IRFU RWC 2023 Bid Officially Confirmed

[Mikel92]

People say all this about growing the game and I'm all for that. But handing a RWC to a country doesn't mean the game will grow.

That is simply not true. It DOES grow the game, for any sport, not just rugby.

 

[Peat]

That is simply not true. It DOES grow the game, for any sport, not just rugby.

The game grew in England, but the RFU weren't prepared for it and a lot of the gains were wasted. That pattern could be repeated elsewhere.

I also think there's a good argument that, while hosting a World Cup will cause a boost in popularity in a country, you can also get boosts from having a fantastic looking World Cup on the TV, and also boosts from giving funding to 2nd/3rd tier countries - and funding depends on profitable World Cups.

On top of that, I don't think the citadels of rugby are so strong that we can assume it will always remain that way, or that they cannot grow stronger. Rugby's probably at a historic high in Ireland at the moment, but that could easily turn out to be generational. Or it could reach a status near-equal with football and GAA. A successful World Cup there could probably help a lot there.

I don't want to see us forget about growing the game, or give every other World Cup to the British Isles (ok, lie, but I don't think that's fair), or all of that - I just think there's more than one way of skinning a cat.

If Argentina or Italy or where ever can walk in and lay down good proposals for hosting a fantastic World Cup then, yup, I think they would be fantastic ideas. Or anyone else. But that doesn't mean they will, it doesn't mean any such bids will be the best thing for the sport. That's a wait and see matter. Doesn't mean that WR would listen to great proposals though, I can see how people might be worried about an Irish bid killing off great opportunities.

But I don't think an Irish bid is a bad thing itself.

 

[munstermuffin]

The game grew in England, but the RFU weren't prepared for it and a lot of the gains were wasted. That pattern could be repeated elsewhere.

I also think there's a good argument that, while hosting a World Cup will cause a boost in popularity in a country, you can also get boosts from having a fantastic looking World Cup on the TV, and also boosts from giving funding to 2nd/3rd tier countries - and funding depends on profitable World Cups.

On top of that, I don't think the citadels of rugby are so strong that we can assume it will always remain that way, or that they cannot grow stronger. Rugby's probably at a historic high in Ireland at the moment, but that could easily turn out to be generational. Or it could reach a status near-equal with football and GAA. A successful World Cup there could probably help a lot there.

I don't want to see us forget about growing the game, or give every other World Cup to the British Isles (ok, lie, but I don't think that's fair), or all of that - I just think there's more than one way of skinning a cat.

If Argentina or Italy or where ever can walk in and lay down good proposals for hosting a fantastic World Cup then, yup, I think they would be fantastic ideas. Or anyone else. But that doesn't mean they will, it doesn't mean any such bids will be the best thing for the sport. That's a wait and see matter. Doesn't mean that WR would listen to great proposals though, I can see how people might be worried about an Irish bid killing off great opportunities.

But I don't think an Irish bid is a bad thing itself.

Agree with all this and the key is simply can Italy or Argentina host the RWC properly. As in it's ok saying x y and z but let's see what type of bid they put together and then decide. The RWC is about more than growing the game.

 

[Mikel92]

The game grew in England, but the RFU weren't prepared for it and a lot of the gains were wasted. That pattern could be repeated elsewhere.

I also think there's a good argument that, while hosting a World Cup will cause a boost in popularity in a country, you can also get boosts from having a fantastic looking World Cup on the TV, and also boosts from giving funding to 2nd/3rd tier countries - and funding depends on profitable World Cups.

On top of that, I don't think the citadels of rugby are so strong that we can assume it will always remain that way, or that they cannot grow stronger. Rugby's probably at a historic high in Ireland at the moment, but that could easily turn out to be generational. Or it could reach a status near-equal with football and GAA. A successful World Cup there could probably help a lot there.

I don't want to see us forget about growing the game, or give every other World Cup to the British Isles (ok, lie, but I don't think that's fair), or all of that - I just think there's more than one way of skinning a cat.

If Argentina or Italy or where ever can walk in and lay down good proposals for hosting a fantastic World Cup then, yup, I think they would be fantastic ideas. Or anyone else. But that doesn't mean they will, it doesn't mean any such bids will be the best thing for the sport. That's a wait and see matter. Doesn't mean that WR would listen to great proposals though, I can see how people might be worried about an Irish bid killing off great opportunities.

But I don't think an Irish bid is a bad thing itself.

I agree with these points raised. And I definitely wasn't trying to oversimplify it (although reading the post back, I probably did). While I stand by my points that long-term, if done properly, there are other markets to be opened right up - there are also other challenges of how to facilitate increased playing numbers. Are there teams for those people to go to, rugby academies, sufficient coaches and tools? And of course, there would need to be true civic involvement and promotion like nothing else. No use holding something huge to us if nobody else knows it's happening or can get excited about it.

Definitely broadcasting World Cup matches, regardless of location, will still attract interest and attention amongst viewers. But with Argentina and Italy locked into competitions already, how long are we going to just rest on that? Having come off a World Cup (where admittedly we don't have to compete so fiercely against other sports) I can say that the World Cup is such a community event nation wide if done right, hence the importance of hosting. Even in the States, getting to host Sevens tournaments has increased popularity. Even taking away the fact that it was New Zealand who are bonkers about rugby, if Italy and Argentina are anything like us Kiwis they will get behind ANY sport being hosted there. It won't be anywhere near the obsessiveness of New Zealanders, I'm not naïve about that, but it starts from somewhere.

Don't get me wrong in all this, I'd be in Ireland's corner if they can do it right and it will be a win for a smaller nation (even if help comes from bigger nations) which I like. There are plenty of advantages to Ireland hosting which I'm sure I'd agree with. But I'm just trying to say that sometimes you have to forego the more immediate benefits in the short term for the more exponential, yet challenging benefits in the long term. All eyes will be on Japan to see how they do anyway.

The good news is this is 2023...not tomorrow. Still quite a bit of time to peck away at people's interests with extended rugby tours, national team building, advertising, getting into communities and college teams, and the immersion of countries like Japan and Argentina into Super Rugby. Sometimes I get frustrated with the amount of matches and teams in one competition but I guess you also have to bite the bullet on that kind of thing if we want to see our game accelerate to new highs.

 

[snoopy snoopy dog dog]

I think the farce that was the Sevens which was played in front of one man and his dog will scare World Rugby. They took the tournament to a non-traditional nation and were let down badly. The images beamed around the world won't have helped them gain sponsors.

With that in mind, Japan being a non-traditional power hosting the tournament could carry a similar risk of low attendances. Do World Rugby want that image broadcast worldwide? There is a possibility that there will be low attendances at the 2019 World Cup. World Rugby wont want the same image sent around the world in 2023. As such, I believe Ireland and South Africa have the best chances of high attendances and are the safe bets for that tournament.

Should Japan 2019 prove a success then we''ll see World Rugby be braver with their decisions on hosting tournaments from 2027 on.

 

[Mikel92]

If the NZ Maori vs Japan game at Chichibunomiya Stadium this year was anything to go by, it will definitely be a success. Not sold out, but it was very encouraging for Japan. It was only really the smaller stands at the end of the stadium that were empty, most were full.

 

[munstermuffin]

If the NZ Maori vs Japan game at Chichibunomiya Stadium this year was anything to go by, it will definitely be a success. Definitely more than one man and his dog at that game.

But 2000 tickets were given out free for this game and it was a 1 off in a way that it's rare a New Zealand team come there (regardless of it being Maori).

When Wales played there recently it's said they lost money overall. Also people seem to be unaware that the tickets for RWC games go up as a certain level of funds has to be generated from gate receipts. This goes for Ireland too as well as any other bid. It's 1 thing getting interest in game up it's a totally different ball game trying to (a) get sponsors to throw money at it and (b) get spectators to pay the prices.
Here's an example
Ireland vs France 6 Nations ticket Cat 1 for Spring is â'¬95.00 (On in a 50k stadium)
For the same fixture in RWC it's £250 = â'¬318.00 (On in a 80k stadium)

Ireland vs Canada/Europe Qualifier 2 is the cheapest games and a Cat A ticket is £175.00 or â'¬222.00 (Both games in Wembley or Millenium Stadium so not exactly small stadiums)

Cat A isn't VIP or anything just a ticket in middle third of stadium down low. So well that should show difference in what funds are needed

 

[goodNumber10]

Also people seem to be unaware that the tickets for RWC games go up as a certain level of funds has to be generated from gate receipts. This goes for Ireland too as well as any other bid. It's 1 thing getting interest in game up it's a totally different ball game trying to (a) get sponsors to throw money at it and (b) get spectators to pay the prices.
Here's an example
Ireland vs France 6 Nations ticket Cat 1 for Spring is €95.00 (On in a 50k stadium)
For the same fixture in RWC it's £250 = €318.00 (On in a 80k stadium)

Ireland vs Canada/Europe Qualifier 2 is the cheapest games and a Cat A ticket is £175.00 or €222.00 (Both games in Wembley or Millenium Stadium so not exactly small stadiums)

Cat A isn't VIP or anything just a ticket in middle third of stadium down low. So well that should show difference in what funds are needed

Surely that is entirely reletive on how many people you can get into the stadium and how much renting the stadium costs and how much those costs factor in over all. Less people + higher rent = higher ticket prices. Y

Isn't that the exact issue in England, we've had to use Football stadium to meet the ticket sales criteria?

 

[munstermuffin]

Surely that is entirely reletive on how many people you can get into the stadium and how much renting the stadium costs and how much those costs factor in over all. Less people + higher rent = higher ticket prices. Y

Isn't that the exact issue in England, we've had to use Football stadium to meet the ticket sales criteria?

Wouldn't Argentina have to rent or build new stadiums, or Japan or Ireland etc for that matter.
No it matters on alot more than that. A country has to invest in training bases, infrastructure, hotels and many more areas of logistics and also remember the IRB (WR) are responsible for paying refs (many who aren't fully pro ie still hold regular jobs part-time etc) and having to pay for their travel, accomodation etc and the transport of TMO equipment etc.
In New Zealand tickets were higher prices so it really has nothing to do with getting x in to stadium. Can you really see 90K go watch Ireland vs Canada at them prices?

 

[goodNumber10]

80,000 at £150 = £45,000 at 266 (approx)

Bigger stadium = lower ticket prices (of course there are other costs involved but if a % of funds must come form gate receipts then bigger stadium = lower tickets). Comparing it to the RBs isn't the best of comparisons, better off comparing it to previous world cups.

 

[munstermuffin]

80,000 at £150 = £45,000 at 266 (approx)

Bigger stadium = lower ticket prices (of course there are other costs involved but if a % of funds must come form gate receipts then bigger stadium = lower tickets). Comparing it to the RBs isn't the best of comparisons, better off comparing it to previous world cups.

No because in comparison to 6 Nations it's massive.
In Ireland IRFU still have to pay for stewarding, policing etc like everyone else. If tickets can't be sold at these high prices in places like Argentina/Japan then what will that do for anyone?
My point was it's easy say Japan vs Maori's was success when tickets were given to some free and rest were at lower price but would they fill stadiums if tickets were at RWC rate?
And if it's bigger stadium/lower prices then why is it dearer for games in Twickenham as opposed to Wembley or Cardiff? See your logic is right but it's not one that's applied here. The reason the Irish games vs Canada & other team are cheaper is they're lower grade games. It has absolutely nothing to do with size of stadium. (and that is proven looking back along the World Cups). It's not just rugby it's most big sporting events the cost run alot deeper than people (me included) think and well sometimes the gambles of going to untested areas with no guarantees maybe too dangerous that even if it pays off the rewards aren't as good.

 

[goodNumber10]

No because in comparison to 6 Nations it's massive.
In Ireland IRFU still have to pay for stewarding, policing etc like everyone else. If tickets can't be sold at these high prices in places like Argentina/Japan then what will that do for anyone?
My point was it's easy say Japan vs Maori's was success when tickets were given to some free and rest were at lower price but would they fill stadiums if tickets were at RWC rate?
And if it's bigger stadium/lower prices then why is it dearer for games in Twickenham as opposed to Wembley or Cardiff? See your logic is right but it's not one that's applied here. The reason the Irish games vs Canada & other team are cheaper is they're lower grade games. It has absolutely nothing to do with size of stadium. (and that is proven looking back along the World Cups). It's not just rugby it's most big sporting events the cost run alot deeper than people (me included) think and well sometimes the gambles of going to untested areas with no guarantees maybe too dangerous that even if it pays off the rewards aren't as good.

I'm not disagreeing with you about extra costs or the NZ Maori point or arguing that Ireland isn't the better option (i think it's the best option).

All i'm saying is if you have more people through the tournament gates (not individual games) you can charge lower ticket prices overall for the tournament.

Certainly the England World Cup organisers have gone on record saying prices are high in certain games to keep costs down in lower games, and that they've gone to to bigger stadium to keep ticket costs down even more.

I think we may be talking at cross purposes mate.

 

[munstermuffin]

I'm not disagreeing with you about extra costs or the NZ Maori point or arguing that Ireland isn't the better option (i think it's the best option).

All i'm saying is if you have more people through the tournament gates (not individual games) you can charge lower ticket prices overall for the tournament.

Certainly the England World Cup organisers have gone on record saying prices are high in certain games to keep costs down in lower games, and that they've gone to to bigger stadium to keep ticket costs down even more.

I think we may be talking at cross purposes mate.

I agree but like all the big games will be sellouts. I made this point earlier there is 40 pool games I think it is, 4 QF, 2S, a final and 3rd place playoff. 48games. The unions have to pay WR a fee regardless of there being 1 fan or 1million fans. The only way we will have lower costs is if there's more money generated from more countries. That will only happen if more weaker countries become competitive. Like realistically we have a World Cup that is 80% predictable all the time. Like in soccer you sometimes get a complete shock but in rugby you never do only a Samoa beat Wales or something but Samoa/Fiji they are top 10/11 like you'd never get a Namibia beat someone big or a Japan etc.

 

[smartcooky]

Every second tournament? and Ireland isn't the UK.

Northern Ireland is!

Anyway, I think nick means to a member (or members) of the five nations "old boys club" every second tournament...

1987
1991 - England
1995
1999 - England/Scotland/Ireland/Wales/France
2003
2007 - France
2011
2015 - England
2019

I would like to see it go somewhere new. My preference in order being

Argentina
Italy
Ireland
South Africa

 

[munstermuffin]

Northern Ireland is!

Anyway, I think nick means to a member (or members) of the five nations "old boys club" every second tournament...

1987
1991 - England
1995
1999 - England/Scotland/Ireland/Wales/France
2003
2007 - France
2011
2015 - England
2019

I would like to see it go somewhere new. My preference in order being

Argentina
Italy
Ireland
South Africa

But wouldn't opposite be the Tri-Nations boys have gotten it every second tournament. NZ in 87 SA in 95 Aus in 03 NZ in 11

 

[TRF_Cymro]

Lots of cynics here

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

Lots of cynics here

You're just saying that to make yourself look better than us aren't you?!!!

 

[TRF_Cymro]

You're just saying that to make yourself look better than us aren't you?!!!

Hahaha ... noooooooo

 

[Big Ewis]

Northern Ireland is!

Anyway, I think nick means to a member (or members) of the five nations "old boys club" every second tournament...

1987
1991 - England
1995
1999 - England/Scotland/Ireland/Wales/France
2003
2007 - France
2011
2015 - England
2019

I would like to see it go somewhere new. My preference in order being

Argentina
Italy
Ireland
South Africa

:lol: there is no "Five Nations old boys club". There's most definitely, undoubtedly and irrefutably a Home Nations club, but there's no tie between France and the UK+Ireland. If you're talking about mere geography, then yes France is a bit closer to the UK than NZ is, but in all other terms there's no possible inclusion of France with those other countries (still talking Rugby-wise here). I agree the UK gets the bids often, but don't go including France in there just so it makes that list perfectly 1 out of 2 !

Italy prob won't get it, I dunno...and Argentina, well, things can change a ton from now til then, but they sure need to polish up. I don't know how World Rugby make their picks, but Argentina seems just too far, too foreign, not anglophone enough, too different...not feasible.
Italy at least is in Europe, so proximity counts a lot and ppl would show up (tons of Frenchmen, alone), plus it's some fkng country to visit. The aesthetics over there and the cultural heritage, ppl would get to visit all that, food's good, wine, nice fair-priced restaurants, the weather. Good things going for them there. But logistic/infrastructures wise, and the interest of the locals... :/ and plus I mean the Lochness monster, oh no sorry that's in Scotland.

 

[Mikel92]

Oh well, good luck to Ireland then. Even if 2000 free tickets were given out for the Maori game, the week prior they were about 10 thousand off capacity. Granted, considering what capacity actually is that isn't heaps. But it's not vastly disappointing either. Maybe Ireland would be a good choice, and Japan can be the test-dummy. If Japan goes well, then after Ireland the WR can start tapping into new markets. Should Japan fail, more development and funding needed I guess. But as people have said, it all depends on the quality of bids.