South Africa's hard World Cup pass raises Middle East question

The starting gun has been fired on the race to host the Rugby World Cup in 2035 and 2039.

- Gerard Meagher

The starting gun has been fired on the race to host the Rugby World Cup in 2035 and 2039. Expressions of interest have been made; Spain's proposal has piqued interest, Italy's too, while the Middle East stalks along as the elephant in the room and the idea of going back to Japan within 20 years of a first World Cup in Asia is popular.

News came over the weekend, however, that South Africa has all but ruled out a bid for either edition of the tournament.

South Africa threw its hat into the ring in 2011, 15, 19 and 23 but was overlooked on each occasion and the SA Rugby president, Mark Alexander, was brutally honest when asked about the prospect of doing so again.

"I will tell [SA Rugby] not to do this. We are a third-world country," he said. "Our economy is not strong and we have to act responsibly. I know sport does a lot for social cohesion but it would be unfair on [the] government to put up guarantees." The first thing to say in response is that it is a shame the winners of the past two World Cups do not consider it financially viable to bid and the manner in which the 2023 bidding process played out looks all the more ham-fisted now.

To recap, World Rugby introduced a process whereby a technical review of the candidates would lead to a recommendation by the governing body's board. South Africa emerged as the recommended bidder but World Rugby's council ignored the recommendation and, in an anonymous vote, opted for France, whose bid was based on a promise to prevent "the death of rugby" with its financial clout.

Reflecting on the decision during South Africa's autumn tour, the centre Damian de Allende said: "It's heartbreaking; it was in our hands and it got taken away from us. I don't know when we will host another World Cup."