The glory days of hosting the Rugby World Cup might be over for New Zealand and South Africa. SA Rugby CEO Rian Oberholzer has expressed significant doubts about whether these two rugby powerhouses will ever get another chance to host the prestigious tournament. This isn't about a lack of passion or history; it's a stark reality check about the economics of the modern game.
New Zealand and South Africa, boasting a combined seven Rugby World Cup titles between them, are undeniably giants of the sport. The All Blacks and Springboks have dominated the competition since its inception. New Zealand even co-hosted the very first tournament in 1987 and hosted it solo in 2011. South Africa, after a memorable sole hosting in 1995, has repeatedly missed out on bids, most recently for the 2023 event which went to France.
While the 2027 Men's Rugby World Cup is slated for Australia, and the 2031 edition for the United States, the dream of seeing the tournament return to the African continent or Aotearoa seems increasingly distant, according to Oberholzer.
But here's where it gets controversial: The core issue boils down to revenue. The Rugby World Cup is the single most important revenue-generating event for World Rugby, providing the crucial funds needed to support all its member unions over a four-year cycle. Taking the tournament to regions like America, Europe, or the Middle East offers a far greater financial return compared to South Africa or New Zealand.
Oberholzer candidly stated, "It is a challenge for us going forward." He elaborated, "The Rugby World Cup is the only revenue stream for World Rugby that must fund the whole ecosystem. All the members must get some funding out of the Rugby World Cup. Therefore, World Rugby must take the tournament to where it can generate the most revenue and go where there is support from local and national governments."
And this is the part most people miss: Oberholzer's comments seem to put a damper on recent reports suggesting South Africa might bid for the 2035 tournament. Last year, there were discussions about South Africa potentially launching a bid. However, World Rugby CEO Alan Gilpin has indicated that a return to Europe in 2035 is being considered, with Spain already officially announcing their bid. Japan is also aiming for its second hosting, and there's talk of a joint South American bid involving Argentina, Uruguay, Chile, and Brazil. Italy is also looking at 2035 or 2039, while Middle Eastern nations like Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE are exploring bids, potentially for 2035.
Oberholzer elaborated on the financial disparities: "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 emphasized that the decision rests with World Rugby, not SA Rugby, and that the governing body will naturally steer the tournament towards the most profitable markets. "We can’t complain and ask for a World Cup in your country, make less money and then want the biggest slice of the cake when it comes to the annual grant that comes from World Rugby. It is about income generation to feed the whole rugby ecosystem."
The philosophy has shifted. According to the SA Rugby boss, the era of giving every nation an equal opportunity to host has passed. It's now predominantly about maximizing financial returns. "I think we have moved away from the philosophy that everyone must get an equal chance to host a World Cup," he remarked. "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."
What do you think? Is it fair that the Rugby World Cup is driven solely by financial gain, potentially sidelining nations with rich rugby histories like South Africa and New Zealand? Or is this a necessary evolution for the sport's global growth? Share your thoughts below!
