D-Day looms for RWC 2023 bidders
-
1st round: France 18, Ireland 8, South Africa 13 2nd round: France 24, South Africa 15 -
France suits me...but that is a savage blow for SA...not saying they deserved the RWC, because they probably didn't...but still.
Ireland would have been fun.
-
Congrats to France. Their diplomacy skills are still to the fore.
NZ, Aus, SA and the Pacific Islands should now stand braced for an influx of their players returning home as France restores their game to domestic players and turf all the foreigners out.
Well that’s what they said they would do.....
-
From the London Times:
France won the right to host the World Cup in 2023 today because they were the country with the biggest cheque book. France promised to share riches with the game’s leading nations that Ireland and South Africa simply could not match.
World Rugby was left humiliated here because it had fully endorsed South Africa as the best bid. Even when questioned over certain elements in its technical report, which graded South Africa top, followed by France and then Ireland, World Rugby insisted that South Africa had the best bid.
Nevertheless, at lunchtime today, the game was treated to the spectacle of Bernard Laporte, who led the French bid, being publicly congratulated by Bill Beaumont, the World Rugby chairman, whose technical review Laporte had publicly slated as “nonsense”, with “errors” and “incompetence”.
Ireland and South Africa were both distraught at their fate. However, today was a day when it was the money that spoke. The surplus the French had guaranteed World Rugby was £350 million. Compare that to the £162 million that England handed over after the 2015 World Cup, or the £270 million that Ireland and South Africa were offering for 2023 and the reasons behind this decision become clear.
The surplus is distributed between the nations, 55 per cent of it going to the 10 tier-one nations. Ireland were disappointed that Scotland didn’t stick with them in the voting room today, but Scotland were honest: they were following the money. They will be around £4 million better off now that France won the vote.
The vote required two rounds to go all the way through. Of the 39 votes, France won 18 in the first round, South Africa 13 and Ireland eight. Ireland were therefore knocked out of the race and in the second round, France won 24 votes to South Africa’s 15.
Money told so much in this game that even the two continental votes of the African confederation went against South Africa and towards France. It may have helped that Abdelaziz Bougia, who cast those African votes, lives in Paris.
The discord and disappointment from France’s rivals quickly erupted. As Brian O’Driscoll, an ambassador for the Ireland bid, said, the romance of taking the game to new territories does not look healthy.
He said: “You have got to spread the load and develop the game and you have got to look beyond the nations that have already hosted it.Jurie Roux, the chief executive of SA Rugby, gave a withering assessment of the last two weeks’ lobbying. He said: “World Rugby ran an exhaustive and transparent process for 15 months to identify the best host nation, only for the process to go entirely opaque for the past two weeks.”
Mark Alexander, the chair of the SA bid, said: “There were a set of rules, we abided by those rules up until today. The set of rules were broken during that process which we are upset about.”
The straight forward truth that we learned about rugby today was that money rules the game. If you want your World Cup to be a huge money-maker, then vote France, and that is what the delegates of the World Rugby council did.
If you want the bid that was decided to be the best technical bid, then vote South Africa - and not enough people did.
If you want the romance of taking the game to a new host nation, then vote Ireland – and not even Ireland’s Celtic cousins would do that. Wales voted for South Africa and Scotland followed the money and went straight to France.
World Rugby could have brought the World Cup to Ireland for a romantic story - instead they went for the money
This is a decision that is humiliating for the leadership of World Rugby – whose directive was to take the World Cup to South Africa. The decision, however, says more about the future of the game. The romance of taking the World Cup around the world? No thanks. We want the dollar.
Expand the game in new territories? Not this time. Rugby World Cup is going to Japan in 2019 and it may never go to another such an outpost again – not under these voting conditions.
Nations such as Ireland, New Zealand, Italy, Argentina – they may now well wonder if they will ever get their opportunity. Ireland suggested after the vote today that maybe they shouldn’t have bid, and maybe they won’t bid again – not if it is big and profitable that is the prime factor dictates where the game is played.
Rugby today voted with its pockets. Not for the greater good of the future of the sport.
-
I'm shocked. Backroom handshakes and pockets being lined. Congrats to France. Bitter disappointment for Ireland. But looks like Saffers got the shaft.
-
-
@gunner said in D-Day looms for RWC 2023 bidders:
Disappointing.
Lock the future WC rotation in now. France, Australia, England, France, Australia, England.....
It's looking like that isn't it? It would be the death of the RWC if this happens.
I have to say that I found the World Rugby report findings that RSA were the better option somewhat dubious but the whole money thing just stinks.
-
I haven't looked at details of France's bid, but when they hosted in 2007 they made deals with SCO and WAL who hosted matches and that seemed a bit of a farce. Here's hoping all 2023 matches are played exclusively in the host nation.
-
@salacious-crumb nice try. There wasn't a RWC in 07.
-
-
@bovidae said in D-Day looms for RWC 2023 bidders:
Have the details of the final vote been released? NZ voted for SA so didn't follow the money.
I would have seriously thought about going to Ireland or SA for a RWC, but France (again) - nah.
I have no doubts the French will pull together a magnificent tournament -- provided all the matches are played within the confines of their borders (we don't yet know what horse-trading and promises were made written on the back on napkins, so we'll have to wait and see...)
The problem itself is the process. Secret ballots do not and never have been understood as "transparency," despite the bollocks WR is telling us.
-
I understand that all RWCs have to be one-country tournaments now.
I'm sure the info will come out as each country justifies their vote.
-
@pot-hale said in D-Day looms for RWC 2023 bidders:
Jurie Roux, the chief executive of SA Rugby, gave a withering assessment of the last two weeks’ lobbying. He said: “World Rugby ran an exhaustive and transparent process for 15 months to identify the best host nation, only for the process to go entirely opaque for the past two weeks.”
The process was incredibly clear the whole way through. The purposes of the report was to assess the viability of each bid and to recommend the one the review panel felt was the best. The IOC does this also. It doesn't prevent unions from weighing certain criteria differently than what the panel did.
I have no problems with any Union that disregarded a report that suggests SA is a safer venue than Ireland, or has equal transport infrastructure to France. Likewise I don't have any problem with a union who refuses to vote for SA on the basis of the quota system or having no desire to deal with the incompetent embarrassment that is SARU any more than neccessary.
It's a bit of a red herring anyway because had Ireland won, 90% of people complaining would have no problems. The article from the Times posted talks out both sides of it's mouth in that regard - claiming bribery for French votes but bemoaning they didn't have the spine to go with Ireland (which was not the preference).
Money does talk, personally think Ireland would have been the best choice - but I'm not a cash strapped tier 2 union.
If WR voted for a host where the report found large holes in their plan and gave them a failing grade (Qataresque) - then I completely understand the outrage. But these were three competent hosts and the Euros won out in the end. Fair enough.
-
@salacious-crumb said in D-Day looms for RWC 2023 bidders:
The problem itself is the process. Secret ballots do not and never have been understood as "transparency," despite the bollocks WR is telling us.
Most of the votes are publicly known, the Times article lists many of the votes and the supposed rationale behind them. This article lists the likely tally.
-
On some of the points raised above.
The bidding process specified that matches must be played in the bidding union territory. So no sharing out after that fact or horse deals on that one.
The French bid had money for individual unions on offer. Substantial money for Tier One unions who had the 3 votes.
Browne of the IRFU is ‘disappointed with our neighbours’. Like John Pullin before, the English turned up again. But their Celtic cousins and PRO14 partners lost their way.
The SRU followed the money to France and WRU’s Davies said he was honor bound to follow the recommendation because he was on Rugby World Cup board. Those 6 votes changed the picture completely from a likely France 15, Ireland 14 and SA 10 to Ireland being also-rans and out.
The often-quoted myth of home union harmony and voting en bloc in WR is well and truly dead. The IRFU’s other PRO14 partner, Italy, also turned away giving their vote to SA, despite owing the IRFU a good chunk of money from non-payment of their PRO14 participation fees over the last few years.
Should make for a few interesting meetings and pained silences in Celtic Rugby over the next few months.
-
@pot-hale Irish Times article had Italy voting for France.
(... maybe to get the money to Ireland ... ?)
-
