who should host the 2027 rwc

[ruck987]

usa sholud host it and australia should get it in 2031

 

[Reiser99]

I can get behind that. Definitely not Russia.

 

[EdBirch]

Is Ireland not an option still?

I'd support a North American RWC, then for me it would be a flip of a coin between SA and Aus. SA would be great for time zone and packed stadiums, Aus to try and rejuvenate the sport there

 

[TRF_heineken]

South Africa has already backed Australia to host it. South Africa hasn't made a proposal to host the 2027 WC, and will only try to host the 2031 and 2035 WC.

 

[General Melchett]

USA sounds like a good call especially as Trump won't be President in 2027.

 

[Ids1978]

Dose the USA have the home support to fill the grounds on match day. Thinking this I still think USA should get the world cup

 

[EdBirch]

The more i think about it, Aus should get the 2027 RWC as it won't have been in the SH since 2011. Then give it to North America

 

[RedruthRFC]

The more i think about it, Aus should get the 2027 RWC as it won't have been in the SH since 2011. Then give it to North America

Why does latitude matter? I can see that longitude would as I would assume that TV revenues will be higher when match times are convenient for the big markets.

Following on from that, given that every union on the planet is bound to be pleading poverty for the forseeable future, could OP supply the projected revenues for the various venues please?

 

[TheOvalBall]

USA

 

[TRF_heineken]

Why does latitude matter? I can see that longitude would as I would assume that TV revenues will be higher when match times are convenient for the big markets.

Following on from that, given that every union on the planet is bound to be pleading poverty for the forseeable future, could OP supply the projected revenues for the various venues please?

Well, latitude matters because of the seasons and climate. If the tournament is held between September - November, then it would be Spring in the SH but Autumn in the NH. That will affect the conditions the matches are played in. If anything, WR will have to make damn sure they don't have a host nation during a typhoon/hurricane/tornado season.

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

Is Ireland not an option still?

I'd support a North American RWC, then for me it would be a flip of a coin between SA and Aus. SA would be great for time zone and packed stadiums, Aus to try and rejuvenate the sport there

I think an Irish RWC would be brilliant. You can see the whole country totally buying into it with the bonus of short travelling distances. The tournament would have a clear identity and profile and be a 6 week Guinness fuelled party. What's not to like?

In contrast the USA would be a bit of a sterile meh and barely noticed by most of the country. I think it's a fallacy to suggest that it would kick start the domestic game over there. I get spreading the message but sorry USA I think it would be a bullet wasted. It wouldn't be a Japan mark II.

In answer to the original question, probably Aus if the game still exists over there by then.

 

[McTallshort]

Why is everyone so hot on the USA?

It's very much a novelty sport there and the time differences mean crap viewing times for games.

 

[TheOvalBall]

Why is everyone so hot on the USA?

It's very much a novelty sport there and the time differences mean crap viewing times for games.

Rugby needs to go where it needs to grow. The USA is a hot market, an excellent economy and they already have their own Major League Rugby, which is a definite plus.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

South Africa or, failing that, the USA would be my preference. I'd probably go to either of them whereas I don't think I would or could go to Aus or Argentina.

 

[McTallshort]

Rugby needs to go where it needs to grow. The USA is a hot market, an excellent economy and they already have their own Major League Rugby, which is a definite plus.

Why does it? The world Cup should go where the supporters of the game are: kids coaches, volunteers, people who play week in week out for grassroots clubs. Why send it somewhere where its nothing but a novelty to uninterested Americans who would rather be watching NFL? Also the time lines are crap and all the matches will be on at stupid o'clock.

Bad idea.

 

[RedruthRFC]

Why does it? The world Cup should go where the supporters of the game are: kids coaches, volunteers, people who play week in week out for grassroots clubs. Why send it somewhere where its nothing but a novelty to uninterested Americans who would rather be watching NFL? Also the time lines are crap and all the matches will be on at stupid o'clock.

Bad idea.

Are you asking why does rugby need to go somewhere where it needs to grow? I would go a step further and ask why the games needs to grow there. To answer your question, the main objective of every world sporting body (World Rugby included) seems to be world domination and everyone wants a piece of the American (apple) pie and a great many such organisations seem to think that Field of Dreams was a training video / blueprint - "If you build it, they will come". Enough unions around the world have enough problems that I think we need to question whether the relentless pursuit of new markets is what best serves the game at the moment. As I said above, given the curent financial woes, the assurance of a good pay day needs to be the number one priority, with all others taking a long distant back seat.

This seems to me to be about committee men putting ticks in boxes rather than trying to do what is best for the game.

 

[McTallshort]

Are you asking why does rugby need to go somewhere where it needs to grow? I would go a step further and ask why the games needs to grow there. To answer your question, the main objective of every world sporting body (World Rugby included) seems to be world domination and everyone wants a piece of the American (apple) pie and a great many such organisations seem to think that Field of Dreams was a training video / blueprint - "If you build it, they will come". Enough unions around the world have enough problems that I think we need to question whether the relentless pursuit of new markets is what best serves the game at the moment. As I said above, given the curent financial woes, the assurance of a good pay day needs to be the number one priority, with all others taking a long distant back seat.

This seems to me to be about committee men putting ticks in boxes rather than trying to do what is best for the game.

Agree, I think it needs to grow in Australia, Italy and Argentina as there is already a base to work from. I really don't think making the World cup into a marketing tool that goes to nations that have no real interest in the sport is a good idea. We already have the 7s circuit to "spread the word".

Japan was the right call because the game has been established there for many years and they have made investments into their leagues and structures. Rugby in the US is novelty and I would rather the WC went somewhere were grassroots players and coaches could watch it and not just be a novel treat for a bored American.

Both England and France can turn a profit but I think Ireland would be a good venue if it can get over the little hurdle of allowing a garrison game at Gaelic sports venues or Australia who need a welcome shot in the arm (although the Lions are there in 2025).

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

It's World Rugby's job to spread the game and grow it into markets that allow the game as a whole to become more profitable. The USA is too large and is on fire. A spring world cup would be the only time it makes sense as it wouldn't compete with any major sports (even though march and april are a somewhat busy calendar, maybe a northern summer world cup with games at night would work), but that would interfere with six nations.

Spain IMO makes the sense from a tier 2 perspective as it's easily accessible for the six nations and would be a fun place to visit.

 

[RedruthRFC]

It's World Rugby's job to spread the game and grow it into markets that allow the game as a whole to become more profitable.

No it's not. That is one of World Rugby's jobs. The point that I was trying to make was that this goal shouldn't be allowed to ride roughshod over every other aim / object in an ill conceived, ham fisted attempt at world domination.

Spain IMO makes the sense from a tier 2 perspective as it's easily accessible for the six nations and would be a fun place to visit.

Where has the notion that it needs to be in a tier two country come from? If you're looking to host it in a European country that never wins anything, why not Italy? The feasibility of either would depend on gaining access to football stadia and would only "make sense" if access could be negotiated for a price in line with countries with their own stadia. I'd have thought that internal travel would be easier in Italy too. My worry for either would be attendances of matches not involving a tier one nation.

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

I never said that it was World rugby's only job or that it had to be in a tier 2, idk why your panty's are in a bunch.