Japan bid for Rugby World Cup couldn't deliver

Japan's bid for the 2011 Rugby World Cup offered less profit to the International Rugby Board (IRB) than New Zealand's and was judged to be a long last behind New Zealand and South Africa, according to international rugby sources.

Japan's bid - founded on an emotional appeal to spread the game of rugby to the potentially huge Asian market - also hinged on the vast sums that Japanese companies would offer as sponsors. However, it now appears the Japanese bid fell short on financial as well as other grounds, according to sources close to the IRB, undermining the runaway victory many in the UK media had supported and predicted.

The IRB's technical evaluation of the three bids apparently ranked the Japanese bid third out of three although, when voting commenced, it was South Africa which was edged out of contention in the first round, leaving the contest to be decided between Japan and New Zealand.

One of the main planks for a Japanese victory was supposed to be the battery of multi-national, multi-billion dollar corporate sponsors lined up to bankroll the Japanese bid. But, when push came to shove, sources said the Japanese bid actually promised less money for the IRB than the New Zealand bid.

It was also poorly organised and poorly presented and relied heavily on shaping public opinion through an international PR campaign.

NZRU chief executive Chris Moller would not comment on Japan's bid but did say that the voting margin recently outlined by Argentina - 11 votes to 10 - was wrong and that the margin was wider. He would not reveal the actual margin.

The NZRU has been vehemently denying recent allegations which continue to point the finger at supposed irregularities surrounding the voting - including implications that the NZRU did "deals" with some IRB member countries to ensure the World Cup came to New Zealand in 1987.

The latest implications, sparked by an Argentinian rugby website, were that the NZRU used the promise of entry to the Tri Nations tournament to secure Argentina's vote and tip the contest in New Zealand's favour.

Moller expressed frustration at the aftermath of New Zealand's successful bid. "What I can say is that the New Zealand bid was always a strong contender. We knew we were always viewed very favourably but the media and public saw only that we were a rank outsider."

However, because many of the media swallowed Japan's line, they were under pressure to explain getting it wrong and were looking for opportunities to do so - and were all too eager to imply wrongdoing on New Zealand's part.

Moller said: " Even if the voting had been done in a more transparent way, we would still have been subject to these allegations because there was so much expectation and a whole lot of media statements out there predicting a different result."

The allegations stemming from Argentina suggested that the ARU President, Alejandro Risler, had spoken to NZRU chairman Jock Hobbs around the voting. Some reports implied that the telephone call took place between the first round of voting and the second round and linked it to a meeting early next month between the NZRU and the ARU, represented by former Puma great Hugo Porta - formerly Argentina's Minister of Sport and now president of the ARU's international relations committee, a body charged with arranging more international matches for the Pumas.

Moller said that Risler had telephoned Hobbs but before the voting. No "deal" was done - proven by the fact that the Argentinians voted for South Africa in the first round and then switched their vote to New Zealand only in the second round. No telephone calls were possible between voting rounds as they occurred immediately and the voting overseers, KPMG, ensured that no delegate left the room and no telephone calls were permitted.

"In any case, such a promise would have been ludicrous," said Moller. "We could not have delivered. For Argentina to get into the Tri-Nations, all three parties [NZ, Australia and South Africa] have to agree and any one of them can veto it. So how could we promise that?"

In addition, as previously reported by the Herald on Sunday, Argentinian players are contracted to their clubs in the UK, France and Italy and will not be freed to play in the Tri-Nations international 'window'. This is an ongoing problem affecting the Pumas, seen most recently when Australia pulled their Australia A team out of the Pacific Six Nations tournament to begin this year (also involving the NZ Juniors, Japan, Tonga, Samoa and Fiji). Argentina was approached to fill the gap left by Australia but could not do so because of player unavailability.

"We don't know at this stage what Argentina wants to discuss next month's meeting. All I know is that there'll not be an easy answer to the issue of getting more international rugby for Argentina - but we will listen and try to help," said Moller.

"I also know that, even if we had been tempted to link playing against the All Blacks to the World Cup bid, we would not have won the hosting rights," he said. "It would have blown up in our faces. We faced a sizeable challenge and determined that we'd face it in a way so that we could look people in the eye and state our case honestly and openly.

"If we'd played the sort of game we are being accused of playing, we would have lost our credibility instantly. That's how you can tell these accusations are false."

- HERALD ON SUNDAY