Rugby argues globalisation

By Brian Micklethwait | 27 November 2005

Nowadays, the events at which they announce which of the world's cities and countries have been "awarded" this or that international sporting tournament seem to be as exciting, and sometimes no doubt more exciting, than the events themselves. Campaigning tactics are analysed with the same obsessive attention to detail as is lavished upon the sporting contests. London recently went crazy about getting the Olympics, and would have gone a lot crazier had bombs not spoilt the party.

Last week there was another of these announcements, this time to say that the Rugby World Cup of 2011 will be held in New Zealand.

The runners up was Japan, and by all accounts the Japanese are mortified at not winning this tournament - winning the right to stage it, that is to say.

To get a flavour of this argument try reading this recent Guardian exchange. What is interesting is the way that the word "globalisation" is used in sporting arguments such as this one. Here globalisation is simply assumed to be a good thing.

Seen from outside, as something that is coming at you, globalisation can seem scary, even if ultimately good for you, like chemotherapy. But seen from within, globalisation is almost pure good news, provided only that you can bring it off. Globally-popular sports are at a huge advantage compared to games whose appeal is confined to one nation or group of culturally similar nations. Global appeal equals huge advertising revenue and blanket global television coverage, which equals in its turn an endless stream of new enthusiasts to keep the ball rolling, and the money to encourage them.

The heartland of rugby is the Anglosphere - the British Isles and the Southern Hemisphere trinity of New Zealand, Australia and South Africa, with Canada and the USA also becoming reasonably strong. But France, long a top rugby nation, will host the next World Cup in 2007 and they are a good bet to win that. Italy now plays in the Six Nations tournament, against the four British nations and France. (Incidentally, the Irish rugby team, unlike with soccer, unites what the politicians divided in 1922: Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. Strange but true.) And there are other keen if struggling rugby nations outside the English speaking world, most notably Argentina, and also Romania, Russia, and... Japan.

The Japanese argue that this 2011 decision was a great missed opportunity for rugby to reach out beyond its regular stamping grounds to a new global audience and to new potential players, in such countries as China and Korea, from one of the world's great non-English-speaking and non-Western nations. Stephen Jones has an article in the Sunday Times agreeing.

The Japanese are now so distressed that they are apparently threatening not to even try for the 2015 World Cup. Which would be a pity, because the consensus is that if they do bid, they will get it.