out on a limb now and say that I reckon the way it is going, there WILL be record crowds at the World Cup and Olympics if London/England host them, but for the lowest amount of spectators.
There's no way it will make a loss, but that's not a good thing. it will fuel the IRB more and this sort of thing will happen for the next 30-odd years.

 

[sanzar]

This is just f***ing retarded... I have no idea how the IRB could possibly think this will do anything but damage the sport.

 

[Prestwick]

Firstly, RWC 2007 was no different in style or substance to that of RWC 2003 or RWC 1999. The QSemi Final between France and New Zealand in 1999 was more dynamic and blood pumping (and less controversial) than what happened later in 2007. And guess where the 1999 Semi was held? Twickenham stadium, London, England. The location of where the RWC is being held does not affect the standard of rugby, there is no logic in that.

And secondly, I don't quite understand what you're trying to say when you point out that in order to watch a game of top flight club rugby, people may have to work to earn money in order to pay for tickets and that money does indeed eventually wind back up in the pockets of the exchequer via tax and VAT.

Again, I point out that the reason why I don't really comment on Super Rugby or the Tri Nations is because I can't actually get to a television to watch it. I feel that allot of the detractors of NH Club Rugby base their opinions probably upon watching the HEC Final or on how many fights happen between two big South-o-France clubs and go from there.

In short, most of what you're saying doesn't really belong in this thread. Actually, most of what you're saying doesn't really belong anywhere because it doesn't make any sense.

Now, to get back to the topic at hand, paying the iRB £100 million up front doesn't make any financial sense as it would provide a huge financial burden on the organisers before they've even started to plan for the tournament. As Mite mentioned, the most financially powerful union barely makes £80 mil a year and is hamstrung with trying to pay off the money its spent on the South Stand extension as well as having to meet its new elite squad commitments.

 

[BLR]

The guy's a muppet, it's mainly because of him and his stupidity that France had to play its 1/4 Final in CARDIFF during the Rugby WC in FRANCE... how dumb is that!?![/b]

Well that's what happens when France whores out thier world cup matches to get votes, it's thier fault.

Now how is this a ARU conspiracy Prestwick? I think you mistyped or something. The ARU has next to none power in the rugby world, how are they influencing the IRB again?

Just on a sidenote to this 'boring' English rugby. Stats.

England 6 Nations Try Count
2001 - 28
2002 - 23
2003 - 18
2004 - 17
2005 - 16
2006 - 12
2007 - 10
2008 - 8

And tries are the centrepiece of a rugby match, now let's be done with it and get back to the topic.

 

[Prestwick]

You idiot, we were on topic when you decided to go do some petty points scoring! Oh lah-di-dah, so we didn't score that many tries this Six Nations but guess what? we were talking about Club Rugby, you dolt!

You've completely misread what I said, I was musing that this possibly might be an attempt by the ARU to claw back some credibility and cast themselves in a good light in the eyes of the minnow nations, the same nations they're trying to woo in their drive to expand Super Rugby. I didn't say anything about them trying to influence the iRB.

Now, can we get back on topic, if anyone wants to discuss anything that isn't about the iRB charging host nations £100 million then start a new topic please.

 

[sanzar]

Yeah, about that. Does anyone have any insight/heard any inside news of what kind of reasoning for charging such an obsurd amount for hosting the tournament could be? Is it down to a fear that they think Japan might take the tournament away from Europe one year, thus potentially losing them revenue? Because that's all I can honestly come up with... the only possible reason to demand such an amount purely for the right to host the tournament is to ensure that it is hosted in Europe more often, as that's where the money is for rugby.
I can really see no other reason, but if you do, please enlighten me, as this is possibly the most excluding action taken by the IRB (a body who is supposedly responsible for the growth of the game as well as its administration) that I can think of since the game went professional. Extremely stupid stuff.

 

[redunderthebed]

This is just f***ing retarded... I have no idea how the IRB could possibly think this will do anything but damage the sport.
[/b]

Quite right..........but rugby union out of all the codes is almost the best at shooting itself in the foot.Holding out on *any* professionalism for 100+ years (f**k they were so stubborn that rugby league had to be created) and then once it has happened not fully embracing it and then dragging there feet on any changes.Then you have people complaining that the great unwashed attend matches and don't clap politely and i could go on and on and on.

Other codes have realised long ago that amateurism on any other level than your local competition on the weekend is unworkable and that change is necessary and you must fully embrace professionalism if you are going to be serious about advancing your code.

So yes this bulls**t with the IRB is just the tip of the iceberg.

 

[Bullitt]

The NON-BRITISH rugby world is bored with British Rugby. Games that are won over aerial bombardments just aren't appealing to the greater world anymore. A World Cup played in these countries will surely only promote the style of rugby that they are playing, while the rest of the world is having plenty of fun with the new ELVs? It's all well and good for GP crowds to rock up in massive numbers but after all they're only pumping money that they've recieved from the country back into the country. Especially with the current exchange rates, and the GBP refusing to be amalgamated into a Euro, I feel it is a disaster waiting to happen. A case in point is the Olympics that London will be hosting. I'll go out on a limb now and say that I reckon the way it is going, there WILL be record crowds at the World Cup and Olympics if London/England host them, but for the lowest amount of spectators.
There's no way it will make a loss, but that's not a good thing. it will fuel the IRB more and this sort of thing will happen for the next 30-odd years. [/b]

Oh goody, with nothing to really add any further he's moved onto a bit of Pom-bashing. Feeling better now?

It's also clear he's never watched a Premiership game in his life if all he can talk about is "aerial bombardments". We don't all play like Wilkinson or O'Choka, Sonny.

<div class='quotemain'> This is just f***ing retarded... I have no idea how the IRB could possibly think this will do anything but damage the sport.
[/b]

Quite right..........but rugby union out of all the codes is almost the best at shooting itself in the foot.Holding out on *any* professionalism for 100+ years (f**k they were so stubborn that rugby league had to be created) and then once it has happened not fully embracing it and then dragging there feet on any changes.Then you have people complaining that the great unwashed attend matches and don't clap politely and i could go on and on and on.

Other codes have realised long ago that amateurism on any other level than your local competition on the weekend is unworkable and that change is necessary and you must fully embrace professionalism if you are going to be serious about advancing your code.

So yes this bulls**t with the IRB is just the tip of the iceberg.
[/b][/quote]

Nicely put.

 

[Prestwick]

<div class='quotemain'> This is just f***ing retarded... I have no idea how the IRB could possibly think this will do anything but damage the sport.
[/b]

Quite right..........but rugby union out of all the codes is almost the best at shooting itself in the foot.Holding out on *any* professionalism for 100+ years (f**k they were so stubborn that rugby league had to be created) and then once it has happened not fully embracing it and then dragging there feet on any changes.Then you have people complaining that the great unwashed attend matches and don't clap politely and i could go on and on and on.

Other codes have realised long ago that amateurism on any other level than your local competition on the weekend is unworkable and that change is necessary and you must fully embrace professionalism if you are going to be serious about advancing your code.

So yes this bulls**t with the IRB is just the tip of the iceberg.
[/b][/quote]



And this iceberg is huge. The mismanagement of the game by the iRB may not border that of the completely immoral, cynical and hapless nature of the ICC, but it is still shocking. Good or bad (I'm saying neither until the 6th of September), the ELVs and how they've been promoted have been handled in the most atrocious way by the iRB.



And then you have the total lack of respect that the iRB have for the non top ten nations in their attempt to pander to the most powerful and richest rugby nations on earth. The game may have gone professional twelve years ago but the game is still run by old farts in blazers in a myriad of outposts from Edinburgh all the way to Wellington. No top ten nation escapes censure in the damming reality of administration by what is a self-interested international old boys club. The blazers may be of a different colour and the men may come from England, Wales, France, South Africa or New Zealand but their aims are avowedly the same: to wring as much money out of the 'product' and keep the gravy train going. And to be honest, this is just another sign that:



1) They don't want to share the pie.

2) They are scared of new entrants and private enterprise.

3) They'd rather burn in hell before they let the old order be dismantled completely.

 

[DonBilly]

What other revenues the IRB has than the RWC fees it charges?

 

[Haysie]

Oh goody, with nothing to really add any further he's moved onto a bit of Pom-bashing. Feeling better now?

It's also clear he's never watched a Premiership game in his life if all he can talk about is "aerial bombardments". We don't all play like Wilkinson or O'Choka, Sonny.
[/b]

Mate trust me that's not pom-bashing I'm quarter-English myself and quarter-Irish, but I was just saying what I reckon will happen.
I watch almost ALL the premiership games that are aired here in OZ, it's a shame there aren't more.

 

[Will]

As with New Zealand getting the 2011 world cup over Japan, this is just another example of the short-sightedness of the IRB. An organisation which clearly does not have the best interests of the sport of rugby union at it's heart, but instead the own personal and selfish interests of the main bodies which make up the IRB.


FIFA gets a hard time from many quarters, and often rightfully so, but at least they have made the effort to expand the game of football and try and make it truely global. In 94 the USA got the world cup, which of course now has a full professional league up and running and a nation team in the world's top 20. South Korea and Japan got the world cup in 2002 and it was a huge success, with fanatical fans and a superb infrastucture to carry the game forward. And in 2010 the world cup will be making its way to South Africa.

What does the IRB do? Instead of giving the 2011 world cup to Japan, a country with such potential for rugby to develop and grow and a huge fanbase to develop, already with a superb infrastructre and stadia, the competition goes to New Zealand. For what good reason exactly other than it suited the New Zealand rugby board??? And now with these apparant new rules in place it seems that the world cup might just go on a merry-go-round of 3 or 4 nations on each occasion as they would be the only ones able to afford such ridiculous fees.

It's appauling how these old boys in blazers have such power with which to hold rugby union back for generations.

 

[Gavin]

Do the IRB give money to the nations which host the World Cup? If they don't already, prehaps they should, it could help push rugby to the smaller nations. How about 2011 New Zealand, 2015 Japan or Italy, 2019 Japan or Italy, 2023 Fiji/Samoa/Tonga Now that sounds like it would be spreading the gospel of rugby.

 

[Fitzblado]

makes no difference what they charge,world cup is only viable in a few places and theres money to be made by bums on seats.