Rugby World Cup: The Stats

With European qualifying starting last Saturday as the mighty Magyars from Hungary took on the belligerent Bulgarians and the 3 year countdown having just passed what better time for a look at the issues surrounding the 2015 Rugby World Cup in England?

This series will look into 5 areas:

The Stadiums, which ones are long-listed, are they suitable and which will be chosen?

The Schedule, how will the World Cup in England actually work?

The Season, can a proper domestic season really be fitted around the demands of the World Cup?

The Stats, how are we measuring up to that other World Cup?

The Sides, who are we going to be watching in 2015 and how are they getting here?

The Stats

People often say that Rugby Union’s problem is that there aren’t as many likely winners of the World Cup as there are in Football’s equivalent.  But does that really stack up?  It’s true that 8 nations have won FIFA’s incarnation of the World Cup compared to 4 in the Rugby World Cup, but the 2010 South Africa World Cup was the 19^th tournament and the 80^th year since the World Cup began where as the RWC is only 24 years old and has only had 7 tournaments.

So where was Football after 7 tournaments or 24 years?  (Due to a small conflagration between European states there were no World Cups between 1938 and 1950)

Not as far ahead as you might imagine.  After 7 tournaments both World Cups had been won by 4 different nations, whilst going by years Rugby is ahead by 1.  Football had had 3 more nations represented by its 7^th final and 7 more in semi-finals, with 15 compared to 8.  Though going back to the years it is only 11v8.  The quarter finals make grim reading as Football has a much bigger lead with 19 quarter-finalists after 7 tournaments compared to 12 from Rugby. 

Part of this is because of the interesting formation of the Football World Cup.  As travelling costs were greater and travelling times longer and more arduous in the 1930s than the late 1980’s only 4 European teams travelled to Uruguay for the inaugural World Cup, whilst only 3 South American sides (not including defending champions Uruguay either) returned for the 1934 World Cup in Italy. 

That second World Cup was a straight knock out affair, as was the 1938 affair held in France, these being the only World Cups where such a format was used.  This certainly helped Cuba who qualified by dint of every other side from their region withdrawing then beating Romania, who themselves had only qualified when Egypt (at that time in UEFA) had also withdrawn, thus making a World Cup quarter final having won one match in the whole tournament against a side who hadn’t won any.  Whilst the 1930 world cup went straight to the semi finals (how USA managed to make a semi final in 1930 but not a quarter final until 2002) and the 1950 World Cup had no knock out rounds at all, the stages being replaced by a final round robin group. 

The 1950 World Cup was beset by problems from day 1, the teams behind the Iron Curtain refusing to participate; including former finalists Czechoslovakia and Hungary, whilst so many European teams refused to travel to Brazil FIFA was left to include almost any team that would travel.  That said England, who had previously arrogantly refused to enter the World Cup at all, were the only debutant nation after Scotland and India both pulled out.

Which is a very long way of saying that this makes Rugby’s 25 qualifiers after 24 years very acceptable compared to Football’s 31.  Even if Rugby’s qualification process leaves something to be desired.

Where Football, or perhaps FIFA, deserves a massive pat on the back and the IRB needs a kick up the backside is the hosting arraignments.  FIFA didn’t send a World Cup back for a second visit to any country until 1986, and that was only because the original host Columbia pulled out, and has never gone to a country 3 times. 

The 2015 Rugby World Cup will be the third World Cup in England and the fourth to have games in Wales.  I’m proud England will host this World Cup but really it is a travesty that Italy lost the hosting vote by 3 (in a vote where England and Wales had 4 votes and Italy only 1).  Though it must be said the spread of countries award hosting rights to the first 7 FIFA World Cups was hardly vast, with South America hosting 3 (Uruguay, Brazil and Chile) and Europe 4 (Italy, France, Switzerland and Sweden).  Rugby has hosted the World Cup on 3 continents with 1 in Africa, 4 in Europe and 3 in Oceania.

Rugby can also genuinely argue it is a more worldwide sport than football was at a similar stage.  Africa’s only representatives at this stage were all qualifying through UEFA and Football had no presence in Rugby’s now strongholds of Oceania.  The Rugby World Cup has had sides qualify from all 6 continents, had semi finalists from 4 and champions from 3.  All of these are better than Football.  We have a lot to thank South Africa for!

Perhaps as a consequence of the spreading of the FIFA World Cup to smaller nations the average attendance of the Rugby World Cup is almost 6,000 higher than Football’s equivalent, even after the 2011 World Cup which was the worst attended World Cup since 1987 (also hosted in alleged “hotbed” New Zealand). 

So what does all this mean?  Well not a huge amount, Rugby had its first international before Football after all so the round ball hardly started with any advantage but it does show that since Rugby sorted itself out in the 1980s and started trying to govern itself in a serious and global manner it has grown into a serious and global sport.  If the final reforms of the IRB into a truly representative governing body can be forced through there is no reason why our great game can’t go from strength to strength and be played properly in every country in the world.

"International" Rugby Board or Old Colonial Tie?

Undoubtedly Rugby’s biggest problem internationally is its lack of depth.  The top of the game is actually reasonably wide, if stagnant in terms of new blood, with 4 different winners of the World Cup in 7 tournaments and no team ever retaining the trophy.  But outside the 8 foundation unions of the IRB only 4 others have got to a quarter final or better, Argentina in 1999, 2007 and 2011, Samoa in 1991 & 1995, Fiji in 1987 & 2007 and Canada in 1991.  That is really an indictment of the IRB’s efforts to spread the game.

The reason for this?  The fundamentally unfair and uneven way Rugby is governed.  Those founding 8 members get 2 votes each on the IRB’s central council whilst Canada, Japan, Italy and Argentina get 1 vote and the other 90 odd countries associated with the IRB get 6 between them through the 6 continental associations which of course the 8+4 are also members of!  Given the distain Sepp Blatter is treated in the British press, despite being elected in a true one man one vote system, you’d think the IRB would get an even worse treatment for a “democracy” that would make F.W. de Klerk blush, but no the cosy club that controls Rugby gets away with next to no scrutiny by the press.

So would a FIFA style one man one vote system be the best option?  Possibly not, even a staunch expansionist such as RM can see that giving the Bahamas the same voting rights as South Africa is perhaps not the most sensible way to grow the sport; “pork barrel” politics where favours are given to nations for their votes has lead FIFA down a difficult route.  A better option might be to look at the UN, with both permanent and termed members of an executive council elected by the full council.  England, France, New Zealand and South Africa could be the permanent members of the council with a further 5 elected from the full congress on a one man one vote system on two year terms.  The World Cup host should be decided in an open ballot, no more secret horse trading that blighted the 2011 vote where New Zealand pipped Japan to the post with some dodgy deals.

Rugby has a big advantage with the spread of the few teams it does have, Asia is the only region not to have provided a semi-finalist of the Rugby World Cup (if we follow the IRB as regarding the Americas as one region) and Rugby is well established in Japan with a professional league and a World Cup to host in 2019.  The bridgeheads into Africa and the Americas that South Africa and Argentina provide have never fully been utilised but remain as hopes for the future.  Argentina does a good amount for the other South American countries as it continues to play test matches, and compete in one of two truly continental championships rugby has, against their neighbours Uruguay and Chile as well as allowing those countries to take part in its domestic tournaments in a similar arraignment to the Pampas XV playing in South Africa.  South Africa have toyed with a similar idea for their Vodacom Cup, Namibia have competed in the past, but have never really fully bought into the idea that they have a duty to spread Rugby throughout southern Africa let alone the whole of Africa.  The, pretty outrageous, capping of Zimbabweans like Mujati or Mwatarera might be welcomed by those players as a chance to compete at a higher level but with props like that and someone like Pocock in the backrow Zimbabwe would have surely qualified for another World Cup, and that might have acted as a spur for improvement and populised the game further domestically as World Cup success has in Argentina and Georgia.

But whilst those nations are no saints they aren’t the real bad guys.  That is surely reserved for the arrogant elite that dominate and stifle European Rugby.  Georgia have consistently been the 7^th best side in Europe, winning 5 European Nations Cups, yet shockingly have NEVER played an old 5 Nations team outside a World Cup or its qualifying tournament.  In the past two World Cups they have run Ireland then Scotland extremely close, they are clearly a good side, as good as the Pacific Island sides that seem to still get international invitations, but get NO exposure against “Tier 1” nations.  If each of the 6 Nations committed to playing Georgia once at home and once away during the November Test series over the next 6 years then Georgia would have 2 tests every year until 2020 to measure themselves against their European peers whilst each nation would only have to give up 1 home November Test series match out of 18 (or more as the likes of Wales play matches outside of the International Window).   That is an incredibly small sacrifice to make to widen European Rugby horizons.  Perhaps cynically the reason this hasn’t happened is such a series of fixtures would make the case for reforming the 6 Nations into a true European Championship almost unavoidable.  It is also due to economic snobbery.  The RFU blazers and committee men just aren’t interested in going to Tbilisi, if Spain or Germany had produced Georgia’s results over such a sustained period of time the Blazers and their Wives (and their wives’ tennis partners) would be knee deep in tapas guzzling Rioja in Madrid or downing Steins of Weissbier and munching on Pretzels in Munich in no time, but a trip beyond the Iron Curtain?  No thanks chum.

I suppose to be fair to the RFU blazers (and their wives and their wives’ tennis partners) they never lowered themselves to playing Italy in a test match either nor have they ever deemed Canada or the USA worthy of a test match, and those would all be wonderful trips.

The Rugby World Cup is the pinnacle of the sport and has been the greatest driver of growth in international Rugby, but it too has challenges it must face.  The biggest challenge is threat to its integrity that uneven and unfair scheduling creates.  It seems perverse that those nations most able to deal with short turn arounds are the only ones which don’t face them.  In the 2011 Rugby World Cup it was the weaker nations who faced 4 day gaps between games where the 8 foundation unions got no less than 6 days between games.  This also has the unhelpful effect of lengthening the tournament, the Rugby World Cup must be the longest major championship.  It is pretty obvious that this is a symptom of the uneven voting structure of the IRB, after all those nations with votes are the ones least affected, perhaps this will be the issue that brings about change in the voting structure.  We can but hope.

The knock out element of the tournament also needs to be shortened, a week’s gap between the end of the group stage, the quarter final, the semi final and then the final lose all of the momentum that has been generated during the group stage.  That is perhaps a challenge too far as you want the best sides available to decide the tournament.

Refereeing is also a contentious subject.  Hopefully the ascension of Argentina to the Rugby Championship will provide a pathway for elite referees better than Italy’s acceptance into the 6 Nations has for Italian Rugby.  The total domination of elite refereeing by the 8 foundation unions is a disgrace and is highly damaging to Rugby’s appeal and growth.  Samoa have already raised the issue of bias, both overt and subliminal, but have been rebuffed with the typical arrogance that is associated with IRB.  The perception of a refereeing cosy club is damaging even though I do have faith in the IRB that it isn’t true.  More to the point someone must be refereeing the domestic Argentinean competitions that produce such prodigious players, someone is refereeing matches in Japan, Fiji, Canada and the professional league in Russia.  These countries produce high quality players by the bucket load but not a single referee to the standard of Greg Garner?  Give over.  This could be the easiest of all problems to fix, if only the IRB recognised it as a problem.

But it all comes down to the inequitable foundation stones upon which the whole edifice of International Rugby is constructed.  A move to fairer voting system at the heart of the IRB is a complete must.  At the very smallest of incremental steps that MUST be taken would be the increasing of Argentina and Italy to 2 votes each and the creation of votes for the USA, Samoa, Fiji and Tonga.  That would leave a handful of European nations outside the formal voting structure rather than the majority of major world nations.  A UN style mix of permanent and elected board members would be even better.  Fix that and a lot of the other problems would soon follow because those at the sharp end of the decisions would finally have a voice.