The Irish bid for the 2023 Rugby World Cup has many things going for it. Not least, it has a unique flavour which may appeal to members of the World Rugby Board, but most of all it has to satisfy one criteria more than any other. It has to be commercially viable. In other words, it has to make money. Lots of it.
Ultimately, it is the World Cup which is the main financial engine of the game’s governing body World Rugby, recently rebranded from its previous guise as the International Rugby Board. World Rugby generates 90 per cent of its revenue stream from World Cups. Between 2009 and 2016, the organisation’s stated aim is to invest in the region of €418 million in the sport.
The 2011 Rugby World Cup in New Zealand generated net profits of €120 million (£95 million) for World Rugby, while the projections for the 2015 tournament in England are for a net surplus of over €200 million (£160 million) and for the 2019 World Cup in Japan the projected profit is €150-€160 million (£120-125 million) .
When World Rugby, or the IRB as it then was, decided to take the unprecedented step of conducting a dual vote for hosting both the 2015 and 2019 tournaments in July 2009, it afforded them the elbow room to award one tournament on the premise of it being more of a commercial decision (England) and the other (Japan) a more holistic decision to spread the game globally.
Foundation unions
No official target has been set for the 2023 tournament, but given the current financial needs of the game for both the tier one unions and beyond, the primary goal of World Rugby will be to maximise the revenue from the World Cup, and thus far more in keeping with the 2015 tournament. After all, 16 of the 25-man Council which will make the decision come from the eight “foundation unions”.
It’s doubtful Ireland would have entertained the thought of putting together a bid, or that a bid would have been entertained by other countries, had it not been for the success of New Zealand 2011. Even much of New Zealand’s own media rubbished the bid, claiming its legacy would mostly be a white elephant.
But in the event the country memorably embraced the tournament and an influx of over 100,000 supporters and even the more cynical media were won over.
At face value, as a putative host, Ireland has more going for it than New Zealand. Crucially, a la the New Zealand bid, it has government support on both sides of the border and, as critically, it has the support of the GAA, given the need to have 10 to 13 stadiums and one with a minimum capacity of 60,000 to host both the semi-finals and final, ie Croke Park.
Importantly, Ireland is also logistically and geographically more accessible for potential supporters from abroad, many of whom have historically made the trek to Ireland from rugby heartlands. Most importantly of all, an Irish World Cup would be in the same time zones as England and France, and thus appeal to the sport’s two most lucrative television markets. And broadcast rights constitute a significant percentage of the commercial revenue streams of any World Cup.
Ireland is the one confirmed bid to date, and may have more going for it than, say, Argentina, Italy, the USA and Canada (perhaps combined), who have all indicated an interest in hosting the 2023 tournament.
It would also have much more of a distinctive flavour to it than the tournament being hosted again in France, given the French hosted the World Cup as recently as 2007.
That is not to dismiss all of these prospective bids (after all, Italy only missed out by three votes last time around); it’s just that a well-conceived Irish bid would back its chances against them.
Biggest threat
The biggest threat would assuredly be South Africa, which hosted the tournament in 1995. Should their bid be rejected, it would be 28 years and counting since that tournament provided one of the sport’s most iconic images of all time when Nelson Mandela presented the William Webb Ellis trophy in a Springboks jersey to the South African captain François Pienaar.
That would be a long time since one of the game’s behemoths and two-time winners hosted the World Cup for the one and only time.
What’s more, the South Africans tabled bids for the 2011, 2015 and 2019 tournaments, only to be rejected each time, and it would almost seem cruel were they to be denied again.
Furthermore, to all intents and purposes, the next two tournaments are in the Northern Hemisphere per se, and were World Rugby to award the 2023 tournament to Ireland, that would mean the Southern Hemisphere missing out on at least three tournaments in succession.
In addition, the differences between an all-in Irish bid and one by England/Britain might seem a good deal more significant hereabouts than it would in other parts of the world. After all, Ireland were part hosts for the 1991 and 1999 World Cups when the finals were held in Twickenham and the Millennium Stadium.
Most of all, the relatively negligible difference in time zones between South Africa and Europe, also makes them appealing hosts to the lucrative UK and French television markets.
Ireland can put together a compellingly unique and commercially strong bid to host the 2023 World Cup, and has a good opportunity of succeeding. But at this early juncture, it looks like second favourite.
gthornley@irishtimes.com
