UK to host 2013 World Cup

[Druzik]

www.therfl.co.uk/home/news_item_top.php?id=14835

UK to host 2013 World Cup

The Rugby League International Federation announced today that the next Rugby League World Cup will be held in the United Kingdom in 2013.

The decision was one of many major issues discussed by the International Federation at a two day meeting scheduled to determine the future of the International calendar and to discuss the allocation of funding to develop the International game.

The 2008 Rugby League World Cup, run by the Rugby League International Federation, was an outstanding success by any measure, attracting more than 290,000 fans, 6791 tickets sold through official travel agents and attracting a global television audience of 19.2m people. Importantly the event was a commercial success, raising revenue that will be reinvested by the International Federation to strengthen development and grow participation at all levels.

Event research showed that 85% of respondents watched the Rugby League World Cup on television with 98% of respondents who watched enjoying the matches. 88% of fans identified as passionate supporters believed the Rugby League World Cup was a great competition.

The decision to play the next World Cup in the northern hemisphere was based on a comprehensive business plan, submitted by the Rugby Football League (RFL), detailing plans to host the tournament in the United Kingdom, as part of the UK's 'Golden Decade of Sport'. The decision to play the tournament in 2013 as opposed to 2012 was made to ensure the tournament is played outside an Olympic year in the future.

Deputy Chairman of the International Federation & RFL Chairman, Richard Lewis said, 'It is a great boost for Rugby League in the Northern Hemisphere to secure the World Cup in 2013. I thought that the 2008 tournament was an outstanding success and our goal is to deliver a successful and profitable tournament that further enhances the International prestige of Rugby League.'

Developing more elite International Test matches and growing Rugby League in nations who could deliver World Cup teams into the future was agreed as the basis for future funding grants in order to ensure continued growth for the RLIF's premier event.

Chairman of the RLIF, Colin Love, said 'The RLIF is determined to build a stronger International calendar of matches and the recent announcement of the Pacific Cup is a perfect example of this.

The Pacific Cup will see the Pacific nations; Tonga, Samoa, Fiji, Cook Island and Papua New Guinea compete in a two week tournament in Port Moresby in October - November with the winner given the chance to play in the 2010 Four Nations in Australia and New Zealand. It is an exciting and credible concept that will deliver entertaining Rugby League for fans at the ground and on television.’

The on-going development of the European Nations Cup and the need to ensure consistent matches for France, Wales, Scotland & Ireland was also discussed.

When these events are combined with the Four Nations event being held in 2009, 2010 and 2011 it is clear that there is a strong calendar of International Rugby League that will build excitement for the 2013 World Cup.

The RLIF considered the issue of player workload and it was agreed that in every four year cycle, there will be no Four Nations staged in the year prior to a Rugby League World Cup. In these years, a Test match schedule among nations will be developed.

The calendar will see Four Nations played in England in 2009, Australia and New Zealand in 2010, England in 2011 and then in Australia post the 2013 World Cup.

Elite competitions will be complimented with a range of funding grants that were agreed to fund a wide range of projects including grassroots development, elite youth academies, support for administrative staff, coaching accreditation and training courses.

'The RLIF provides funding to more than 30 Rugby League nations and I am excited about the potential for funds raised by last year’s tournament to be carefully allocated to achieve genuine growth in Rugby League participation at all levels from elite to grassroots globally', Love said.

Other issues discussed included player eligibility, international judiciary, maximising international commercial rights (broadcast & sponsorship) and the development of a long term strategic plan for International Rugby League.

[Kiwi fan]

The thing I don't like about the international calendar is this: England gets 4 nations in 2011, we tour England in 2012 (not 100% on this) and then the 2013 World Cup is in England. Wow 3 years with no internationals. I'm disappointed we didn't bid for the World Cup. I know we are a small nation and league isn't a major sport here but I'm sure we could do it if we at least pulled our heads in. We could have at least made it competitive.

[Druzik]

notsure said:

The thing I don't like about the international calendar is this: England gets 4 nations in 2011, we tour England in 2012 (not 100% on this) and then the 2013 World Cup is in England. Wow 3 years with no internationals. I'm disappointed we didn't bid for the World Cup. I know we are a small nation and league isn't a major sport here but I'm sure we could do it if we at least pulled our heads in. We could have at least made it competitive.

Yes I can see your point... and well agree I guess.

See in the end the whole international calendar is still flawed.

the tournaments need to be all in 4 year cycles and allow nations to bid for and host events.

Why cant NZ host a Pacific nations or 6N/4N one day?

Why cant NZ hold the WC if they really do put their heads together... I mean in NZ Union can do it I am sure we could.

[Kiwi fan]

Jul 29, 2009 16:19:34 GMT 10 Druzik said:

notsure said:

The thing I don't like about the international calendar is this: England gets 4 nations in 2011, we tour England in 2012 (not 100% on this) and then the 2013 World Cup is in England. Wow 3 years with no internationals. I'm disappointed we didn't bid for the World Cup. I know we are a small nation and league isn't a major sport here but I'm sure we could do it if we at least pulled our heads in. We could have at least made it competitive.

Yes I can see your point... and well agree I guess.

See in the end the whole international calendar is still flawed.

the tournaments need to be all in 4 year cycles and allow nations to bid for and host events.

Why cant NZ host a Pacific nations or 6N/4N one day?

Why cant NZ hold the WC if they really do put their heads together... I mean in NZ Union can do it I am sure we could.

Exactly what I think. What annoys me is not that we didn't get the World Cup more that we didn't try and get it. England are probably a better alternative but surely if the NZRL were better organised they could send something into the RLIF.

You should be pleased, I'm coming more and more around to your ideas in your 10 year plan. Still not completely there yet.

Also, I don't see why it was announced the same day as England getting the RWC. It was bound to be overshadowed.

[sportsmad]

totally agree about the announcement kiwi fan. some of the headlines are something like "england gets rugby double". the others perhaps reduced to smallprint.

its a long way away but new zealand hosting the 2017 world cup would be a perfect fit. the team will be super competetive by then with depth coming out their ears. sparc will have had many years to really grow NZRL into a great sporting organisation generating plenty of awareness not just in auckland.......

[jim]

Jul 29, 2009 16:13:19 GMT 10 Kiwi fan said:

The thing I don't like about the international calendar is this: England gets 4 nations in 2011, we tour England in 2012 (not 100% on this) and then the 2013 World Cup is in England. Wow 3 years with no internationals. I'm disappointed we didn't bid for the World Cup. I know we are a small nation and league isn't a major sport here but I'm sure we could do it if we at least pulled our heads in. We could have at least made it competitive.

As far as I'm aware GB are touring Australia in 2012, so I imagine you might be able to get a game against them and organise a series against a team like Wales or France who could be able to give NZ a decent match up by 2012.

As for future hosting, it would be extremely nice to have some good competition against Australia for 2017, I see no reason why France and maybe even USA couldn't put in decent bids.

2017: Australia/NZ, NZ, France/Spain, USA
2021: France/Spain, UK, USA, NZ
...
2033: France/Spain

I think it could turn out like that, by 2021 we should be looking to "expand" the horizons of the WC and that, for me, means taking it away from UK, Australia, NZ and playing it elsewhere probably France or USA. Although the 2033 WC has to be in France for their centenary.

[sportsmad]

there will be more than likely be 12 teams in the 2013 rlwc. reading related articles it seems like the RFL have a comprehensive business plan to ensure a decent profit. a profit of more than $AU 10 million would be good. my predictions to make the 2013 rlwc:

Australia
England
Fiji
France
Ireland
Wales
Lebanon
NZ
PNG
Russia
Tonga
USA

The bigger name teams in RL terms that ive missed out on include Samoa , Scotland, Morocco, Italy, Jamaica, Ukrane, Serbia and South Africa.
To steal druziks idea i think a tournament between these teams that have missed out would be worthwhile

[Druzik]

Sure what ever teams dont make it the next best 8 should have an emerging nations WC (or something called like that) where they are the openers to the tournament proper this way you get to see two internationals for the price of one!

[Kiwi fan]

I like having 12 teams at the World Cup. It shows that teams are improving if they are all competitive and gives more teams a chance. The danger is if we expand too fast and all the teams aren't competitive. I also thought the teams at the least world cup were pretty boring. They generally came from the same area and weren't very different from each other.

[Druzik]

notsure said:

I like having 12 teams at the World Cup. It shows that teams are improving if they are all competitive and gives more teams a chance. The danger is if we expand too fast and all the teams aren't competitive. I also thought the teams at the least world cup were pretty boring. They generally came from the same area and weren't very different from each other.

World cups should generally feature 1/3 to 1/4 of the nations that play.

So for rugby league having about 35 nations playing 12 is a good number to represent it. In soccer where you have over 100 something teams then 32 there is about right.

Personally the 12 is a good number if we have continued growth then the 2017 can go to 16 teams, we should have about 50 teams by then.

I see what your saying, but remember these teams were the ones that deserved to be there, they qualified to be there, its not about which teams are boring or not, its about which teams deserve to be there!

[Kiwi fan]

Aug 3, 2009 18:00:25 GMT 10 Druzik said:

notsure said:

I like having 12 teams at the World Cup. It shows that teams are improving if they are all competitive and gives more teams a chance. The danger is if we expand too fast and all the teams aren't competitive. I also thought the teams at the least world cup were pretty boring. They generally came from the same area and weren't very different from each other.

World cups should generally feature 1/3 to 1/4 of the nations that play.

So for rugby league having about 35 nations playing 12 is a good number to represent it. In soccer where you have over 100 something teams then 32 there is about right.

Personally the 12 is a good number if we have continued growth then the 2017 can go to 16 teams, we should have about 50 teams by then.

I see what your saying, but remember these teams were the ones that deserved to be there, they qualified to be there, its not about which teams are boring or not, its about which teams deserve to be there!

I agree. I wasn't criticizing the ways in which those teams got there or even that they deserved to be there. I just think a Serbia or a Lebanon could really add another dimension to the World Cup.

[Druzik]

Aug 4, 2009 15:07:19 GMT 10 Kiwi fan said:

Aug 3, 2009 18:00:25 GMT 10 Druzik said:

World cups should generally feature 1/3 to 1/4 of the nations that play.

So for rugby league having about 35 nations playing 12 is a good number to represent it. In soccer where you have over 100 something teams then 32 there is about right.

Personally the 12 is a good number if we have continued growth then the 2017 can go to 16 teams, we should have about 50 teams by then.

I see what your saying, but remember these teams were the ones that deserved to be there, they qualified to be there, its not about which teams are boring or not, its about which teams deserve to be there!

I agree. I wasn't criticizing the ways in which those teams got there or even that they deserved to be there. I just think a Serbia or a Lebanon could really add another dimension to the World Cup.

Sure, so would USA, SA, Jamaica or Japan... but we need teams that deserve to be there... we need to finally get into some sort of consistent rhythm... not fudge things.

[jim]

Aug 4, 2009 15:07:19 GMT 10 Kiwi fan said:

Aug 3, 2009 18:00:25 GMT 10 Druzik said:

World cups should generally feature 1/3 to 1/4 of the nations that play.

So for rugby league having about 35 nations playing 12 is a good number to represent it. In soccer where you have over 100 something teams then 32 there is about right.

Personally the 12 is a good number if we have continued growth then the 2017 can go to 16 teams, we should have about 50 teams by then.

I see what your saying, but remember these teams were the ones that deserved to be there, they qualified to be there, its not about which teams are boring or not, its about which teams deserve to be there!

I agree. I wasn't criticizing the ways in which those teams got there or even that they deserved to be there. I just think a Serbia or a Lebanon could really add another dimension to the World Cup.

I would think the best chance of getting some extra dimension would be USA and Russia. Either one of those two making the WC would be massive for RL. TBH if they improve I don't see why they can't make it, the US especially if the USNRL gets off the ground.

What Russia need to do is get their players playing at a higher level, try and loan them to championship, elite, SL or QLD Cup teams, Serbia have managed it with Radovanovic so surely Russia could offer a few of their best around.

Also, Italy, I wouldn't discount them too early simply because if they desired they could probably assemble a decent team with heritage players, I don't think it's the right way to go about it but it hasn't stopped alot of other countries.

Throw South Africa in there aswell if Du Plessis is a sucess and we can get a few more South Africans in Rugby League.

Come to think of it i mentioned on another forum that if i was the RLIF for the good of the tournament and International I would be tempted to have 1 automatic qualifyer from the atlantic group and 1 into the repecharge. So that would mean South Africa, USA, Japan and Jamaica (maybe more?) would play off for direct entry to the WC, 2nd would enter repecharge. Sure they may not be in the best 12 but they would be very close and it would do wonders for the tournament if either of those 4 qualified.

[Kiwi fan]

I don't really know if the Atlantic area would be ready for an automatic placing in 2011/12. Maybe give them two spots in the repechage but I don't think you should let them go in because of the area oon the globe which they represent.

[Druzik]

Aug 5, 2009 19:01:18 GMT 10 Kiwi fan said:

I don't really know if the Atlantic area would be ready for an automatic placing in 2011/12. Maybe give them two spots in the repechage but I don't think you should let them go in because of the area on the globe which they represent.

Well we certainly can say that now, but in 3 years time when the qualifiers come round, who knows where South Africa, Jamaica or the USA could be... but certainly like they did with the last WC qualifiers, the Atlantic winners went into the repechage qualifying rounds.