As for the process.
I expressed my reservations earlier before the report was produced about a consulting firm coming up with a recommendation that the council was then ‘expected’ to vote for. There is more to a world cup selection than bureaucratic box-ticking. I thought the report would recommend France.
When the actual report came out, it seemed a bit weird how some of the criteria were rated anyway. So, I’m not fussed it wasn’t binding.
Moving forward: The report process should remain included. But is should change:
- Stay confidential until after the vote. Way too much press fuss was made of the ranking of the 3 bids. These were probably 3 of the best bids in IRB history. Who care if one has 78 points and another 73 according to some bureaucratic consulting criteria. They’re both still good.
- The report should not produce a recommendation. It should just rate bids in certain criteria for the representatives to read and consider. Probably shouldn’t even sum up the points.
- The report should weed out the spectacularly inappropriate (E.g. Qatar). Maybe have a weather and a % of un-built stadium criteria that is a no-go line.
The value of using independent consultants - as it should be just 1 or 2 consultants visiting and assessing the host bids. We don’t want 30 odd administrators, some of them obscure, visiting all 3 bidding nations over a 2-year period to admire the new bus stop outside a stadium before returning to their presidential hotel suite and being plied with hookers and cocaine. Reduce costs by having only to tempt the consultant …..
I don’t mind the horse trading between unions. I don’t mind that NZRU offered IRU an extra (revenue sharing) test in Dublin. I don’t mind that the 1999 RWC in Wales was farmed out over 5 countries with expected returned future favours. They are rugby decisions, not personal corruption. I don’t mind that the continental federations etc. want to vote for France if it means bugger future IRB dividends heading their way, these guys deserve a voice.
I think moving forward we should probably do this only every 8 years with 2 hosts decided at a time (like the 2015 & 2019 venue being decided at the same time). This will allow bidding unions to direct their efforts more realistically and probably see a ‘fairer’ geographic distribution of future tournaments.