Loose Pass: Tournament hosting and a grand finale

David Skippers

This week we will mostly be concerning ourselves with tournament hosting and South Africa’s grand finale…

Where to put the Lions?

News broke this week, seemingly all week long, about countries stepping forward desperate to host one tournament or another (in reality it was only the Lions tour and the World Cup), raising all sorts of debates.

Australia’s offer to host the Lions v South Africa Test series was met with a wave of negativity, which we have to confess, we found difficult to comprehend.

It would not be what either of the competing bodies had envisaged, but then nothing is as it has been envisaged for over a year now.

The idea has been roundly rejected by most, many with understandable reasons, but we’re not so sure.

No, it wouldn’t be much fun for South Africa’s players or local populace to have a home Test played eight or nine time zones away, but there are plenty of South Africans in Australia, not least in Perth, by far the closest of Australia’s cities. The players, you might imagine, would get far more of a boost from playing in front of any crowd, let alone one with a large number of compatriots in.

And which side would the Australians come down on? Looking back through history finds no love lost between touring Lions and the Wallabies. Not that there’s a lot lost between the Boks and the Wallabies either, but you suspect that the natives would come down on the side of their annual opponents rather than the tourists. That’d be as good as a home game for the Boks, if not better.

It would still be a proper Test series and tour for the Lions. Some would miss out on the uniqueness that is touring South Africa, but few will never see the Rainbow Nation on tour again. All the usual facets of Lions touring would – most likely – be there, including the partisan crowds, rough warm-up games, interactions with the locals.

How revenue would be shared is moot. Australia said they would seek to cover costs only, but it’s not tough to imagine two cash-strapped unions ending up in an ugly spat over monies raised from the tour; even the Lions would want their say in that as well. But let’s not deny it, there would be more revenue from selling out stadia in Australia than empty seats elsewhere.

But back to the basics of rugby: surely the idea of three big Test matches between the world champions and the cream of the home unions in front of full stadia is a better one than the Lions playing hosts in front of empty seats, or the tour taking place in anaesthetised virus-free bubbles with no interaction. Or, heaven forbid, no tour at all?

It’s not a perfect idea, but it is one that needs careful consideration, as it could work – it could even be the best solution.

No to joint World Cups

The other tournament to be subject of hosting rights speculation this week has been the 2031 World Cup, for which the bidding process opened on Monday. Apparently high on the list is a joint bid between the home four unions.

Financially, this makes sense. World Rugby demands a huge security payment for hosting rights to the World Cup – France’s for 2023 was $205m. Which countries could afford that in the current climate? Those that club together, clearly.

Yet we have also seen that in terms of the unique identity and cultural background a World Cup is supposed to have, the tournament becomes a little diluted and faceless. England’s solo effort featured home games for Wales in Cardiff, for example. In 1999, the tournament was officially hosted by Wales, but by far the most memorable games were at Twickenham (unless you are Samoan). Wales had fewer than half of the knockout games.

This is not aimed at dispelling this notion completely. Clearly Scotland, and most likely Wales, do not have economic resources to host the tournament alone, yet to never have them hosting World Cup rugby would be unthinkable. Ireland made a solid bid for 2023 on its own though, and obviously England, as the richest union in the world, wouldn’t have a problem.

Wouldn’t it perhaps be better to set an economic threshold, under which nations such as Wales and Scotland could come together but which would prohibit large nations such as England ramping up their security even more by farming out games?

A tournament hosted by a club of smaller nations (economically) would have a different feel to one hosted by a mix of large and small, as would one hosted exclusively by a large nation (such as the USA, who are also apparently in the running for 2031, or France in 2023 or Australia, probably, in 2027).

As the game grows, and the gaps between unions’ resources grow with them, it needs to be considered.

A game with everything

It was not exactly a classic, but the Currie Cup final lived up to billing. A cagey start, the game becoming more and more open as it went on, extra time and survival of the fittest, and a last-gasp winning try.

The threat of apocalyptic weather added to the drama, as did the inability of both kickers to master their nerves under pressure and a couple of odd refereeing decisions.

Congratulations to the Bulls for their longevity in the match, and to the Sharks for their contribution. And a huge pat on the back to South African rugby for seeing this tournament through in unimaginably difficult times.

Loose Pass compiled by Lawrence Nolan