Who should host The 2023 Rugby World Cup

[User1245]

France have hosted a major sporting event more recently with the only issue being Russian hooligans who were unarmed and had no legal reasons to not be allowed enter France.

Ireland have hosted a Ryder Cup, a Women's World Cup and will host the British Open and Euro 2020 matches before 2023. While these aren't major tournaments, although I'd wager that the two golf tournaments and the football matches will have higher peak viewing numbers than the rugby, I'd argue that if you believe pointing out South Africa's crime as a negative is unfair then so is pointing out Ireland's lack of experience.

In reality, Ireland fairly lost out to SA and France on infrastructure and experience while South Africa and France unfairly had equal scores in terms of safety with Ireland. I think that's where bitterness is coming from on our side, this is likely Ireland's last and only chance at hosting a World Cup with the growth of the game, rumours of expansion, and developing rugby nations like Spain considering it. Meanwhile the other two nations can host again and again and we haven't been marked fairly where we have a clear advantage and have been bought out of the race by SA who, despite having scored equal in commercial revenue, hammered us financially simply by offering World Rugby more money up front. The report also doesn't account for the ability to fill out rugby stadia with Ireland holding the record for highest attendance at a European Cup game (Semi Final '09) and Ireland v Romania being the highest attended RWC game ever with our record attendance for an international rugby match (82,000 v France and England 2009) being higher than any rugby attendance in France or SA also not being considered. From my reading this recommendation hammered Ireland for it's shortcomings and didn't reward us in the areas we would excel.
As I said earlier I'd love to go to SA and think you'd throw a great tournament but I think that 2023 is the one, and probably only rugby world cup, that we'd do better.

Springboks vs All Blacks 2010, in Soweto had an attendance of 94,713? Or are you just talking about WC matches?

I was in favour of the Irish hosting the WC because the time difference works better than SA's for Australia (4am vs 2am kick offs) and you can see they poured their hearts and souls into it, so I feel bad for the Irish. A small but passionate country. Following the Pro14 has shown me what weather they contend with sometimes and they still pack out the stadiums.

On the flip side, SA is a developing country and this kind of boost would be great for the country in general, economic wise and sport wise. What makes it more special for rugby fans is that this success is after the ANC government banned us from bidding to host the tournament because their racial quota targets weren't being met. Despite the ANC government trying to make it as difficult as possible we succeeded.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

Springboks vs All Blacks 2010, in Soweto had an attendance of 94,713? Or are you just talking about WC matches?

I was in favour of the Irish hosting the WC because the time difference works better than SA's for Australia (4am vs 2am kick offs) and you can see they poured their hearts and souls into it, so I feel bad for the Irish. A small but passionate country. Following the Pro14 has shown me what weather they contend with sometimes and they still pack out the stadiums.

On the flip side, SA is a developing country and this kind of boost would be great for the country in general, economic wise and sport wise. What makes it more special for rugby fans is that this success is after the ANC government banned us from bidding to host the tournament because their racial quota targets weren't being met. Despite the ANC government trying to make it as difficult as possible we succeeded.

No, that was a mistake, read a list a wrong!

I'll be devastated if the inevitable happens and SA get it, while your third paragraph is perfectly valid and I agree with it even if SA get this one it won't likely be the only SA RWC in my lifetime as one of three viable SH countries to host it. Ireland will either host this tournament in 2023 or never host a world cup, I'm convinced of that and with the likes of Spain and Germany likely to force us out of an already competitive European market with France not going away and Italy being better prepared.

So I can empathise that this may be big for South Africa too, I lose a lot of that knowing they'd be able to host it in 2027 and will again within 40-50 years.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

https://www.irishtimes.com/sport/ru...ms-amateur-rwc-2023-report-1.3279569?mode=amp

Laporte absolutely slamming the recommendation. SA are in for a fight.

 

[SomeOke]

https://www.irishtimes.com/sport/ru...ms-amateur-rwc-2023-report-1.3279569?mode=amp

Laporte absolutely slamming the recommendation. SA are in for a fight.

I'll be really annoyed if France gets it. Ireland I'll be happy for, but you just had it France, hands off!
Does it not factor into things that France had it in 2007? Our last one was 1995 and Ireland have never had it. Is that just not a factor at all?

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

I'll be really annoyed if France gets it. Ireland I'll be happy for, but you just had it France, hands off!
Does it not factor into things that France had it in 2007? Our last one was 1995 and Ireland have never had it. Is that just not a factor at all?

I don't want France to get it either fwiw. I don't think that affected the recommendation but I imagine that countries on the fence will consider it.

 

[User1245]

Well the French are burning some bridges!

 

[Groundhog]

Why go on this tirade publicly if you're Laporte and not just make his points to those actually involved in votibg. They've sent away a breakdown of their grievances, don't burn any bridges by using the media.

 

[Bruce_ma gooshvili]

Why go on this tirade publicly if you're Laporte and not just make his points to those actually involved in votibg. They've sent away a breakdown of their grievances, don't burn any bridges by using the media.

Probably because he is lying when he says it was only down to incompetence. If he thinks the process has been rigged (which you can guess he does from his language), then he won't have the faith to merely make representations behind closed doors where they can be swept under the carpet. It has to be public.

His tone is probably badly judged though. The phrase "just the facts ma'am" would have served him well.

On Ireland, I think it was a misjudgment to go up against two rugby juggernauts with a solo bid. Scotland and/or Wales on board would likely have made a more compelling bid. Whether those unions would have been interested is anyone's guess.

 

[Durbanite]

http://www.planetrugby.com/news/world-rugby-responds-to-laporte-criticism/

Pretty standard stuff from WR

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

I find it mesmerizing that anyone with curiosity, internet access and two functioning brain cells would argue that RSA is as safe as Ireland. Mind blowing actually.
Let me be absolutely clear, this is in no way a cheap shot at RSA, it's as close to a fact as it gets.
From theft to murder, RSA statistics are worse, way worse. It's not even a contest. Not that Arg is particularly safe, but i'd have to be quite ignorant to claim it's as safe as Ireland.

 

[Leinster Fan]

While South Africa would definitely be worthy hosts, you have to question the competence and independence of a report that puts Ireland (Global Peace Index 10th), France (51st), and South Africa (123rd) on the same security score.

A lot of Laporte's complaints are perfectly fair. To be honest the report seems more like a politicised attempt to save South African rugby (New Zealand 57 South Africa 0 isn't the kind of scoreline that World Rugby can afford to do nothing about) than an actual independent report.

That said, all three countries could host a great tournament. May the best bid win. (Hopefully the best bid is from Ireland)

 

[User1245]

I agree with you guys. The safety score is totally BS.

 

[TRF_heineken]

I agree with you guys. The safety score is totally BS.

Why?

What are the parameters with regard to safety when hosting such an event?

I've had the privilege to attend Fifa World Cup matches, as well as B&I Lions tour matches, I was even one of the attendees at Soweto when the Boks played against the AB's and we were 90000+ strong.

Not at any stage did I feel threatened, or unsafe. And that includes the Stadium, The hotel and the bar/restaurants.

I think using our Crime rate is unfair, because I will again stress the fact that when you are a tourist coming to SA, nobody expects you to go to the shoddiest areas in South Africa and look for trouble. During all the previous tournaments we've hosted, we went the extra mile with regard to safety and security to the players, and the fans coming to our shores. Hell, we were the first country to introduce the FIFA courts during the tournament in order to expedite issues relating to tourists during the tournament.

I'm not saying SA is as safe as Ireland, or even France. But with all due respect, I have lived in SA for 32 years, I have lived in Pretoria, Johannesburg and Polokwane, I have never been held at gunpoint, been mugged, murdered, raped or violently assaulted. I sleep like a rock at night, even with twins in the same room.

 

[unrated]

Why?

What are the parameters with regard to safety when hosting such an event?

I've had the privilege to attend Fifa World Cup matches, as well as B&I Lions tour matches, I was even one of the attendees at Soweto when the Boks played against the AB's and we were 90000+ strong.

Not at any stage did I feel threatened, or unsafe. And that includes the Stadium, The hotel and the bar/restaurants.

I think using our Crime rate is unfair, because I will again stress the fact that when you are a tourist coming to SA, nobody expects you to go to the shoddiest areas in South Africa and look for trouble. During all the previous tournaments we've hosted, we went the extra mile with regard to safety and security to the players, and the fans coming to our shores. Hell, we were the first country to introduce the FIFA courts during the tournament in order to expedite issues relating to tourists during the tournament.

I'm not saying SA is as safe as Ireland, or even France. But with all due respect, I have lived in SA for 32 years, I have lived in Pretoria, Johannesburg and Polokwane, I have never been held at gunpoint, been mugged, murdered, raped or violently assaulted. I sleep like a rock at night, even with twins in the same room.

Yes a distinction has to be made between the different areas of South Africa. Its a big country and the areas the tourist will interact with is very safe. Security is a big business in South Africa and i can't see team managers booking their teams in at dodgy places. Sure you can make the argument " but Ireland does not even have dodgy places" Fans and tourist will come in contact with the developed South Africa. They will stay in upper class neighbourhoods
The areas that these teams will be staying in Durban, Cape Town, Johannesburg and Port Elizabeth is just as safe as any first world country (including Ireland) only when you add the crime stats of the areas they wont and shouldnt be visiting then the crime stats will paint an ugly picture.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

I think using our Crime rate is unfair

Shocker. No bias there. None at all.

The areas that these teams will be staying in Durban, Cape Town, Johannesburg and Port Elizabeth is just as safe as any first world country (including Ireland) only when you add the crime stats of the areas they wont and shouldnt be visiting then the crime stats will paint an ugly picture.

Help me out here. Which one is it? Either they are as safe as Ireland or they have areas tourist shouldn't visit. You can't have it both ways.

I thought it was obvious, but just to be clear, if you have a country/city that which's parts have to be compartmentalized in order to improve (can't guarantee, no one can) the safety of the people visiting, well, that doesn't scream safety.

When you have hundreds of thousands people visiting, well, it is not only possible but also reasonable and expected for some of them to get lost, take the wrong bus, make the wrong turn and that increases the chances of ending up in what you called "areas they won't and shouldn't be visiting". In Ireland the safety concern for that potential outcome is negligible, in RSA it is not.

I understand how we all love our countries and all, but this is borderline delusional. I don't find Buenos Aires unsafe, but i was born and raised there, know where, when and how to go around. That doesn't make Buenos Aires as safe as Dublin. This is not rocket science.

As it was pointed out before in this thread, RSA has to take measures to tackle pretty serious problems that Ireland just doesn't have to begin with, yet they both get the same score.

For the record, again, i don't really care where the world cup takes place. I care about common sense, facts and rational thought. Saying RSA is as safe as Ireland lacks the 3.

 

[curtbob7]

I've got family in South Africa. Its fine as far as I'm concerned. Like our country it has places I wouldn't feel comfortable walking around in. Parts of Luton, Oldham etc.

As for the chap who said French food was the best in the world. Wow.

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

The safety score shouldn't be about the safety of the country it should be of the safety of the bid.
The only places that should be considered are the proposed venues and the immediate surrounding areas. What happens 100 miles from the stadiums should have no impact on the bid.

Side note: America shouldn't host any of this stuff until we improve the safety of large events.

 

[TRF_heineken]

Shocker. No bias there. None at all.


Help me out here. Which one is it? Either they are as safe as Ireland or they have areas tourist shouldn't visit. You can't have it both ways.

I thought it was obvious, but just to be clear, if you have a country/city that which's parts have to be compartmentalized in order to improve (can't guarantee, no one can) the safety of the people visiting, well, that doesn't scream safety.

When you have hundreds of thousands people visiting, well, it is not only possible but also reasonable and expected for some of them to get lost, take the wrong bus, make the wrong turn and that increases the chances of ending up in what you called "areas they won't and shouldn't be visiting". In Ireland the safety concern for that potential outcome is negligible, in RSA it is not.

I understand how we all love our countries and all, but this is borderline delusional. I don't find Buenos Aires unsafe, but i was born and raised there, know where, when and how to go around. That doesn't make Buenos Aires as safe as Dublin. This is not rocket science.

As it was pointed out before in this thread, RSA has to take measures to tackle pretty serious problems that Ireland just doesn't have to begin with, yet they both get the same score.

For the record, again, i don't really care where the world cup takes place. I care about common sense, facts and rational thought. Saying RSA is as safe as Ireland lacks the 3.

Again, you want to nitpick. Have you ever visited South Africa? do you know our geographical setup, or do you only take note of what is appearing in the newspapers. It's clear you want to attack every single post I make, as it seems like I'm the only delusional person here. Fine, I'll bite.

I use examples, and personal experience in what has happened in the past when we hosted major events, yet, some like you still hammer on our crime rate. Yet, most of the tourists visiting SA are on tour groups or have packages and a tour guide to assist them. Getting on the wrong bus? Really?? Even if that were to happen, It's highly unlikely that the tourist would end up 500km far away from civilization and in a rural township where the poorest of the poor are living, and where crime is at it's peak.

Our crime rate didn't stop us from hosting the 2010 Fifa World Cup, why would it stop us from hosting the 2023 RWC??? Please enlighten me, as to how unsafe we are. A country which has a variety of religions, cultures and races. We don't have a terrorism problem like other African or European Countries. So really what is the point of hammering on and on about our country's safety???

 

[snoopy snoopy dog dog]

Let's be honest. France and Ireland are behind the eight ball and need to find as many ways as possible to poke holes into the evaluation process to stand a chance of wrestling the bid from the recommendation of South Africa. They need to plant seeds of doubt in the voters and discredit the process. I'm in no doubt that had France or Ireland gained preferred bidder status, that South Africa would do the same.

Any report that puts Ireland on the same safety level as France or South Africa should raise eyebrows but, as TRF_heineken said, these safety issues didn't stop SA from hosting the 2010 FIFA World Cup.

The spectre of less than full stadia in SA is another area to try pick holes in the recommended bid. I'm sure the FFR and IRFU are pointing out that the stadium for the Currie Cup final was 1/3 empty along with the paltry crowds for Super Rugby and Pro 14 games. How does SARU propose to fill these magnificent stadiums for games like Georgia versus Canada? While World Rugby get nothing from gate receipts (as far as I'm aware) they won't want to see their blue riband event showcased around the world in half full stadia.

 

[RedruthRFC]

While South Africa would definitely be worthy hosts, you have to question the competence and independence of a report that puts Ireland (Global Peace Index 10th), France (51st), and South Africa (123rd) on the same security score.

I'd never heard of the Global Peace Index, having briefly read about it, I'd suggest that there is sufficient difference in the things that it factors in and the things that are relevant to the safety of a World Cup that it's pretty irrelevant. To paraphrase what has been said already, talking a moonlit stroll around Soweto is seriously bad for your health, which is why statistically South Africa is high up on "most dangerous" lists, but as rugby supporters won't be doing this we need a more intelligent way of measuring safety which is tailored to the situation we're discussing. I would want to understand how World Rugby's report reached its conclusion before writing it off as incompetent and biased.

Anecdotally, I spent about two and a half weeks in South Africa about ten years ago, mainly based in Umhlanga Rocks, but also travelling to the Wild Coast, battlefields, game reserves and Sun City. Only once in that time did I feel particularly threatened having made a poor choice of bar to visit on a Saturday night, but drank up fairly quickly without experiencing a serious problem. I'd be amazed if you wouldn't be just as likely to run into a problem by picking the wrong bar in Dublin or Paris to walk into.

My impression of South Africa is that because there is the fear of crime, those who are able to do so stick to safe areas and are as a result pretty safe.