Zeena Isaacs
9 July 2009
opinion
Johannesburg — I FEEL for the South African Rugby Union's (Saru's) World Cup bid committee after it was shown the finger by Rugby World Cup Limited (RWCL) last week.
After being tossed out of the 2011 World Cup bidding race early, with Japan and New Zealand advancing to the final voting round, Saru looks almost certain to miss out on the 2015 and 2019 competitions after being shoved out in the cold with Italy last week.
Saru remains hopeful that the International Rugby Board (IRB) council will ignore the recommendation and vote in its favour. But after being stabbed in the back by a few council members in the 2011 bid, Saru should expect the worst when the host nations are announced on July 28.
RWCL has made it clear that the decision to recommend England as the 2015 host was based purely on greed, while Japan looks certain to get the 2019 event regardless of how strong or poor its bid presentation was -- as it is in line with the IRB's goal to grow the game worldwide.
England may have the luxury of an effective transport system, top soccer stadiums and one of the strongest foreign currencies in the world. But with SA hosting the 2010 Fifa Soccer World Cup, the country will not be far behind.
As things stand, SA's new stadiums compare favourably with some of the world's best in terms of quality and capacity, and they boast top-notch media facilities. The transport system is also sure to improve with the Gautrain, while the cab taxi service is booming.
Besides, if SA was such a hellhole, we would have been reading stories every day about how unfit the country is to host the Soccer World Cup, especially after the Fifa Confederations Cup.
That aside, we hosted a successful 1995 Rugby World Cup, the 2009 Indian Premier League cricket tournament, the 2003 Cricket World Cup and the 2007 World Twenty20 Championships.
To top all of this off, we hosted tens of thousands of British and Irish Lions supporters in the past six weeks and they loved it.
Fans were in heaven: they stayed in top hotels for a fraction of European prices, the exchange rate allowed them to shop like crazy, and they bought four beers for the price of one back home.
After bonding with the foreign media and supporters for six weeks, it was surprising how positive they were about SA.
Another baffling thing about the decision not to recommend SA for this sporting spectacle is that ticket prices would be in line with international standards, as was the case with the Lions tour, the Confederations Cup and next year's World Cup.
To top off this shambles, England hosted a lot of games in the 1999 Rugby World Cup, which was awarded to Wales.
This brings me to the point that the IRB needs to clarify exactly why SA was not recommended to host one of the events. Its shameful reference to SA's bid in a statement last week was nothing more than a slap in the face to those who spent countless hours preparing the bid.
"Both Italy and SA submitted comprehensive tenders with very strong government support and would be capable of hosting outstanding Rugby World Cup tournaments now or in the future," the statement said.
"I would like to thank and congratulate them both for the quality of their tenders. However, there could only be two recommended unions and after detailed review, the RWCL board decided that England and Japan would provide the best balanced combination of hosts for the continued worldwide development of the game."
It went on to refer to England as a "major rugby market", saying: "As the revenue generated from world cup is vital to the IRB's ongoing development plans, the RWCL board considered in its review process the preference for world cup to be held in one of the major rugby markets on a regular basis."
People have slept outside ticket offices for years to be first in line to see Super 14 semifinals and finals, the British and Irish Lions Tests, Tri-Nations games and even Currie Cup finals. The country is also in the perfect time zone to broadcast games live, just like England.
So what differentiates SA from England as a major rugby market?
Read comments. Write your own.
Copyright © 2009 Business Day. All rights reserved. Distributed by AllAfrica Global Media (allAfrica.com). To contact the copyright holder directly for corrections — or for permission to republish or make other authorized use of this material, click here.
AllAfrica aggregates and indexes content from over 125 African news organizations, plus more than 200 other sources, who are responsible for their own reporting and views. Articles and commentaries that identify allAfrica.com as the publisher are produced or commissioned by AllAfrica.
Surely the RWCL's statement: "the RWCL board considered in its review process the preference for the world cup to be held in one of the major rugby markets on a regular basis" means South Africa would be considered to hold future Rugby World Cups the same as all the other "major rugby markets", as opposed to the likes of, say, Portugal or Georgia or any of the other improving rugby playing nations hosting the Rugby World Cup just because they applied, even if their ability to do so wasn't likely.