Rugby will be faced with a stark choice on Thursday when the vote takes place for the 2011 World Cup host.
Does it try to breach new boundaries in choosing Japan or does it stay with the establishment — as it has done since the inaugural tournament in 1987 — and elect either South Africa or New Zealand as host nation?
Both South Africa and New Zealand have already hosted and indeed won the World Cup on home soil, but victory for Japan would bring to a climax a bandwagon that started rolling during the 2003 finals in Australia.
On the back of Japan’s respectable showings against pool rivals France, Fiji and Scotland, International Rugby Board executives even slated a possibility that Japan could have a team in what was then the Super 12 tournament — much to the disgust of the Pacific Islands — but while that has not happened, winning the vote in Dublin would be on a different level.
Koji Tokomasu, chief executive of the Japanese Rugby Union (JRU), said the potential for opening up a vast new market for the sport is enormous, should his bid prevail.
”Asia provides 60% of the world’s population. The growth of the region’s economy means that in six years’ time the Asian economy will be vastly different,” he said.
”It will open up the Asian market and to Japanese corporations, which could only benefit world rugby. It is good timing,” commented Tokomasu, who will be accompanied in the presentation group by, among others, JRU president Yoshiro Mori, a former Japanese prime minister.
By contrast, Tokomasu also highlighted what the cost to the sport could be, should his country lose out.
”The 2015 World Cup is 10 years from now and if we do not get it for 2011, then it will waste a golden opportunity for developing the Asian market,” he said. ”For generations to come, the unions may think, ‘Oh, we should have done that [voted for Japan]’.
”It will not be encouraging for second-tier unions to bid for the hosting of the tournament as it is very hard to meet the financial requirements and will just lead to it going back to the traditional unions.
”Countries like England, France, Australia and New Zealand can even combine to host it, but it is very difficult for unions like Japan. We are looking to the future,” added Tokomasu, who would not have been the only person surprised by a leaked IRB report that raised doubts about Japan’s ability to host a major tournament without having done so before.
Fifa and the International Olympic Committee would also have raised their eyebrows, as Japan co-hosted the 2002 World Cup, the 1964 Summer Olympics and the Nagano Winter Olympics.
While Tokomasu said he has not received one definite commitment of a vote, it is widely believed that Australia is going to give its two votes not to its neighbours New Zealand but to the Japanese, while England is also thought to be veering towards Japan.
”I do,” was New Zealand Rugby Union chief executive Chris Moller’s brusque answer when asked whether he thinks Australia will vote for Japan, but he may well be disappointed.
Indeed, as things stand it could well go down to a head-to-head between Japan and South Africa.
New Zealand has denied it left its lobbying until too late and hopes Prime Minister Helen Clark has a similar effect as British Prime Minister Tony Blair did for London’s Olympic bid when it defied the odds and edged out firm favourite Paris for the 2012 summer Games.
However, whether a woman described rather unkindly as ”having the charisma of a pilchard” can have such an effect when she is part of the presentation quintet on Thursday is another question.
Thus to South Africa. Under the smooth frontman skills of Francois Pienaar — who has shown as deft and diplomatic a touch as he did when captaining the Springboks to the 1995 World Cup — it has run a brilliant campaign.
Perhaps noting the strength of Japan’s appeal in its opening up a new market, Pienaar has also put a similar slant on his manifesto.
”Should we win, it would help spread the sport throughout Africa,” he said. ”There is enormous potential and that has been seen in sevens where African countries can compete with the best.”
The bleak difference, though, between expanding the sport in Africa and Asia is money.
South Africa also offers a certainty that — unlike in Japan — the tournament is guaranteed full stadiums no matter what the match, as well as European-friendly broadcasting times, even though Tokomasu has organised the kick-offs for European countries to be at noon English time.
All three parties agree that it is too close to call, but perhaps Tokomasu summed it up best.
”The feeling is like going to a game without knowing too much about the opposition, but playing till the final whistle.”
At 5.30pm GMT on Thursday, the sport will know whether it has entered a brave new era or has opted to play safe. — Sapa-AFP