All Blacks coach Ian Foster on eve of USA departure. Video / allblakcs.com
OPINION:
A big moment in transtasman rugby relations is looming when, in May next year, there will be a vote to determine the host of the 2027 World Cup.
Australia have made a bid – one that they expect New Zealand Rugby to vote for. They will expect that supportnot just because the Anzac brotherhood demands it, but because at the moment, the only other bidder is Russia.
To fulfil their own high performance and commercial goals, NZR need Australia to be a strong, well-resourced, credible rugby force.
The future of the game in this part of the world depends on collective as much as individual strength and for Australia to be successful, stronger than they currently are at least and the game over there needs a bucketload of cash tipped into it.
And hosting a World Cup will do just that – which is why Rugby Australia have made a bid to be host for the second time.
Australia have enough major stadia for a World Cup there to be a major financial success.
It won't be in the same financial league as the 2015 tournament in the UK where the use of major football stadiums such as Wembley, St James' Park, Villa Park and Old Trafford enabled that World Cup to be the most profitable in history, but Australia can make good money as hosts given they have a 65,000 capacity stadium in Perth, an 83,000 capacity in Sydney and 53,000 in Brisbane.
Winning the hosting rights is a key plank in Rugby Australia's financial recovery plan. They are expected to also shortly begin the process of selling future commercial rights to a private equity partner, and these two initiatives are largely what they are banking on to fix their distressed balance sheet and become a stronger, global force.
Wallabies coach Dave Rennie talks to New Zealand Rugby CEO Mark Robinson and former chairman Brent Impey. Photo / Photosport
It seems then relatively straightforward – NZR have an obligation to vote for Australia to host the 2027 World Cup.
Except, there is a dark and treacherous history when it comes to these two nations and World Cup hosting rights.
There are different views about who was to blame for NZR losing their 2003 co-hosting rights. Was it NZR's stubbornness to abide by the clean stadia requirement, or were they shafted by a cunning Rugby Australia executive who saw their chance to take control of the tournament?
What's not complicated is that in 2005, RA voted for Japan's bid to host the 2011 World Cup and not New Zealand's. It was a stunning rejection given the importance of the Sanzaar alliance to Australia at the time and yet they stabbed their old pal in the back, justifying their decision by saying they felt a World Cup in Japan would better strengthen the global and indeed Southern Hemisphere game.
NZR, then, doesn't owe RA any favours or indeed any loyalty in this specific regard. They could conceivably vote for the Vladimir Putin-backed Russian bid guilt-free and justify it, just as RA did in 2005, as being in the best, long-term interests of the global game to be taking the sport to new frontiers.
It would be an explosive and confrontational move by NZR to vote for Russia and it would presumably inflict almost irreparable damage on their already frayed and tense relationship with Australia.
So the question would be why do it? Revenge couldn't be validated as a strong enough reason and if NZR do genuinely want to see the game grow globally, then the smarter strategy would be to vote for Australia to host in 2027 and the USA in 2031.
New Zealand didn't receive Australia's vote in their bid to host the 2011 Rugby World Cup. Photo / Photosport
World Rugby has indicated that it would like to vote for both the 2027 and 2031 tournaments at the same time, and the US has its hand up for the latter.
NZR would be needlessly blowing up their own future if they sabotaged Australia's World Cup bid by not voting for it.
But that doesn't mean there is no leverage for NZR to find in this issue over the next few months.
RA expects and needs NZR's vote and yet, their chairman Hamish McLennan, has been on record recently suggesting that they are only committed to Super Rugby Pacific and an alliance with NZR for the next two years.
McLennan says if the relationship doesn't settle, then RA may move on – go back to hosting its own Super Rugby competition and effectively sever ties, at provincial level at least, with NZR.
There is an opportunity, then, for NZR to make it clear they will vote for RA's World Cup on the condition there is a stronger and longer commitment made to Super Rugby Pacific.
Lay it down nice and simple – that if Rugby Australia want loyalty they must first demonstrate they are capable of showing some themselves.
