Only the blind see England as a World Cup host

By WYNNE GRAY

Late next month the host for the 2007 World Cup should be revealed.

England and France are scrapping for the job, and when the International Rugby Board makes a decision at its November conference, I hope France gets the job.

Twice the World Cup has been to the Northern Hemisphere, and it has been a substandard event compared to the initial 1987 tournament in New Zealand and Australia and the 1995 event in South Africa.

England was awarded the World Cup in 1991, but had to sub-contract parts of the tournament to Scotland, Ireland, Wales and France to appease political interests and because England did not have enough resources to stage the entire event.

The British Isles unions dovetailed, as much as they ever do, but France was very much seen as a neighbour to help with the overflow.

If that was bad, 1999 was worse. Wales was appointed host, but seemed to be bullied a great deal by England in a tournament that had the ghastly system of five pools with four teams and repechage quarter-finals.

France was called on again, but treated like a garlic sausage at a banquet for peppermint breath vegetarians.

If you believe the mounting propaganda behind bids for the 2007 cup, England is ahead of its Gallic neighbour.

That would be a pity. The tournament needs to be based somewhere else, and France would be a superb option.

It has some of the best stadiums in the sporting world, and showed at the soccer World Cup in 1998 how well it could stage a major event.

The French Rugby Federation intends to base its 2007 bid on most of those same soccer venues.

Anyone who has been fortunate enough to watch rugby at Stade de France, Parc des Princes, Toulouse or Nantes will understand the quality of those sporting arenas.

France has also shown its rugby pre-eminence, regularly.

Opposition will come from those who want to use the language difficulties, the food, the left-hand-drive rules or any other convenient excuse.

They will ignore the enormous and widespread passion for rugby in France, the contribution French administrators have made since the inaugural world tournament, the superb public transport systems, the same Euro currency and the difficulties many competing nations have had in attending four tournaments in English-dominated nations.

If, as new IRB chief executive Mike Miller tried to tout when he was in New Zealand this week, global administrators had to grow the sport, then the 2007 World Cup hosting rights have to be removed from the self-serving interests of England and the Home Unions.

Miller suggested the IRB was a union of unions who would govern the game appropriately if they were in touch with their constituents.

The IRB, to some extent, flunked its last World Cup exam when it did not sort out the wrangle between Australia and New Zealand.

It was a mess it allowed to fester when it should have brought an earlier cure.

This time it should not be seduced by grandiose England plans that include the use of 14 soccer stadiums, the redevelopment of Twickenham, a twin-tier competition allowing the lower-ranked unions to play in a simultaneous event and massive profit margins as reasons for its acceptance.

It is time to say Allez, La France.