New Zealand promised ”a tournament based on traditional rugby values” and stunned observers when it won the rights to host the 2011 Rugby World Cup.
A promise of government support ”both moral and financial” and a campaign that turned New Zealand’s diminutive size into an asset clinched the tournament for New Zealand ahead of Japan and South Africa, principals in the Kiwi bid believe.
New Zealand couldn’t hope to match Japan’s vast economy and its ability to place rugby in front of a massive Asian audience, increasing the game’s global base and giving sponsors unprecedented exposure.
Nor could it match South Africa’s giant rugby stadiums, its population and its ability to expose the game on the African continent in a time zone friendly to British and European viewers.
But New Zealand tapped a more productive vein of sentiment and history in promoting itself as host of the tournament for the first time since it staged and won the first Rugby World Cup in 1987.
It leaned on its famous rugby record, its traditions, the national passion for the sport and on government financial support estimated at as much as NZ$70-million ($47,6-million), which allowed it to offer important financial guarantees.
The New Zealand bid committee repeatedly warned that the World Cup, which holds a place among the world’s top 10 sporting events, threatens to become too large to be hosted by the nations that make up rugby’s heartland.
New Zealand also said that if it failed to win the World Cup in 2011, it would never again be in a position to bid and nor would countries such as Ireland, Wales or Scotland in which the game still prospers.
That argument packed a punch with council members who are determined to derive as much revenue as possible from rugby’s four-yearly showpiece but who recognise that the game’s global growth cannot come at the expense of its roots.
”Should it all be about money? If it is all about money then the tournament will just rotate around four or five countries,” New Zealand bid chairperson Jock Hobbs said on Friday.
”It’s a professional sport but I think we all believe there’s a balance to be struck between the commercial side of the game and traditional rugby values of the game.
”Today was a true test of that belief.”
Japan and South Africa made pragmatic bids, based on sound economics and on the principle that rugby must grow to survive. But New Zealand mined deeper feeling.
It presented itself as a country in which ”almost half the population wants to be an All Black” and where ”most of the other half of the population would like to marry one”.
New Zealand managed to answer concerns about infrastructure, about the size of its stadiums and the ability of its accommodation and transport services to cope with an influx of tens of thousands of rugby fans.
It promised the enlargement of existing stadiums and said it will stage the 48 matches that make up the World Cup at as many as 11 venues, with the final at Auckland’s Eden Park.
It will increase Eden Park’s capacity from 53 000 to 60 000 at a cost of NZ$130-million ($88,4-million).
New Zealand cashed in on two fronts on the element of safety, first in offering the International Rugby Board a tournament in which quality of organisation was guaranteed, and secondly in promoting New Zealand as a travel destination free of security concerns.
”When it was all stripped down, we were the safest option to run a successful World Cup in 2011,” Hobbs said.
Again, with government support, Hobbs was able to offer ”the most commercially successful Rugby World Cup ever”. — Sapa-AP