RWCs aren’t adding up for major unions...

The starting gun has been fired on the race to host the 2035 and 2039 Rugby World Cup tournaments. Expressions of interest have been made: Spain’s proposal has piqued interest, Italy’s too, while the Middle East stalks along as the elephant in the room. The idea of going back to Japan within 20 years of a first World Cup in Asia is a popular proposition.

News came over the weekend, however, that South Africa has all but ruled out a bid for either edition of the tournament. South Africa threw its hat into the ring in 2011, 2015, 2019 and 2023 but was overlooked on each occasion and the SA Rugby president, Mark Alexander, was brutally honest when asked about the prospect of doing so again.

“It just brings so many other challenges to the country,” he said. “People think it is just a sports event but so many other things have to be activated. I will tell [SA Rugby] not to do this. We are a third-world country. Our economy is not strong and we have to act responsibly. I know sport does a lot for social cohesion but I think it would be unfair on [the] government to put up guarantees.”

It is a desperate shame that the winners of the past two World Cups do not consider it financially viable to bid and the 2023 bidding process looks all the more ham-fisted now.

To recap, World Rugby introduced a process whereby a technical review of the candidates would lead to recommendation by the governing body’s board. South Africa emerged as the recommended bidder but World Rugby’s council ignored the recommendation and in an anonymous vote, opted for France, whose bid was based on a promise to prevent “the death of rugby” with its financial clout.

Reflecting on the decision during South Africa’s autumn tour, the centre Damian de Allende said: “It’s heartbreaking, it was in our hands and it got taken away from us. I know we won the World Cup last year but it would have been a lot more special to have hosted it and won it. I get a bit sad speaking about it because I don’t know when we will host another World Cup.”

In Ireland’s case, they were the third horse in the race for the 2023 tournament but came up short, crucially failing to gain the backing of Scotland – a neighbourly snub that still rankles. As revealed by the Guardian, a united home nations bid for the 2031 World Cup was proposed but soon shelved because, it is said, agreement on where to stage the final could not be reached.

Instead, in six years, the World Cup breaks new ground in the US. Australia – with its wealth of impressive stadiums – hosts the next edition but it is 2031 occupying minds at World Rugby at present. Executives wanted the British & Irish Lions to play in Las Vegas on the way to Australia this summer and may be heartened by the suggestion they could stop off in Sin City in 2029, on the way to New Zealand. England’s fixture in Washington, in July, and another clash between the All Blacks and Ireland in Chicago later this year is further evidence of spreading the gospel.

Because World Rugby is under pressure to deliver. The 2023 World Cup proved costly for France – an expected net loss of €13m (£11.1m), according to a damning report over mismanagement released earlier this month by the French court of audit – but for World Rugby it generated record-breaking revenues of €500m (£429m).

Still, when the Irish union released its accounts last November, reporting an €18.4m (£15.8m) deficit, the chief executive, Kevin Potts, was strident in his view that the cost of competing in a World Cup, exacerbated by losing autumn internationals revenue, is a problem. “It [the World Cup] is a value transfer from the unions to the tournament,” he said.

“We get some funding over the following years out of World Rugby but it doesn’t match what it costs us. It’s also being used to develop the game globally. It’s not working and World Rugby are aware that we and other unions are challenged by this and we need to look, is there a better way? We certainly can’t continue to have World Cups every four years that are having such a major impact in that year on our finances.”

It is quite the conversation but as Sweeney suggests, how can World Rugby justify cutting funding of the have-nots to give more to the haves? The only viable solution appears to be to ensure World Cups generate more revenue, hence the American gold rush before a likely return to Europe in 2035. The smart money is on Japan in 2039 after 2019 was, at the time, the most lucrative tournament in history.

It also brings us back to the elephant in the room. Suffice it to say, World Rugby will pay close attention to the Nations Championship finals in 2028, which are slated for Qatar. But the Middle East could not stage a World Cup in the traditional September-October slot due to heat and domestic leagues would have something to say about moving it to winter. Equally, the Six Nations has been intransigent to moving dates in the past and World Rugby would struggle to countenance a tournament in which the hosts do not take part. At present the Gulf nations are nowhere near competitive enough.

All that said, against the backdrop outlined by Potts and Sweeney, the response to the Middle East question by World Rugby’s chief executive, Alan Gilpin, makes all the more sense. “Any region that wants to invest in the game, we’re going to take those conversations seriously.”