Japan to host 2019 World Cup alone

[Melhor Time]

To be honest I do not think England are yielding to anyone. There must be some deal or agreement to the RFU,WRU and IRB.

England could host the matches with out a drama and given they are using mostly football stadiums must countries would struggle to match the capacity that England can offer, places that have hosted a world cup or are major football countries will by tend to have the best grounds.

I would say if Italy could get the football stadia on board they would come close terms of potential numbers but then your looking at the level national interest in a WC.

As you say Wales would have to spend money to come even close and that is money I doubt the WRU can afford. As much as I love Rodney parade it would be crazy to spend money on it and then have it empty again for years to come. The same goes for the rest of the Welsh stadiums it is horrible looking at a quater full Liberty at the best of times.

Sadly Italy had the Stade Velodrome (Marseilles) listed as one of its 10 venues in its bid for RWC 2015. My interpretation is that unions think its totally ok to have a subhost.

 

[ExcaLiBuR]

2023 should be in Argentina or Russia. Argentina because they have came 3rd in world and not host a RWC, also new to the rugby championship. Then Russia because it has the stadiums, it has the money, it also has the want to get bigger and better with other countries very close to it. Then 2027 should be in USA to make money and make Rugby huge to a massive audience, it will wake the sleeping giant. However IRB normally give it a big nation after a minor... so if Argentina get it in 2023, USA/Russia in 2027.

 

[Melhor Time]

2023 should be in Argentina or Russia. Argentina because they have came 3rd in world and not host a RWC, also new to the rugby championship. Then Russia because it has the stadiums, it has the money, it also has the want to get bigger and better with other countries very close to it. Then 2027 should be in USA to make money and make Rugby huge to a massive audience, it will wake the sleeping giant. However IRB normally give it a big nation after a minor... so if Argentina get it in 2023, USA/Russia in 2027.

Russia are a long way from hosting a World Cup. They could host one and I´d be in favor of it. Given the chioce of Russia hosting or Wales and Ireland together I´d prefer Russia but its two decades away from happening. I agree with your suggestion of rotating between a major and a minor rugby nation but also believe in rotating between regions. 2019 in Japan to be followed by Argentina in 2023 and then 2027 to either Europe, Oceania or Africa.

If there are multiple options and there is not a lot of difference in terms of which one is better then it has to always go to the team who has never hosted. This is what convinces me of Italy as the location for 2027 as it will likely be between South Africa, Australia, Italy and possible two or three Celts bidding together. Italy really deserve its chance to host and would deliver a great tournament.

The USA is another which should host but it is not going to be ready for a while yet either. If Argentina do host 2023 then there is no chance the USA will host in 2027. The region, as defined by the IRB, is the same. If Argentina 2023 does go ahead then the USA´s likely time will come in 2035... a long time away.

The only two who have never hosted who could pick up 2023 and 2027 are Argentina and Italy. Both have solid teams, attract large crowds, have good stadiums, have history to convince others of their hosting merits and are reputable for visitors. The same cannot be said, for now, of Russia or the USA. I hope that these two are the oens to host after Japan does in 2019 and am convinced that they are the best options and deserve their opportunity. I´d not like at all to see South Africa host 2023. RSA can wait its turn just like Australia, France and other previous hosts need to do. As good as New Zealand 2011 was (I was there) it should still not have gotten the green light. It held back others by up to a decade. It should have waited its turn with Japan hosting first. It cannot be repeated with Argentina and Italy being overlooked for previous hosts.

2023 Argentina
2027 Italy
2031 Africa (South Africa)
2035 Europe (Russia or Ireland & Scotland)

 

[nickdnz]

Russia are a long way from hosting a World Cup. They could host one and I´d be in favor of it. Given the chioce of Russia hosting or Wales and Ireland together I´d prefer Russia but its two decades away from happening. I agree with your suggestion of rotating between a major and a minor rugby nation but also believe in rotating between regions. 2019 in Japan to be followed by Argentina in 2023 and then 2027 to either Europe, Oceania or Africa.

If there are multiple options and there is not a lot of difference in terms of which one is better then it has to always go to the team who has never hosted. This is what convinces me of Italy as the location for 2027 as it will likely be between South Africa, Australia, Italy and possible two or three Celts bidding together. Italy really deserve its chance to host and would deliver a great tournament.

The USA is another which should host but it is not going to be ready for a while yet either. If Argentina do host 2023 then there is no chance the USA will host in 2027. The region, as defined by the IRB, is the same. If Argentina 2023 does go ahead then the USA´s likely time will come in 2035... a long time away.

The only two who have never hosted who could pick up 2023 and 2027 are Argentina and Italy. Both have solid teams, attract large crowds, have good stadiums, have history to convince others of their hosting merits and are reputable for visitors. The same cannot be said, for now, of Russia or the USA. I hope that these two are the oens to host after Japan does in 2019 and am convinced that they are the best options and deserve their opportunity. I´d not like at all to see South Africa host 2023. RSA can wait its turn just like Australia, France and other previous hosts need to do. As good as New Zealand 2011 was (I was there) it should still not have gotten the green light. It held back others by up to a decade. It should have waited its turn with Japan hosting first. It cannot be repeated with Argentina and Italy being overlooked for previous hosts.

2023 Argentina
2027 Italy
2031 Africa (South Africa)
2035 Europe (Russia or Ireland & Scotland)

Surely by that logic, the UK, France and Australia are just as guilty of that if not more so.

1991 - England as host with Wales, Scotland, Ireland and France as co hosts.
1999 - Wales as host with England, Scotland, Ireland and France as co-hosts.
2007 - France as host with Wales and Scotland as co-hosts.
2015 - England as host of the RWC

The fact being, New Zealanders had to wait 24 years before watching a RWC match live without paying tens of thousands of dollars in travel and accomidation (having co-hosted the first one with Australia and Australia got it's own RWC before NZ, it's not really different). A person from the UK or France has really only had to wait for every second RWC (and this trend has continued) to see a match. Any one of the forementioned RWC could have gone to Argentina, Italy, Russia, USA etc. The only reason I point this out, is the large number of people who say it should not have gone to NZ, neglect how many RWC's have been played in the UK and France (soon to be over half).

1987 - New Zealand + Australia
1991 - England + Wales + Scotland + Ireland + France
1995 - South Africa
1999 - Wales + England + Scotland + Ireland + France
2003 - Australia
2007 - France + Scotland + Wales
2011 - New Zealand
2015 - England
2019 - Japan

 

[Heath Taylor]

personally I think its great...back in 2007 I found it irritating that France let Scotland,England,Wales etc.... host games.japan's rugby industry also benefits too,as japan is one of the biggest tourist countries in the world as it is.

 

[Melhor Time]

Surely by that logic, the UK, France and Australia are just as guilty of that if not more so.

1991 - England as host with Wales, Scotland, Ireland and France as co hosts.
1999 - Wales as host with England, Scotland, Ireland and France as co-hosts.
2007 - France as host with Wales and Scotland as co-hosts.
2015 - England as host of the RWC

The fact being, New Zealanders had to wait 24 years before watching a RWC match live without paying tens of thousands of dollars in travel and accomidation (having co-hosted the first one with Australia and Australia got it's own RWC before NZ, it's not really different). A person from the UK or France has really only had to wait for every second RWC (and this trend has continued) to see a match. Any one of the forementioned RWC could have gone to Argentina, Italy, Russia, USA etc. The only reason I point this out, is the large number of people who say it should not have gone to NZ, neglect how many RWC's have been played in the UK and France (soon to be over half).

1987 - New Zealand + Australia
1991 - England + Wales + Scotland + Ireland + France
1995 - South Africa
1999 - Wales + England + Scotland + Ireland + France
2003 - Australia
2007 - France + Scotland + Wales
2011 - New Zealand
2015 - England
2019 - Japan

Absolutely. All previous hosts are the same as New Zealand. Any previous host should be at the bottom of the pile. There is no way South Africa should host again ahead of two other tier one sides - Argentina and Italy. It has to wait its turn and only host ahead of these two if they decide not to bid.

Wales being used in 2015 is an absolute shame and downright embarassment for our sport. Wales could be a great co-host as a genuine one with Cardiff, Llanelli, Newport and Swansea joining either six Irish or Scottish venues. Thats the way to go.

I´d be happy for Ireland to host in 2027 if it was a solo host. I´d prefer Italy but would be content with Ireland hosting (including Northern Ireland) but only on its own. In the event that it would bid together with Wales, Scotland or both then I´d be against it. The only low point of 2007 was Scotland and Wales hosting, between them, six matches. Neither was needed and neither delivered. Scotland vs Portugal at St. Etienne got more fans than Scotland vs Romania at Murrayfield. Wales vs Canada in Nantes was a bigger occassion than Wales vs Japan in Cardiff.

Waiting 24 years is hardly big. Brazil hosted the FIFA World Cup in 1950 and will again in 2014. Thats once a lifetime and Brazil is only hosting as no other member of South American soccer (Conmebol) challenged them to host. Colombia considered but withdrew pretty quickly.

The other point, about Europe having short distances is true but I, personally don´t buy into it too much. Its not Italy´s fault that France, England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland are all strong teams and are all located very close. Argentina is the best option for 2023 but its not because of geography. Taking the tournament to the Americas is a major deal but the biggest reasons for it being there are that the national side is very, very good, the country has a large population and the fans have a good track record of attending games. This is what went against Japan hosting 2011 and I doubt the IRB expected so much criticism for going for New Zealand.

Fans in some places have to travel further. Its unfortunate but just the way it is. My rugby team, for instance, is 200KM from the nearest side in the state competition. Its always a long trip and a costly one. Of this years 14 teams ten were located in a small section of the state so that they were all an hour apart from each other at the most. The reality is that my team is far away from the majority. Similar things can be said of World Cup´s when considering Europe and others as the Six Nations are so conveniently located to one another unlike the four sides in The Rugby Championship.
I don´t believe in giving one to Europe and then one elsewhere nor do I believe in giving it to Europe because of numbers. Some say New Zealand should never have hosted due to its time zone. Others say that New Zealand deserved to because of this reason as in other World Cup´s the matches have been at bad hours for New Zealand. Given the country´s small population I hardly think its a strong argument to say they deserved it. The 40 million people Argentina alone had terrible viewing hours for the live matches. To me, its similar to my clubs situation as its far away from others but this doens´t mean my club should host more games and play fewer away.

 

[welshglory]

2023 should be in South Africa. 2019 in Japan most likely wont such a comercial success, it is possible but unlikely. SA would guarantee profit and interest especially with their already massive stadiums and new football stadiums. But thats more than 10 years away, anything can happen the USA could be a top 6 country by then for all we know!

 

[Hulk Hogan]

2023 should be in South Africa. 2019 in Japan most likely wont such a comercial success, it is possible but unlikely. SA would guarantee profit and interest especially with their already massive stadiums and new football stadiums. But thats more than 10 years away, anything can happen the USA could be a top 6 country by then for all we know!

A huge commercial success in South Africa? No one wants to go to South Africa at the best of times...

 

[welshglory]

What are you on about SA is a very popular holiday destination. I know that i'd prefer to go there than Argentina or Russia and im sure most people would to. And the Lions supporters didn't seem to mind going to South Africa. Maybe its just you Australians.
It would be more of a commercial success than the NZ was thats for sure. A world cup in SA would make loads of dough.

But thats not the point, its a traditional rugby stronghold and the stadiums would be full and the IRB would make a lot of money which they could then give to the 'lesser nations' to keep developing.
Technically giving the world cup to NZ this time was like giving it to a developing rugby nation. So England is being used to make a lot of money.

Some of you guys live in a dream world, you cant just keep giving the world cups to nations were rugby isn't that popular yet. You need to do it one after another: 2019 Japan, 2023 SA, 2027 Argentina/Brazil etc... As much as i would love for the IRB to give the world cup to new nations each time it isn't sustainable yet, football doesn't even do that for gods sake: 1998 France, 2002 Japan/S Korea, 2006 Germany, 2010 South Africa. See what i mean.

 

[Nielsch]

2015 England
2019 Japan
2023 Italy
2027 Argentina
2031 South Africa
2035 USA
2039 France
2043 Russia
2047 Spain
2051 Morocco
2055 Ireland & Scotland

That's how it's gonna be. Now stop discussing.

 

[Teh Mite]

More like:
15- england
19- Japan
23- south Africa
27- Wales
31- new zealand
35- Australia

Knowing the IRBs previous form

 

[welshglory]

Hopefully the world cup will never go to Ireland, Scotland or Wales i just dont see the point of it.
And i wouldn't want to see it in NZ again for like 30-40 years.

id like:
2023 SA
2027 Argentina/S America or Italy
2031 Aus
2035 USA orRussia

 

[monkeypigeon]

Morocco?

Yeah, we'll have teleporters by then, and it'l be co-hosted by Morocco and Sri Lanka.

 

[Seaton]

Now now, don't go to far ahead.

We can't even be certain which countries will even be around in 30 years time, or what state they will be in.

Listen to some of the global warming nutters, they'll have you believe that 2011 will be the last one in New Zealand as it will be the new Atlantis by the end of the decade.

 

[Melhor Time]

South Africa for 2023 = No Thank you

What are you on about SA is a very popular holiday destination. I know that i'd prefer to go there than Argentina or Russia and im sure most people would to. And the Lions supporters didn't seem to mind going to South Africa. Maybe its just you Australians.
It would be more of a commercial success than the NZ was thats for sure. A world cup in SA would make loads of dough.

But thats not the point, its a traditional rugby stronghold and the stadiums would be full and the IRB would make a lot of money which they could then give to the 'lesser nations' to keep developing.
Technically giving the world cup to NZ this time was like giving it to a developing rugby nation. So England is being used to make a lot of money.

Some of you guys live in a dream world, you cant just keep giving the world cups to nations were rugby isn't that popular yet. You need to do it one after another: 2019 Japan, 2023 SA, 2027 Argentina/Brazil etc... As much as i would love for the IRB to give the world cup to new nations each time it isn't sustainable yet, football doesn't even do that for gods sake: 1998 France, 2002 Japan/S Korea, 2006 Germany, 2010 South Africa. See what i mean.

Points noted but I think you´re seriously overrating South Africa and seriously underrating both Italy and Argentina. South Africa is a first tier side as are both Argentina and Italy. One has hosted already which is a negative not a positive. Putting Argentina and Italy in the same boat as Japan / South Korea or South Africa for soccer is highly flawed. Its hardly taking rugby away from its traditional places. Argentina and Italy have been to every World Cup - have been around forever and continue to evolve on and off the field. Argentina were third in 2007 and have beaten everyone except South Africa and New Zealand in the professional era. Italy have not delivered on the World Cup stage but missed out on a Quarter Final in 2007 because of a missed penalty. The side has nevertheless convinced all 6 Nations members that it deserves its permanent place in the tournament. Wins over Scotland, Wales and France are highly notable.

The following video is a pretty good case in point to show that Italy can pack its stadiums for rugby. With the home nations, France, Georgia, Romania and Russia all close. Italy has this in its favor - taking the World Cup to central Europe for the first time ever. Fans from all will attend and the better sides in massive numbers. Not to mention the hundreds of thousands of Aussies, Kiwis and South Africans living in London and the UK as a whole.



Argentina´s home crowds have been consistently positive over the past decade. Games have been widespread and sold out or very close to it. My choices of venues for Argentina 2023 would be thirteen venues - twelve of them have hosted Pumas tests over the past decade and the thirteenth is set to hsot both the All Blacks and Springboks in 2012.

- Avellaneda (46,000) Argentina vs French Barbarians 2011
- Buenos Aires (River Plate - 67,000) Argentina vs New Zealand 2001
- Córdoba (57,000) Argentina vs Italy 2008
- La Plata (53,000)
- Mar del Plata (35,000) Argentina vs Scotland 2010
- Mendoza (45,000) Argentina vs Italy 2007
- Resistencia (25,000) Argentina vs French Barbarians 2011
- Rosario (41,000) Argentina vs Scotland 2008
- Salta (20,000) Argentina vs England 2009
- San Juan (25,000) Argentina vs South American XV 2011
- San Salvador de Jujuy (24,000) Argentina vs Italy 2005
- Santa Fé (40,000) Argentina vs Ireland 2007
- Tucumán (32,000) Argentina vs Scotland 2010

For further info look here

South Africa is a nice place to visit but it is not very safe. I had an issue in Cape Town While I met a guy in Coffee Bay who had been held at gun point a few days earlier. The big issue of crime is real - its a hard country to get around. The trains and buses are not an option which means either vans or planes. Its simply the choice of a very costly experience or taking a big gamble of using the notoriously dangerous trains and buses.

Travelling in Argentina is much safer and more comfortable experience. There is a superb bus system with seats that fold down virtually into beds. There are plans to construct a high speed train to link the country´s three largest cities (Buenos Aires, Rosario and Córdoba) as well as the tourist city of Mar del Plata. Its really comfortable taking buses in the country. Planes are cheaper than in South Africa too.



Italy is likewise a safe option - great transportation too. Excellent trains and very cheap flights. Its a sure bet to host a World Cup and will be Europe´s next host - hopefully without Cardiff sneaking in to host some games!

As a traditional rugby powerhouse, South Africa does not get great crowds outside of when it is the Springboks playing. The 2009 Lions tour proved this beyond doubt. Huge crowds for the tests but small and often poor turnout for the other matches. This contradicts what you said i.e. the stadiums would be full and the IRB would make a lot of money which they could then give to the 'lesser nations' to keep developing. Rugby World Cup 1995 was a long time ago but the same problem was clear then with too many games being poorly attended. Even Semi Finals weren´t full. One was... but that featured the home team. New Zealand vs England was not. Simiarly New Zealand vs Japan was poorly attended unlike South Africa vs Canada.

I think there is far too much against giving South Africa another go. its hardly guaranteed of filling the stadiums or attracting more fans than alternative options. It also does not have a vastly bigger population than the two I have mentioned (Argentina = 40 million, RSA 50 million, Italy 60 million). Argentina and Italy are both too good as options to be overlooked in favor of going for South Africa. If it were between South Africa and Russia or South Africa and the USA and the teams and unions were as they are today then it would be a different scenario altogether.

 

[Toko_11]

lets hope no more earthquakes

 

[lucky number 7]

Ireland. We have the capacity...and the sex appeal for such a venture

 

[Seaton]

Ireland. We have the capacity...and the sex appeal for such a venture

But most of the visiting fans are straight as they have not lived in the same country as SOB, so the point is null.

 

[nickdnz]

As a traditional rugby powerhouse, South Africa does not get great crowds outside of when it is the Springboks playing. The 2009 Lions tour proved this beyond doubt. Huge crowds for the tests but small and often poor turnout for the other matches. This contradicts what you said i.e. the stadiums would be full and the IRB would make a lot of money which they could then give to the 'lesser nations' to keep developing. Rugby World Cup 1995 was a long time ago but the same problem was clear then with too many games being poorly attended. Even Semi Finals weren´t full. One was... but that featured the home team. New Zealand vs England was not. Simiarly New Zealand vs Japan was poorly attended unlike South Africa vs Canada.

I think there is far too much against giving South Africa another go. its hardly guaranteed of filling the stadiums or attracting more fans than alternative options. It also does not have a vastly bigger population than the two I have mentioned (Argentina = 40 million, RSA 50 million, Italy 60 million). Argentina and Italy are both too good as options to be overlooked in favor of going for South Africa. If it were between South Africa and Russia or South Africa and the USA and the teams and unions were as they are today then it would be a different scenario altogether.

If you read between the lines, Melhor is just saying that he doesn't want to hear another vuvuzela as long as he lives.

 

[lucky number 7]

But most of the visiting fans are straight as they have not lived in the same country as SOB, so the point is null.

Heterosexuality will not last long on these shores... something in the way he flicks his hair...