The glory days of hosting the Rugby World Cup might be over for New Zealand and South Africa, and the reason is surprisingly simple: it's all about the money! SA Rugby CEO Rian Oberholzer has dropped a bombshell, suggesting that the two most successful nations in Rugby World Cup history may never get to host the prestigious tournament again. It's a tough pill to swallow for fans who remember the electrifying atmospheres of their past wins, but the financial realities are stark.
New Zealand and South Africa, the titans who have collectively lifted the Webb Ellis Cup seven times out of the ten tournaments held, are facing a major hurdle. While New Zealand co-hosted in 1987 and hosted solo in 2011, and South Africa proudly hosted in 1995, their chances of securing future bids seem slim. Despite multiple attempts, South Africa has been unsuccessful in securing hosting rights since that memorable 1995 victory, most recently losing out to France for the 2023 edition.
The landscape of international rugby is shifting, and the upcoming tournaments are heading to new frontiers. Australia is set to host in 2027, followed by the United States. While many hoped for a return to the African continent or Aotearoa, Oberholzer's assessment paints a different picture.
But here's where it gets controversial... Oberholzer points to a critical truth: the Rugby World Cup is the single most important revenue generator for World Rugby. This income is vital for funding rugby unions across the globe for a four-year cycle. And, quite simply, taking the tournament to regions like America, Europe, and the Middle East offers a far greater financial return than staging it in South Africa or New Zealand.
"It is a challenge for us going forward," Oberholzer candidly stated in Cape Town. He explained that World Rugby needs to maximize revenue to support its entire ecosystem, ensuring all member unions receive funding. This means prioritizing locations that can guarantee the highest financial returns and secure strong support from local and national governments.
And this is the part most people miss: Oberholzer's comments seem to put an end to speculation that South Africa might bid for the 2035 tournament. While there were reports of discussions with World Rugby about a potential bid, the financial logic now appears to outweigh sentimental considerations.
Meanwhile, the race for future hosting rights is heating up. World Rugby CEO Alan Gilpin has indicated a potential return to Europe in 2035, with Spain officially announcing their bid. Japan is also aiming to host its second tournament after a successful 2019 event. Furthermore, there's talk of a joint bid from South America, potentially involving Argentina, Uruguay, Chile, and Brazil. Italy is also in the running for 2035 or 2039, and nations in the Middle East, including Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE, are considering bids, possibly for the earlier date.
Oberholzer elaborated on the financial disparity: "If you compare us to Europe, for example, I cannot see that money will ever be the same in terms of how much they can generate there, and perhaps the Middle East in the future, than in South Africa." He stressed that the decision rests with World Rugby, which will naturally steer the tournament towards its most profitable destinations. He also made it clear that countries cannot expect a large share of World Rugby's annual grants if they host events that generate less income.
He further explained that the 'philosophy' of giving every nation a fair chance to host has evolved. "I think we have moved away from the philosophy that everyone must get an equal chance to host a World Cup," he said. "A World Cup in New Zealand and South Africa will not make the money that World Rugby needs a World Cup to generate. I don’t think it is a negative for us, but more of what is in the best interests of World Rugby."
So, the burning question remains: Is the era of traditional rugby powerhouses hosting the World Cup over, replaced by a purely commercial decision? Do you agree with Oberholzer's pragmatic approach, or do you believe there's still room for passion and tradition to influence these major sporting decisions? Let us know your thoughts in the comments below!
