Rugby World Cup bids: Gerry Thornley examines the bids to host the 2011 extravaganza ahead of today's final decision
High-powered delegations from Japan, New Zealand and South Africa will make hour-long presentations showcasing their bids for the 2011 Rugby World Cup to the International Rugby Board at their offices in St Stephen's Green from 9.15 this morning in alphabetical order. Most probably, though, the die has already been cast.
The council members will then break for lunch before going into conclave at 2pm. A first vote will then be taken, with England, Scotland, Ireland, Wales, France and Australia having two votes each, while Italy, Argentina, Canada, FIRA (representing other European countries), CAR (African countries), FORU (the Oceania countries), and ARFU (the Asian countries) have one apiece.
After the first ballot, the bidding nation with the lowest tally will drop out, when they will be permitted to vote in the second round; South Africa or New Zealand would have two votes, whereas Japan would have one. A simple majority will then suffice, and barring a tied vote - in which case the IRB President Syd Millar would have a casting vote - only the auditor would know the result.
When this process is completed, the delegates and the auditor will travel to the Four Seasons Hotel in Stillorgan with the benefit of a police escort and, at some juncture after 4pm onwards, the result will be publicly made known with all the drama of a Eurovision song contest. Like anyone else, the attendant council members, no less than the delegates and the attendant media, will only know the result then.
Japan have been installed as the bookies' favourites, but you wonder what relevance this has and probably has as much to do with the very public backing of their high-profile ambassadors, such as Martin Johnson, Nick Farr-Jones and Ieuan Evans, as well as the backing of the mostly Rupert Murdoch-owned British media. After all, the commercially more muscular English bid of four years ago for 2007 was reckoned to be favourite ahead of the French bid, but the latter won out.
Undoubtedly, the Japanese bid - which has been the hardest sell - has many things going for it, and would satisfy the IRB's stated desire to spread the rugby gospel into hitherto unchartered terrain.
They have the transport, infrastructure and stadiums to host a successful tournament, and have the recent experience of hosting the 2002 World Cup in football, not to mention the backing of 20 blue-chip companies.
Yet there would be concerns as to how this romantic notion of globalising the game would actually be realised in practice. After all, where is USA soccer now post 1994? Japan's lack of real achievement in five previous World Cups - they've only one won match - won't help their cause but perhaps most of all their lack of real political clout in IRB circles could prove crucial.
For all the guessing games and qualities each bid presents, much of the internal debating in most unions is shrouded in secrecy, and the votes can be as heavily influenced by brokered deals or favouritism based on long-standing relationships. Witness the carve-up of previous World Cups to more than one country; indeed Wales are co-hosting some matches in two years' time, as Ireland would have been but for Lansdowne Road's redevelopment.
As significant might be accords, such as those signed between the Japanese and Australian unions, or additional "friendlies".
Of the two more traditional powers, New Zealand have a far stronger moral case, given they were the co-hosts and driving force behind the inaugural 1987 tournament. Their failure to comply with "clean" stadia for 2003 was partly their own undoing before Australia gazumped them, but after all they've given to the game for the last century there's a compelling case for believing it is their turn.
As they proved during the Lions' series, the whole country would buy into hosting a World Cup, it would be a true rugby event, and they have the backing of their government, hence the presence of their Prime Minister, Helen Smith, to head their delegation today.
However, concern about stadia size, infrastructure and accommodation, even perhaps begrudgery about the All Blacks' current dominance on the pitch, and most of all the time-zone difference which is not ideal for the lucrative European TV market, may undo them.
As they have hosted the tournament as recently as 1995, South Africa cannot say it is their turn. There are concerns about security and much-publicised infighting within their hopelessly divided rugby hierarchy, but they'll have the stadia in place for the 2010 football World Cup, Francois Pienaar has been lobbying hard and they have the advantage of a time-zone which is best disposed towards the European TV audience.
That might logically mean they host it every eight years, and if neither New Zealand nor Japan are deemed suitable hosts now when would they ever be? But judging by the vibes from the IRFU, whose discussions have largely been confined to the management committee, that's where their votes could be heading and perhaps those of a simple majority on the second ballot.
By rights, all the council members should be presented, the vote made public and each member obliged to reveal who they voted for and why. After all, the grassroots of rugby in this country should be entitled to know how the Irish delegates, Noel Murphy and Peter Boyle, voted and their reasoning, no less than anywhere else. But such openness and accountability has not been the IRB's way.
South Africa's bid
BID CONCEPT: South Africa's bid campaign promises "a big event at big venues with a big atmosphere", offering a spectacular showcase to promote the game while delivering maximum revenues. Record receipts for the IRB of $120.1 million have been promised.
The tournament would be staged in the Southern Hemisphere's winter of June and July, allowing the European unions to retain their lucrative autumn Test programmes while still hosting matches under blue skies and in dry conditions. South Africa shares the same time-zone as the crucial European television market, allowing maximised profits from this lucrative revenue stream.
The bid has already helped to establish a continental African Leopards team while World Cup teams would be encouraged to prepare and play warm-up matches in other African countries under the "Growing the Game" banner.
DISADVANTAGES: South Africa's vulnerable points are the country's reputation as a crime hot-spot while turmoil in rugby's political leadership has also reflected poorly on the bid.
Japan's bid
BID CONCEPT: Based on the concept of spreading rugby beyond its traditional boundaries and boosting the game throughout Asia. Organisers recognise it would be a "bold decision" to award the tournament to Japan but that such a move would represent a new and exciting chapter in the tournament's history.
Nine stadiums, four newly-built for the 2002 soccer World Cup, are already in place while the transport and infrastructure - together with lessons learned from the 2002 soccer event -- mean there are no questions over the practical side of the bid.
DISADVANTAGES: Lack of a traditional rugby base has opponents questioning whether the tournament would gain any widespread support in Japan and could lead to many empty seats for the lesser games. Japan's poor performances in previous tournaments - they have failed to reach the quarter-finals in any of the five to date - could mean a drop in interest once they go out.
High tourism costs and a time-zone not well-suited to the lucrative European market are also negatives.
New Zealand's bid
BID CONCEPT: New Zealand's bid is based on its historical contribution to world rugby and the legacy a tournament in 2011 would provide for the country and the Pacific Islands.
While a traditional powerhouse in world rugby, the country is too small to compete commercially and on a population basis with the home unions, France and Tri-Nations rivals Australia and South Africa.
The bid's strongest claim is that rugby is New Zealand's only national sport and that hosting the 2011 World Cup would create a fervour for the game for future generations of players, administrators and coaches.
DISADVANTAGES: Though many of the stadiums are steeped in rugby tradition, they are old and have limited capacity. The country's limited hotels might struggle to deal with the influx of supporters for the event, with a cruise ship having to be brought in to house British and Irish Lions fans during this year's series.
Time-zone is not well-suited to lucrative European market.
