Andy Capostagno
The International Rugby Board’s (IRB) decision to award the 2003 Rugby World Cup to Australia means the New Zealand Rugby Football Union (NZRFU) can be referred to as the boy who cried “wolf”.
The tournament had been due to be co-hosted by the two unions, but when the deadline for ensuring venues free of advertising and catering commitments arrived last month, the NZRFU said it could not comply. The Australian Rugby Union (ARU) spotted a gap and said that it could host the tournament alone and on Thursday it came down to a vote at the IRB meeting in Dublin.
Despite a month of furious politicking from the NZRFU, followed by a meek admission that it could now provide the conditions sought by the IRB in the first place, the delegates chose to accept the ARU’s proposal to host the tournament alone.
The IRB would not expand on why or how it had made the decision and did not even deign to host a press conference after the meeting, so speculation is rife about who voted for whom.
A simple majority of 11 was required from the two votes each from England, Ireland, Scotland, Wales, France, Australia, South Africa and New Zealand and one each from Italy, Canada, Argentina, Japan and Fira, which represents the rest of Europe.
Before the vote Australia could count on South Africa, Scotland and Ireland, giving it eight guaranteed votes. Wales was the only union to mandate delegates to vote for New Zealand. England is on record as saying the tournament should be held in one country only. It can be assumed that England voted for Australia.
The consequence of the vote will be twofold. Firstly the tournament will be a lot more profitable and secondly heads will roll in the NZRFU boardroom. The rest of the world, it seems, couldn’t care less.