Editorial: Rugby, not profit, is the winner

Opinion

For years, the International Rugby Board has been derided by New Zealanders. It was, most believed, the preserve of gin-swilling Old Etonians whose innate conservatism and muddled thinking precluded any meaningful advances in the game. Is it time, therefore, in the wake of New Zealand being handed so spectacular a prize as the hosting of the 2011 World Cup, for a dramatic reassessment? Perhaps not. This was, in many ways, a case of rugby's governors once again taking the staid option.

Now it is Japan's turn to complain about the IRB's conservatism. New Zealand's success, said Yoshiro Miro, of the Japanese Rugby Union, was down to the established nations passing the ball among themselves. An opportunity to establish rugby as a truly global sport had been lost.

Japan, based on that sentiment, allied to strong commercial sponsorship and the prospect of a lavish profit, had been the favourite to claim the event. It was widely assumed the IRB would take the chance to stage a grand showpiece, using Japan's impressive stadiums and infrastructure. Instead, it was swayed by the altogether more sober prospect of a truly rugby environment, one that had demonstrated its excellence as recently as this year's Lions tour.

That may have been the conservative option but, as it happens, it was also the right one. It is tempting to believe the idea that millions of Asians would embrace rugby if only the World Cup were played in Japan. Yet history suggests otherwise. Similar thinking led soccer's governors to stage their World Cup in the United States. Americans were indifferent. There is little to suggest that Japan, where rugby is a minor sport compared to the likes of soccer and sumo, would be any different.

In fact, the lack of genuine interest in Japan would probably prompt the embarrassing spectacle of half-empty stadiums for at least some of the minor games. That will not happen in New Zealand. Provincial centres will leap at the opportunity to be associated with international rugby.

How, then, could bookmakers and commentators have got the outcome of the hosting vote so wrong? Undoubtedly, too much emphasis was placed on the profit that Japan and the other bidder, South Africa, could deliver. This overlooked the fact that, with the Clark Government underwriting the tournament fee, New Zealand met all financial goals.

Also underestimated was the importance of the All Black brand. No one will say it but New Zealand's bid might just have been sweetened by the offer of All Black fixtures.

Most of all, however, some IRB members - the likes of Scotland and Ireland, perhaps - must have been wary of rugby surrendering to the dictates of profit, thereby rendering the World Cup out of bounds to all but the biggest countries. Such countries would have empathised with New Zealand's bid.

Perhaps they even turned their noses up at the public relations campaigns undertaken by Japan and South Africa, but shunned by New Zealand. And their conservative instinct was probably confirmed when they thought, as Colin Meads suggested, of the decision purely in rugby terms.

New Zealand deserves this opportunity. Without its pioneering work, there might not even be a World Cup. Much, however, has changed since the first tournament in 1987, when some provinces saw little need for even a minor sprucing-up of their facilities. Six years from now, New Zealand will be on the global stage as never before. The passion that secured the hosting rights must now be brought to the preparation for, and staging of, the event. Given our rugby heritage, this must be the best World Cup ever.