In just under 18 months The Rugby World Cup will be kicking off in England, and it’s an event I am looking forward to. However, despite my personal excitement for the tournament and taking my own selfish reasons out of the equation, the tournament should not be hosted by England in the first place. I will go one step further and say that the 2011 World Cup should not have been hosted by New Zealand, either.
These are big claims regarding two of the most famous teams in international rugby. The legendary All-Blacks are regarded as one of the best at any given time in world rugby. The same rings true of England, the birthplace of the sport and one of the most successful teams in Rugby World Cup history (3 final appearances winning the 2003 tournament). So why would you not want them hosting the World Cup?
The simple reason is development. Only once in World Cup history has a team outside the current top 11 world ranked teams reached the quarter final stage (Canada in 1991), so only once in six tournaments has someone breached the established elite. In the same time period (the six tournaments from 1986-2010), the FIFA football World Cup has featured 28 different quarter finalists. Now Football is far more popular across the globe, but surely that is the problem and something the IRB should be working towards.
When the bidding for the 2011 World Cup came down to New Zealand and Japan the IRB had an opportunity to expand rugby to a new territory. Japan has qualified for World Cups before but are still a minnow in world rugby, which is all the more reason for the IRB to boost rugby in a huge way. That opportunity could not happen in New Zealand as Rugby is already the national sport. It has taken a further 8 years but Japan has been awarded the World Cup in 2019 and has the potential to be very successful.
The IRB have been somewhat more successful in expanding the game through the annual sevens tour, where Dubai, USA, and Japan all host tournaments. The development of teams is also progressing with Canada, Kenya and Portugal, all Core teams, and Canada making the Cup final of the Scotland tournament before succumbing to New Zealand. In fact, Canada finished 6th in the overall standings this year ahead of traditional rugby nations such as France and Wales, with Kenya finishing 5th in 2012/13 ahead of England and Australia.
So does the fact that the World Cup has never been outside the core nations of the original 5 nations and Tri Nation teams, been detrimental to the development of world rugby?
A good case to examine is Italy, a country where football is truly king. The Italian RFU have done a good job in developing the team into a competitive side since joining what then became the Six Nations. They have started to win more games, finishing 4th with victories over France and Ireland making a pleasant change from fighting Scotland for the wooden spoon as had been the norm. However, would it not have been more prudent of the IRB to have awarded them the 2015 World Cup instead of England to create a buzz around Italian rugby and maybe allow them to kick on as a rugby nation? Despite qualifying for all 6 previous tournaments, Italy has never reached the quarter final stage.
The reason that the IRB give the hosting rights to the “Old Boy Network” is simple: Money. They know what the following of the sport is in these countries and want the guaranteed income they know they can achieve. They instead are avoiding taking a risk by expanding into new markets and developing new fans and new players, which would eventually add freshness to the tournament as these teams developed enough to challenge the traditional powers much as they have on the sevens tour.
Looking to the future beyond England 2015, Japan has already been awarded the 2019 World Cup and I believe they will be great hosts and it will serve as a boost to Japanese Rugby. 2023 on the other hand has yet to be awarded and a number of countries have already announced intentions to bid to become hosts. Previous hosts Australia, South Africa and France in addition to Ireland, who have hosted 12 games as part of the 1991 and 1995 World Cups, have announced intentions to bid for the tournament. However, Argentina, USA (possibly co-hosting with Canada) and Italy have all announced bids to become first time hosts.
If the IRB truly want to grow the sport and make it a global game giving the hosting rights to a new country would be the logical choice. Italy has merits which I have already stated, however I think one of the America’s nations should host. This would be the first time this part of the world had hosted a Rugby World Cup and, with Argentina joining the Tri Nations tournament, it shows a very developing part as well. The USA/Canada bid is also intriguing and the USA has shown that they can host the football World Cup very successfully, so it would be no problem for them to host the smaller tournament that Rugby puts on.
In closing, with Japan 2019, the IRB has made a statement that they want to expand the sport globally. This success will not come overnight and needs to take time to develop. The IRB need to be committed to this cause and not run back to the safe haven of the traditional nations if they do not get immediate returns from taking the tournament further afield.
For the latest sports injury news, check out our friends at Sports Injury Alert.
Thank you for reading. Please take a moment to follow my Twitter account – @CostOfWinning. Support LWOS by following us on Twitter –@LastWordOnSport – and “liking” our Facebook page.
