NZ outsiders as world awaits IRB cup vote

LONDON - The destination of the 2011 World Cup will be decided on Friday morning (NZ time) when the voting nations are faced with a seemingly straightforward choice of playing safe with South Africa or New Zealand or going global with Japan.

When it comes to international rugby politics, however, there is no such thing as straightforward and where the best tournament is likely to be held becomes almost incidental to the horse-trading and self-interest of the major nations.

In the first phase of voting, when the three bidding countries cannot vote, there are 19 votes available, 12 of them held by just six countries - England, Ireland, Scotland, Wales, France and Australia. Canada, Italy and Argentina each have one vote while the minor playing nations are represented by the single votes held by the confederations of Africa, Asia, Oceania and Europe.

The result of this system in the past has been widespread behind-the-scenes deals, with a share of the competition, future tours and so on promised in exchange for votes.

New Zealand

The 2003 edition became solely Australian after New Zealand had their joint rights withdrawn for refusing to bow to the International Rugby Board's (IRB) rules on ground advertising.

New Zealand, who shared the first tournament in 1987 with Australia, are still aggrieved by the IRB's 2003 decision and, as a country where rugby is king, appear to feel they deserve full hosting rights.

There is no question the whole country would embrace the event, as it did with the Lions tour this year, and there would be no empty stadiums even for the low-key matches.

However, though the emotional argument is strong, the practicalities are not in favour. Small, ageing stadiums, limited hotel space and a time zone not suitable for the lucrative European television market leave New Zealand as the outsider.

South Africa

The 1995 South African World Cup, which marked the Springboks' first appearance in the tournament after their ban because of apartheid, was a huge success on many levels.

Perhaps the most significant of those was the way in which the 1995 event appeared to unite the "Rainbow Nation" behind a sport that had formerly been the property of the white minority.

The political case is no longer a trump card but South Africa can offer a powerful logistical argument based on the fact that it will host the soccer World Cup in 2010.

The new and refurbished stadiums needed for that event, as well as the country's tourism infrastructure, will have been tried and tested by the time rugby comes along a year later.

The time zone is also in South Africa's favour while its major disadvantages appear to be the country's high crime rate and the continual in-fighting between rugby authorities.

Japan

Japan offers rugby the chance to go beyond its traditional borders, both the bid's strength and weakness. Japanese officials say choosing them would be the greatest step forward for the game since it turned professional 10 years ago and would send a strong message that the IRB was serious about global expansion.

Having successfully co-hosted the 2002 soccer World Cup, there is no question Japan could organise a smoothly run tournament, with stadiums, infrastructure, travel and logistics all guaranteed.

Also in its favour is it would present a level playing field, with no home advantage for any of the countries likely to be contesting the semifinals and finals.

Japan have never reached the quarter-finals despite competing in all five previous events. Despite impressive figures for grassroots participation, the lack of a traditional playing pedigree is the bid's major perceived disadvantage.

The stadiums would be full - the authorities would ensure that - but, as in the 1994 soccer World Cup in the United States, they are likely to contain thousands of curious but faintly bemused onlookers rather than rugby-savvy supporters.

Bookmakers have Japan and South Africa vying for favouritism with New Zealand a distant third.


WHAT HAPPENS NEXT

Presentation

The three candidates (Japan, New Zealand, South Africa) each make a presentation to the IRB. 

Phase One 

Secret ballot of 19 votes. The candidate countries are not allowed to participate in this phase. Votes are distributed as follows:

England: two votes
Scotland: two votes
Ireland: two votes
Wales: two votes
France: two votes
Australia: two votes
Italy: one vote
Argentina: one vote
Canada: one vote
European Rugby Association (Fira): one vote
Confederation of African Rugby (Car): one vote
Oceania Rugby Union (Foru): one vote
Asian Rugby Football Union (Arfu): one vote

Phase Two

The candidate with the fewest votes in phase one drops out before a second secret ballot is held, where a simple majority will decide the winning bid.

If South Africa or New Zealand are eliminated, they will have two votes, bringing the total to 21, but Japan would carry only one, lifting the total to 20.

- REUTERS