• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

RWC 2027 - Expanded to 24 teams

bapean

Academy Player
Joined
Jul 1, 2011
Messages
16
Country Flag

France

Club or Nation

Brive

Hello guys,

I don't know if there is a specific topic already created (sorry if it is the case).

World Rugby indicated that the RWC 2027 will feature 24 Teams, with a round of 16 added.


Cheers
 
Hello guys,

I don't know if there is a specific topic already created (sorry if it is the case).

World Rugby indicated that the RWC 2027 will feature 24 Teams, with a round of 16 added.


Cheers

Strange to do this before the pieces are in place to improve Tier2 standards more and reduce the number of blowouts. I would prefer 16 or 24 to 20 though just in terms of format. Although with a 6 week tournament there will be no round of 16, so it may be conentious picking 2 runners up plus 6 group winners for the QFs.

I hope the 4x new places go into an expanded repechage rather than being allocated to continents. Brazil, Netherlands, Kenya, South Korea etc all deserve an equal chance to be the 24th side depending on on-field performance rather than on their geographic location.
 
I'm blind, there is a round of 16. I don't mind only losing 8 teams in the pool stage (one third of the teams) if the pool stage is only 3 weeks long.
 
Hello guys,

I don't know if there is a specific topic already created (sorry if it is the case).

World Rugby indicated that the RWC 2027 will feature 24 Teams, with a round of 16 added.


Cheers

With the expansion maybe now my USA Eagles will make the cut. :D Oh well, Canada (our rival) didn't make this year's RWC either.
 
This is a terrible idea. Only going add more pointless games and still no competitions to get the tier 2-3 teams in each year for them to grow.

I really feel like rugby is killing itself but by bit for greed.

I'm not sure I agree. The group stage format means that 4 more tier 2/3 teams will get the experience of a World Cup than before with 3 games they wouldn't have experienced, with a probability of only one being a thrashing (from that top team in the group). 4 tier 2 teams lose out on a group stage game, but now have a greater opportunity to win a game at a World Cup, with the possibility of making knock outs.

Realistically all tier 1s maintain the same number of games, as they should all get through the last 16. Two potentially easy wins, one more competitive group game and then one important last 16 game (important because if you lose you're out).

Overall I think it's a positive impact on developing the game.
 
So far qualified are 6N, SAANZAR, Japan and Fiji. Half of the teams on board. Taken the current qualification mode as a role model for 2027 we might end up with 2 more continental qualifiers (most probably Europe and Americas) and 2more from playoffs, giving the possibility of two places for Asia / Pacific playoff and two from the qualification tournament. Mixing this up into six pools equally we might end up (world rankings from now) like this:

Pool A: Australia, Argentina, Portugal (Europe 1), Namibia (Africa 1)
Pool B: New Zealand, Scotland, Georgia (Europe 2), USA / Canada (Americas 3)
Pool C: South Africa, Wales, Samoa (Oceania 1), Romania (Europe 3)
Pool D: France, Fiji, Tonga (Asia Pacific 1), Spain / Zimbabwe / Canada / South Korea (qualification 1)
Pool E: England, Italy, Uruguay (Americas 1), Hong Kong (Asia Pacific 2)
Pool F: Ireland, Japan, Chile (Americas 2), Spain / Zimbabwe / Canada / South Korea (qualification 2)

Could be a nice tournament potentially, still Tier 2 needs some practice to make an impact in such groups (like against Fiji, Japan or Italy for example).
 
I hope the 4x new places go into an expanded repechage rather than being allocated to continents. Brazil, Netherlands, Kenya, South Korea etc all deserve an equal chance to be the 24th side depending on on-field performance rather than on their geographic location.

I'm all for this btw. None of this region locking for these new spaces. Let the best teams who are actually putting effort into their development get the shot of playing.
 
https://www.smh.com.au/sport/rugby-...shes-with-nrl-afl-finals-20231025-p5eewv.html

Aussie media also reporting it'll kick off and finish a few weeks later than usual (1-Oct-27 to 13-Nov-27) to avoid clashing with the NRL/AFL finals, and that the draw will take place in Jan-26.

Draw timing is obviously an improvement, but still 18mths before kick-off.

I still haven't heard a rational reason as to why WR needs so much lead time when FIFA can do their draw for a much larger and complex event only 6mths out.

Are there fundamental differences in how each of the draws are carried out and what they each entail?
 
Are there fundamental differences in how each of the draws are carried out and what they each entail?

Saw on Rugby365 that they're claiming they want to provide fans time to buy their tickets and accommodation in advance (and they don't wanna impact sales). There is a minor argument that fans will want more time in advance to book their travel, but in reality it's rubbish - if fans want to go to the World Cup they'll make a plan for that window of time and then adjust as needed to relevant locations for the group games. Yes football has more support for the World Cup globally, but I think it's a weak argument. How much time did Portugal fans have in advance after their team qualified before the World Cup kicked off? That was less than 12 months.
 
brick wall
Saw on Rugby365 that they're claiming they want to provide fans time to buy their tickets and accommodation in advance (and they don't wanna impact sales). There is a minor argument that fans will want more time in advance to book their travel, but in reality it's rubbish - if fans want to go to the World Cup they'll make a plan for that window of time and then adjust as needed to relevant locations for the group games. Yes football has more support for the World Cup globally, but I think it's a weak argument. How much time did Portugal fans have in advance after their team qualified before the World Cup kicked off? That was less than 12 months.
Fark me dead. If that's the reason then yea agree, absolute ********. And makes even less sense for sole host events like '27 will be.
 
dont like it

my feeling, as ive said before so ignore if you read it before....RWC proper should be smaller no more than 12-16 teams...BUT...we actually put some importance on qualifying

yes, we will still get blow outs when England go to Portugal or NZ play Hong Kong....but they will sell out due to novelty and will sell out with fans from that actual area we're developing rather than neutrals that can afford to travel to the RWC or locals who have tickets to all the games at their local venue

RWC proper stay the absolute pinnacle of the sport, best of the best
Developing nations gets to play the big boys and raise interest in their own back yard
people make money selling out games
 
it's risky. There are 18 nations who can actually play a top tier rugby match in my opinion. It's a huge assumption that none of them not only don't regress but can keep up their growth over the next four years. That means WR is betting on 6 more nations taking a huge step up in that time frame. Argentina thinks Brazil can do it. I doubt Canada can. USA has only just recently started to turn things around but MLR is still a huge black box. Can Spain follow the rules for four years plus take a step up? Does Oceania have any sleeping giants? I don't see Namibia rising up but maybe other parts of Africa can exploit the nationality switch rule or just the heritage rule (cough Algeria cough). I know Hong Kong has been looking at an Asian super league but the rugby mad parts of the continent need investment and structure to take a step up.

I'd like to see it stay at 20 but continue to grow the professional or at least high performance game as wide as possible. We need to start looking 20 years down the line not 4. Get people watching competitive rugby 30 weeks a year instead of every 4. Same thing goes for players, referees, physics, etc.,
 
I still haven't heard a rational reason as to why WR needs so much lead time when FIFA can do their draw for a much larger and complex event only 6mths out.

Are there fundamental differences in how each of the draws are carried out and what they each entail?
It's been mentioned a few times.
The biggest thing to remember is that rugby isn't football. it is not all-conquering, and cannot just turn up and have its demands met on an instant.

Hotels and training/medical facilities for the team need to be booked 12+ months in advance.
If you want any travelling fans, they need to know where their team will be playing its matches, for match-tickets, flights, and accommodation, so again, 12+ months in advance.

If you want the draw to made closer to KO than 12 months (and that'll be pushing it) then you need to accept that either WR pay for all the hotel and training facilities for all nations, and accept that either the tier 1 nations will be mighty pissed off, or all the tier 2 nations will be mighty impressed with all the facilities (and mostly likely, both). AND you need to accept that you either don't have any travelling fans, or basically no country outside of Europe will ever host it again, and certainly no shared-hosting nations.

12-18 months in advance is the optimal time for the draw, if you want a successful RWC.
 
Plate/Shield competition for teams who finish 3-5? WR obviously didn't listen. I guess I am one of the few in favour.

No doubt this increase to 24 teams/6 pools will make the pool stage even less interesting with more teams able to qualify from them, but at least 1 fewer game. Like the Euros for Wendyball. Big difference being the increase in knockout games, which as we have seen is a whole different pressure to playing 6Ns and RCs.
 
I really hope they don't go with 6 pools of 4. There would be 2 teams that have zero pool games against any top 10 seed. (also 4 weak teams with zero competitive pool games against seed 17-24)

Far better to go Swiss model. 4 Pools, each with 2 groups - you play each team in the other group. Guaranteed one game vs 1-8, one game vs 9-16, one game vs 17-24.
Then after the R16 game you've played exactly the same 4 opponents as you might have under 4 pools of 5 - except maybe 21-24 instead of 17-20.
(Or if you are seeded 17-20, you lose 2 high-ranked opponents and gain 1 game where you are the favourite)

[TBH, that Swiss model but with only 18 teams would be even better]
 
Last edited:
Some of the more entertaining games this year have been between the "tier 2" nations, I feel having a Rugby world cup to aim for generally helps tier 2 teams in terms of funding and targets.

I like the idea of scrapping the 3/4th play off and having a plate comp.
 

Latest posts

Top