French coup Humiliation n for World Cup chiefs as France nce land 2023 showpiece
Original preference for South Africa overturned World Rugby attacked for ‘opaque’ process
World Rugby faces serious questions about trust in its authority after a humiliating about-turn resulted in France being granted hosting rights for the 2023 Rugby World Cup.
It was only a fortnight ago that the World Rugby board gave its stamp of approval to South Africa after its bid was deemed to be “the clear leader” in a 139-page evaluation report. That detailed technical audit of the three bids (Ireland made the third) was commissioned in an effort to avoid the sort of horse-trading in which France had wooed other countries with promises to put £65 million to £80 million more into the collective pot, its pledge of £350 million far in excess of the £270 million of South Africa.
France almost won outright on the first ballot, with 18 of the 39 votes, clinching the deal once Ireland had been eliminated, with 24 votes to the 15 of South Africa.
It was a day of drama and upset in central London, one that reflects badly on the process surrounding the recommendation. “Some people are finding it hard to look others in the eye,” said one source. Philip Browne, the chief executive of the Irish union, expressed his dismay at the split in the ranks of the home unions, with only England backing their bid. “We are very disappointed that Scotland and Wales didn’t vote for us,” he said. “Scotland went for the money.”
Unions have, indeed, been seduced by cash, the putative hand- outs down the line, and have flown in the face of the recommendation of the game’s board, an embarrassing state of affairs. The very thing that World Rugby wanted to avoid, – talk of deals behind closed doors to secure votes – is what has eventuated.
The fact Bill Beaumont, World Rugby’s chairman, stressed it had been “an open and transparent” system was undermined by the fact the vote itself was a secret ballot. On that contradictory stance alone, World Rugby can be held to account. Even though the World Rugby Council vote was always part of the process, this was the first time the governing body had initiated this lengthy course of action to generate objective criteria.
The report took 10 months to compile and cost several hundred thousand pounds. Yet the 16-day lag between its publication and yesterday’s vote allowed scope for furious lobbying by France, led by the frenzied figure of Bernard Laporte, their federation’s president.
Brian O’driscoll, the highly respected former Lions and Ireland captain, expressed misgivings about allowing such petitioning, as well as the fact that the “clear leader” South Africa (winner on the evaluation report by 78.97 per cent to the 75.88 per cent of France) could be overhauled.
“The fact that the evaluation report came out with one nation to host it and the nation that is three percentage points behind manages to get it says something needs to be done and questions need to be answered,” said O’driscoll, an ambassador for the Ireland bid. “I don’t know why they waited two weeks – did that have some bearing on it? Undoubtedly. It was an opportunity to convince certain nations of who needs to be voted for.”
It is wholly legitimate for delegates to vote for the bidder that will deliver more funds to their union so clubhouses in their territory can be built or artificial pitches laid. But those pledges and responses need to be declared. The South African union felt that it had been traduced.
“For the last 15 months the process has been transparent but for the last two weeks it was very opaque,” said Mark Alexander, the South Africa Rugby president. “There was a set of rules and we abided by those rules. Several were broken in the process which we are upset about. We will beg World Rugby to modify that process.”
South Africa has been through a traumatic few days, on and off the field, the Springboks going down to a record 38-3 defeat in Dublin and now this savage, unexpected volteface. “We felt we were in injury time of this match, 99 per cent there,” said chief executive Jurie Roux, who will be exercised by the fact that the Africa delegate, who is based in Paris, voted for France.
Alexander apologised to the nation for raising hopes, all the more so as this was the fourth time in succession it had been rejected as a host. Its only World Cup was in 1995, while France staged the event as recently as 2007. “We are sorry for raising the expectations of the country and we cannot hide our desolation,” said Alexander. “Our hearts bleed that we will not be hosting in 2023.”
Beaumont stated there would be an appraisal of the process but rejected the notion it had been a humiliating day for the governing body.
In the French camp, there was nothing but jubilation, even though Laporte had originally lambasted the evaluation report as “misguided and flawed”.
“There were only certain aspects that were not fair, not the whole project,” said Laporte, who believes 17,000 jobs will be created in France and €1 billion (£895 million) injected into the economy. “We came to the bid process late but we like fighting and we like winning.”