• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

IRFU RWC 2023 Bid Officially Confirmed

If it were in SA, would the final be at Loftus Versfeld, Ellis Park or FNB? On the 21st of August 2010 94,713 spectators watched the Boks play the All Blacks at the FNB stadium (is that a record for a rugby match or have more people attended a match at one of Australia's epic grounds?)
 
Last edited:
Sounds like it could be. The All Blacks have sometimes played in front of 78-79,000 people at Sydney and Melbourne. And 81,000 at Twickenham. I was kinda thinking that was as good as it got, no idea if anything beats your figure.
 
Bledisloe 2000 109,000 attended the game at Olympic stadium before they got rid of the extra seats
 
My preferences;

2015 England and
2019 Japan set already
2023 South Africa if we are in a relatively similar position to where we are now
- we have massive stadiums in great condition, we have some of the best cameramen, we have the fans, we have the weather and fields for an entertaining tournament; a team relying on defense alone on the highveld will fall off the pace at the end, we have great tourist destinations, we represent an entire continent, favorable time zone in relation to existing markets, we have the experience of hosting 1995 and FIFA 2010..
- the only drawbacks (potential mind you); our political situation could go either way from this point, the Rand is losing ground every day, who knows what a ticket bought in Rands will be worth in 2013, might be we have to sell them for R2000, might be we'd have to sell them for R99000000000 if the EFF keep growing as they are. But I don't want to go chasing baboons, for all we know SA is the world leader in global ethics and an economic powerhouse in 2023. We do have the potential to be.
- it would make sense in that it fits into the seemingly organized rhythm of NH and SH alternating and SA is the only 'traditional power' not too have had a 2nd taste.
- this is my preferences and I'm obviously going to have bias :p
2017 Italy
2021 Argentina
2025 Ireland
All three of these also make sense and TBH I wouldn't care overly much if any of them beat out SA for an earlier slot. My feeling is just that SA are in the best position to host the most successful tournament both financially and experiencially as rugby is fast becoming a game followed by every part of our society whereas 1995 it was stil very much a 'whites only' sport.
2029 Canda/USA
2033 China
Assuming a massive growth in Rugby's popularity making it a truly global game and a break of the SH/NH rhythm as the world really is top (NH) heavy in every sense and it's only an oddidity in Rugby that there are so many SH countries who are 'big' in the specific sport.
 
Last edited:
munstermuffin said:
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
Click to expand...

Right. I'm not sure if you're aware - but Australia, New Zealand and South Africa are all separated by a large body of water called the Indian Ocean and Tasman Sea. The ability to go and watch a game doesn't depend so much on a train ride or â'¬50 flight... The point that the UK (and I did in fact mean the United Kingdom) has hosted matches in every second RWC - where there has been plenty of opportunity to see a Rugby World Cup match - has got to come to an end. It is an old boys club where every union votes for their own interests, so they just share RWC matches knowing they have a monopoly on the vote.
 
TRF_nickdnz said:
Right. I'm not sure if you're aware - but Australia, New Zealand and South Africa are all separated by a large body of water called the Indian Ocean and Tasman Sea. The ability to go and watch a game doesn't depend so much on a train ride or €50 flight... The point that the UK (and I did in fact mean the United Kingdom) has hosted matches in every second RWC - where there has been plenty of opportunity to see a Rugby World Cup match - has got to come to an end. It is an old boys club where every union votes for their own interests, so they just share RWC matches knowing they have a monopoly on the vote.
Click to expand...
And there is water seperating Ireland (which is an island) from UK and France. What's your point? They're still all SANZAR yes. If people are petty and say this bid is UK then that's wrong. Rugby in Ireland comes above politics. Theres no north or south just Ireland. Belfast is a lovely city that doesn't get to host many major events and deserves to get a share. As does Ireland as a whole. And I think I'd have to disagree with your views as in the earlier days up to 2003 RWC the game wasn't grown enough. But guess i's like North vs South as the OLD BOYS Club down under do same and do the extra payments to likes of Fiji Samoa and etc although that could be for players too.
And obviously your unaware but for people to travel to the UK from Ireland can be costly so again I don't know where your €50 deal goes from.

Again this deal has nothing to do with England, Scotland, Wales or France.
Ireland are bidding and the 2 semi finals and Final are ear marked for Croker. Belfast, Limerick, Aviva and Croker ear marked for QF's.

- - - Updated - - -

TRF_stormer2010 said:
My preferences;

2015 England and
2019 Japan set already
2023 South Africa if we are in a relatively similar position to where we are now
- we have massive stadiums in great condition, we have some of the best cameramen, we have the fans, we have the weather and fields for an entertaining tournament; a team relying on defense alone on the highveld will fall off the pace at the end, we have great tourist destinations, we represent an entire continent, favorable time zone in relation to existing markets, we have the experience of hosting 1995 and FIFA 2010..
- the only drawbacks (potential mind you); our political situation could go either way from this point, the Rand is losing ground every day, who knows what a ticket bought in Rands will be worth in 2013, might be we have to sell them for R2000, might be we'd have to sell them for R99000000000 if the EFF keep growing as they are. But I don't want to go chasing baboons, for all we know SA is the world leader in global ethics and an economic powerhouse in 2023. We do have the potential to be.
- it would make sense in that it fits into the seemingly organized rhythm of NH and SH alternating and SA is the only 'traditional power' not too have had a 2nd taste.
- this is my preferences and I'm obviously going to have bias :p
2017 Italy
2021 Argentina
2025 Ireland
All three of these also make sense and TBH I wouldn't care overly much if any of them beat out SA for an earlier slot. My feeling is just that SA are in the best position to host the most successful tournament both financially and experiencially as rugby is fast becoming a game followed by every part of our society whereas 1995 it was stil very much a 'whites only' sport.
2029 Canda/USA
2033 China
Assuming a massive growth in Rugby's popularity making it a truly global game and a break of the SH/NH rhythm as the world really is top (NH) heavy in every sense and it's only an oddidity in Rugby that there are so many SH countries who are 'big' in the specific sport.
Click to expand...
Can I ask why SA should host it TWICE before Ireland even get it once if they're capable?
People mention the Italy's or Argentina's but do they have what it takes to host it? Let's first see their bid and what they put together.
 
TRF_nickdnz said:
Right. I'm not sure if you're aware - but Australia, New Zealand and South Africa are all separated by a large body of water called the Indian Ocean and Tasman Sea. The ability to go and watch a game doesn't depend so much on a train ride or €50 flight... The point that the UK (and I did in fact mean the United Kingdom) has hosted matches in every second RWC - where there has been plenty of opportunity to see a Rugby World Cup match - has got to come to an end. It is an old boys club where every union votes for their own interests, so they just share RWC matches knowing they have a monopoly on the vote.
Click to expand...
The flip side of that is the fact that the "old boys club's" tournaments will never fail economically and it is a money game after all. Rugby isn't going to make a profit all over the world, they struggled in NZ and there's nowhere in the world where rugby is bigger. The RWC requires travelling support and at the moment it's only going to get sufficient travelling support if it's hosted in the UK, Ireland or France. For that reason it has to be Ireland or South Africa for me and they can experiment in 2027 or 2031 if they wish, I reckon the pattern for RWCs will become 5 nations country - SANZAR - experiment rinse,wash and repeat. Rugby can't risk losing money to go to South America where one team in the entire continent actually plays the sport, no sport could and Italy's World Cup could very easily become the South of France's World Cup.
 
munstermuffin said:
And there is water seperating Ireland (which is an island) from UK and France. What's your point? They're still all SANZAR yes. If people are petty and say this bid is UK then that's wrong. Rugby in Ireland comes above politics. Theres no north or south just Ireland. Belfast is a lovely city that doesn't get to host many major events and deserves to get a share. As does Ireland as a whole. And I think I'd have to disagree with your views as in the earlier days up to 2003 RWC the game wasn't grown enough. But guess i's like North vs South as the OLD BOYS Club down under do same and do the extra payments to likes of Fiji Samoa and etc although that could be for players too.
And obviously your unaware but for people to travel to the UK from Ireland can be costly so again I don't know where your €50 deal goes from.

Again this deal has nothing to do with England, Scotland, Wales or France.
Ireland are bidding and the 2 semi finals and Final are ear marked for Croker. Belfast, Limerick, Aviva and Croker ear marked for QF's.
Click to expand...

I can fly Dublin to London for $51(NZD) - based on a very quick search. I may be able to get a better deal, I don't know. That's a 1 hour 20 minute flight.

Make you a deal. You pay for me to go to South Africa and I'll pay for you to get to anywhere in the UK. Saying 'it's still SANZAR' is ridiculous. How does a South African benefit from New Zealand or Australia hosting a rugby world cup (if anything the timezone actually is better for them in Europe..). Even one in Australia is still comparatively far more expensive for a New Zealander. You also don't seem to appreciate that there is still a massive difference between the price of getting from Apia/Suva to Auckland than Dublin to London). In fact the whole Fiji, Samoa point was practically jibberish.

Obviously you don't have any idea how the World Rugby weights its votes (the eight founding members have two votes each - so 10 of the votes go to the five nations teams out of a possible 28. Then the Chairman and vice-Chairman also get a vote. Italy, Japan, Argentina and Canada get one vote each - while regional bodies that represent Asia, Pacific Islands, South America, North America and Europe get 1 vote. The weighting of this means that the 5 Nations unions (who each have two votes) have been happy to rule in favor of each others bids - because they can share matches and in many cases the economical benefits. Once again - harping on about Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and the Pacific Islands is totally irrelevant as none of each other's bids have ever benefited another nation or union barring the 1987 RWC (which Australia got some matches).
 
munstermuffin said:
Can I ask why SA should host it TWICE before Ireland even get it once if they're capable?
People mention the Italy's or Argentina's but do they have what it takes to host it? Let's first see their bid and what they put together.
Click to expand...

Others have answered this but my feeling is that one can't look at this in isolation and in saying that Ireland have either hosted games or been in close proximity to hosted matches on numerous occasions even though not being a stand alone host like SA has the one time two decades ago. We are also in the best position to host a money spinning tournament of the 4 candidates so far. Speaking of not seeing things in isolation, SA represents the entire continent of
Africa which gets the shaft regularly as far as decisions on the global stage goes and this would go a long way in fighting general Afro-pessimism and, if managed correctly, can acknowledge and promote the game in Southern Africa; it is very big in Madagascar and Zimbabwe, even Namibia (though namibia is a lightweight population and resource-wise) and Kenya.

In saying that I certainly hope ireland gets to host a stand alone tournament though since I am South African of course I would like to see SA first and as I have said I can see positives for all 4 'current' bidding nations and wouldn't begrudge any one of them if they/you were to get in ahead of SA for 2023.
 
TRF_stormer2010 said:
My preferences;

- the only drawbacks (potential mind you); our political situation could go either way from this point, the Rand is losing ground every day, who knows what a ticket bought in Rands will be worth in 2013, might be we have to sell them for R2000, might be we'd have to sell them for R99000000000 if the EFF keep growing as they are. But I don't want to go chasing baboons, for all we know SA is the world leader in global ethics and an economic powerhouse in 2023. We do have the potential to be.
Click to expand...

Bit of a side-note, but I thought I might wade in. SA (like most other emerging economies) experienced a massive currency strengthening 2009-2011, and like most other emerging economies is experiencing a weakening of its currency at the moment. These things are cyclical and not unique to South Africa.

The EFF is more divided than most political parties and may even split in 3. I think they have hit a ceiling last May, as their supporters are now hearing coverage of them they don't like. It is not so easy to be a party with some power and responsibility, so I think they will fall flat on their face! Assuming they win a municipality or two outright in 2016 and maybe govern in another two in coalition, the limelight, expectation etc will be shining brightly. They will have to change or collapse under that sort of scrutiny. What the EFF has done though is push the ANC to the centre ground (despite its rhetoric). Anyway, back to rugby.

From a tv, stadium capacity and airport point of view, I hope we (SA) win the 2023 World Cup. 90,000 people at the final in Soweto's FNB stadium would be phenomenal.
 
TRF_nickdnz said:
I can fly Dublin to London for $51(NZD) - based on a very quick search. I may be able to get a better deal, I don't know. That's a 1 hour 20 minute flight.

Make you a deal. You pay for me to go to South Africa and I'll pay for you to get to anywhere in the UK. Saying 'it's still SANZAR' is ridiculous. How does a South African benefit from New Zealand or Australia hosting a rugby world cup (if anything the timezone actually is better for them in Europe..). Even one in Australia is still comparatively far more expensive for a New Zealander. You also don't seem to appreciate that there is still a massive difference between the price of getting from Apia/Suva to Auckland than Dublin to London). In fact the whole Fiji, Samoa point was practically jibberish.

Obviously you don't have any idea how the World Rugby weights its votes (the eight founding members have two votes each - so 10 of the votes go to the five nations teams out of a possible 28. Then the Chairman and vice-Chairman also get a vote. Italy, Japan, Argentina and Canada get one vote each - while regional bodies that represent Asia, Pacific Islands, South America, North America and Europe get 1 vote. The weighting of this means that the 5 Nations unions (who each have two votes) have been happy to rule in favor of each others bids - because they can share matches and in many cases the economical benefits. Once again - harping on about Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and the Pacific Islands is totally irrelevant as none of each other's bids have ever benefited another nation or union barring the 1987 RWC (which Australia got some matches).
Click to expand...

Nick I have no clue what you are going on about.

Ireland has never hosted a World Cup before by itself. They have hosted all of about ten games in history. By the time 2023 rolls around there would not have been a World Cup game played in Ireland for 24 years. That is the same period of time between which New Zealand held World Cups. Of the 10 major rugby playing nations (the Six Nations and the Rugby Championship teams) 4 of them are at least part of the United Kingdom. Why are you surprised that the UK and France hosts 50% of the World Cups ever played when 50% of the major rugby playing nations are the UK (and Ireland) + France? Ireland, Scotland and Argentina are the only major rugby playing nations not to have actually hosted a World Cup.

It seems to me that Nick you are saying that 3/4 World Cups should be in the SH and only 1/4 should be in the NH because when one NH nation holds a World Cup they basically all hold it. Just because the SH nations are further apart doesn't mean you can say that Ireland shouldn't a host it in 2023 because England had it in 2015. I think it is strange to not want Ireland to host it when it seems unlikely that Argentina or Italy would have access to their major stadiums. Then you are basically saying South Africa should win it by default.

There is currently no evidence that Ireland would give games to other countries either.
 
I would not be against Ireland hosting it. For me it is Ireland or SA. A part of me would like Italy to host it and for them to grow the game there, but I feel this wouldn't happen as much as it should. There is no way that the big stadia would be released by football clubs for such a tournament.

Do you think ones "turn" will/should decide where the tournament goes, or will/should it be potential broadcasting money / stadium capacity / likelihood of large spectator numbers etc?
 
TRF_nickdnz said:
I can fly Dublin to London for $51(NZD) - based on a very quick search. I may be able to get a better deal, I don't know. That's a 1 hour 20 minute flight.

Make you a deal. You pay for me to go to South Africa and I'll pay for you to get to anywhere in the UK. Saying 'it's still SANZAR' is ridiculous. How does a South African benefit from New Zealand or Australia hosting a rugby world cup (if anything the timezone actually is better for them in Europe..). Even one in Australia is still comparatively far more expensive for a New Zealander. You also don't seem to appreciate that there is still a massive difference between the price of getting from Apia/Suva to Auckland than Dublin to London). In fact the whole Fiji, Samoa point was practically jibberish.

Obviously you don't have any idea how the World Rugby weights its votes (the eight founding members have two votes each - so 10 of the votes go to the five nations teams out of a possible 28. Then the Chairman and vice-Chairman also get a vote. Italy, Japan, Argentina and Canada get one vote each - while regional bodies that represent Asia, Pacific Islands, South America, North America and Europe get 1 vote. The weighting of this means that the 5 Nations unions (who each have two votes) have been happy to rule in favor of each others bids - because they can share matches and in many cases the economical benefits. Once again - harping on about Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and the Pacific Islands is totally irrelevant as none of each other's bids have ever benefited another nation or union barring the 1987 RWC (which Australia got some matches).
Click to expand...
Living in Limerick.
I can get cab to Shannon Airport â'¬25
Cheapest ticket to Stanstead â'¬52
Stanstead Ticket in London £30
Thats only starting but when there's matches on tickets rocket up just look at it for Munster/Leinster or Irish games.
Cheapest I can get from NZ to SA on look is â'¬480. Not too bad. Christchurch To Cape Town.


Well here's another way to put NZ have HOSTED 2 and again if you want to go then save it's not our fault that and well Unions here help each other out so what. If ye feel so agrieved why not challenge it but *****ing and moaning because Ireland wabt to host alone in a year when it should be in Northern Hemisphere is ridiculous.
Irelands bid has absolutely nothing to do with any other union it's simply a wait and see what other nations come up with. SANZAR get benefits from hosting Lions tours etc we don't as I said it's a great chance for Ireland and having been sceptical at start of the bid I do think it's great now.

- - - Updated - - -

TRF_stormer2010 said:
Others have answered this but my feeling is that one can't look at this in isolation and in saying that Ireland have either hosted games or been in close proximity to hosted matches on numerous occasions even though not being a stand alone host like SA has the one time two decades ago. We are also in the best position to host a money spinning tournament of the 4 candidates so far. Speaking of not seeing things in isolation, SA represents the entire continent of
Africa which gets the shaft regularly as far as decisions on the global stage goes and this would go a long way in fighting general Afro-pessimism and, if managed correctly, can acknowledge and promote the game in Southern Africa; it is very big in Madagascar and Zimbabwe, even Namibia (though namibia is a lightweight population and resource-wise) and Kenya.

In saying that I certainly hope ireland gets to host a stand alone tournament though since I am South African of course I would like to see SA first and as I have said I can see positives for all 4 'current' bidding nations and wouldn't begrudge any one of them if they/you were to get in ahead of SA for 2023.
Click to expand...
If SA win it then I won't argue my point is simple - may the best bid win like people harp on here about Argentina or Italy but they haven't even got a bid together yet so how can we say any good or bad for that matter

- - - Updated - - -

William18 said:
Nick I have no clue what you are going on about.

Ireland has never hosted a World Cup before by itself. They have hosted all of about ten games in history. By the time 2023 rolls around there would not have been a World Cup game played in Ireland for 24 years. That is the same period of time between which New Zealand held World Cups. Of the 10 major rugby playing nations (the Six Nations and the Rugby Championship teams) 4 of them are at least part of the United Kingdom. Why are you surprised that the UK and France hosts 50% of the World Cups ever played when 50% of the major rugby playing nations are the UK (and Ireland) + France? Ireland, Scotland and Argentina are the only major rugby playing nations not to have actually hosted a World Cup.

It seems to me that Nick you are saying that 3/4 World Cups should be in the SH and only 1/4 should be in the NH because when one NH nation holds a World Cup they basically all hold it. Just because the SH nations are further apart doesn't mean you can say that Ireland shouldn't a host it in 2023 because England had it in 2015. I think it is strange to not want Ireland to host it when it seems unlikely that Argentina or Italy would have access to their major stadiums. Then you are basically saying South Africa should win it by default.

There is currently no evidence that Ireland would give games to other countries either.
Click to expand...
They have already said no games will be going elsewhere as I stated they've more or less said venues being used.
Croker, Limerick *2, Aviva, Belfast *2, Cork and the option of Galway or somewhere in that region.
 
William18 said:
I'm not against Ireland hosting the World Cup by any means. I think they would do a terrific job. However, I do wonder if the stadiums are really of a high enough quality. Some of the stadiums seem to have a lot of standing room and I wonder if they have the broadcasting facilities as well. When you are going up against Italy and South Africa then I think you are going to have a very tough sell.
Click to expand...
people were sitting on hills to watch some of the games in 2011 in NZ. Ireland certainly has all the infastructure (+more) to host the world cup comfortably. Laughable criticism coming from NZ
 
conorsinnott said:
people were sitting on hills to watch some of the games in 2011 in NZ. Ireland certainly has all the infastructure (+more) to host the world cup comfortably. Laughable criticism coming from NZ
Click to expand...

There were some embankments, like near Wikato Stadium, that people were sitting on because of how the landscape is crafted. It doesn't matter what capacity our stadiums were, that would still happen. Why not go down for a gander if you can do so for free? That happens often, not just through world cups.

You have no idea what you're talking about. And again, no nation DESERVES this World Cup. "But we haven't hosted one yet" is not a reason. I don't give a toss what you've hosted. Antarctica haven't hosted one either. Doesn't mean jack. You are not entitled to anything. This is why people think you guys whinge too much.
 
Last edited:
Ireland would be a better choice than Italy. Rugby is not very popular in Italy, for example we were not able to make a professional team in Rome to play in the Pro 12. We would have to try and use soccer stadiums, but it would be in their season, so it would be very hard. Also I think attendance for small games would not be very good.

But I would like it! :D
 

Similar threads

O
Ireland 2023/2024
Replies
2
Views
606
O’Doyle Rules
O
McTallshort
RWC 2023 Tickets
Replies
5
Views
981
MathieuP3M
M
B
RWC 2027 - Expanded to 24 teams
2 3
Replies
43
Views
4K
Demfad
D
B
RWC 2027 - Players likely to be absent
Replies
2
Views
797
Bruce_ma gooshvili
Bruce_ma gooshvili
B
Pacific Nations Cup 2023
Replies
3
Views
2K
Bruce_ma gooshvili
Bruce_ma gooshvili

Latest posts

Top