French farce proves money talks in rugby world

VOTING for Rugby World Cup hosts is rather like an anti-Eurovision. As opposed to bloc alliances entrenched along mother-country lines, the mere glimpse of the Webb Ellis Cup is enough to tip old neighbours towards acts of spectacular last-minute treachery.

Thus did Ireland reasonably expect that Scotland would endorse their credentials to stage the 2023 tournament, but their Celtic brethren were guilty of perfidy in backing France.

Bill Beaumont’s stony face in announcing France’s victory told its own story.

The World Rugby Council he chairs had just performed an about-turn sharper than the fastest-retreating fullback. A “transparent process”, he called it.

Try telling the South Africans, whose bid had been judged the optimum choice by the governing body’s own evaluation commission two weeks earlier, only for the prize to be snatched away in a Gallic heist behind closed doors.

“Entirely opaque,” as South African Rugby Union chief executive Jurie Roux put it.

Football and the Olympics used to be market leaders in this kind of caper.

One still shudders at the memory of Andy Anson, the Disney suit turned kingpin of England’s 2018 World Cup bid, expressing implacable confidence that flesh-pressing by Prince William and David Beckham in Zurich would bring home the bacon.

The reality? Two first-round votes to Russia’s nine.

Likewise, Rio was a shock winner over Chicago to host the 2016 summer Games, even after newly inaugurated President Obama scattered stardust over his home city’s efforts.

But where Fifa and the International Olympic Committee have long been bywords for obtuse chicanery, rugby, the gentlemen’s game, strives to be different.

“Inherent in everything we do are our values of integrity, respect, solidarity, passion and discipline,” World Rugby’s official credo declares.

Alas, such a moral pedestal has been eroded by bureaucracy’s answer to daylight robbery. For World Rugby to deny South Africa, just a fortnight after its own experts had identified it as the outstanding bidder, suggests there has been more horse-trading than in an auction at Tattersalls.

Even the South Africans’ own federation allegedly turned against them. Yes, the Confederation of African Ruging by, which shares the same office space as Roux and his bid colleagues in Cape Town, is said to have voted for France.

In three of five categories, from scheduling to infrastructure to the quality of venues, South Africa were clear winners over France. And yet independent intelligence-gather- has been tossed aside by two secret ballots in a Kensington boardroom.

Little wonder that former Springbok flyhalf Joel Stransky claims that France only secured the 2023 event at the behest of an “old boys’ club”.

Why even bother with an independent auditor if you are going to ignore its advice? Money, of course. Rugby likes to pretend it stands aloof from venal motives or petty politicking, but it has gone with France solely because it is a guaranteed banker, even if it last hosted a World Cup a mere 10 years ago.

On this front, it is no better than athletics, whose next two world championships will be staged in Doha and tiny Eugene, Oregon, chosen for connections to the all-powerful Nike.

Most of the ills in how rugby is run can be traced to money. The Samoan Rugby Union, whose team play England at Twickenham on Saturday, has declared itself bankrupt.

Such struggles are unlikely to be eased when its players stand to earn just £650 (R12 000) each from a game generating gate receipts of over £10-million (R185-million).

Equally, there is no acceptable reason why England and New Zealand, the world’s two top-ranked sides, are not confronting each other in this year’s autumn series. The only sticking point is the All Blacks’ reported insistence on a £3-million (R55-million) fee.

For South Africa, the sense of betrayal, of being punted purely in rugby’s pursuit of flashing dollar signs, cuts deep.

Beaumont’s talk of transparency was, in their eyes, a smokescreen.

They had the experts’ support, but instead the sport embraced the zeitgeist for repudiating whatever experts say.

They were scrupulous, too, in staying within the rules. Now they have been crushed by the cash cow, they must wonder why they bothered.

Quite frankly, Beaumont can forget his glib recourse – “You’ve got to dust yourselves down and get on with it.”

Really, Bill? On this occasion, his organisation has left behind a feeling of injustice far too raw to be expunged overnight. – Telegraph Media Group Limited 2017