You know how it is. It's almost midnight; your wife has gone to bed and neither kickboxing nor American horse racing cuts the mustard as you search for one final sporting high before hitting the sack. Under such circumstances, channel surfing becomes, well, inevitable.
But this is not what you might imagine, for early on Monday, I caught an absolute cracking sporting contest – a Rugby World Cup (RWC) qualifier between the Philippines and UAE.
The match, played last Saturday in front of a record crowd, generated an electric atmosphere, five tries and even a delay for a power outage. I didn’t even realise the Philippines had a national team, although not all of their players were Tagalog-speaking nationals.
READ MORE: {}
Even though there’s more than 840 days to go before RWC 2015 kicks off, the match brought the next tournament, to be hosted by England, into sharper focus.
Yet despite the fact that we’re more than two years away from what promises, on Monday morning’s evidence, to be a spell-binding competition, concerns regarding its funding are already to the fore, a peculiar situation given how success was measured at the 2011 tournament.
In 2006, New Zealand’s government and the country’s governing rugby union board established a joint venture, called RNZ 2011, designed specifically to deliver the 2011 RWC.
The country had won the right to host the tournament in November 2005 and under the original RNZ 2011 shareholding arrangement, two thirds of all losses were to be underwritten by the government, while rugby union’s losses were later capped at NZ $10 million (£5.4 million).
This seemed a sensible option. New Zealand is a difficult place for even the most resourceful rugby fans to get to and time differences between the country and rugby’s main television-viewing audiences required wholesale rescheduling of matches to maximise broadcast receipts.
Most Read
Following New Zealand’s on-field success, last year RNZ 2011 announced tournament-end losses 20% better than originally anticipated. The tournament organisers lost NZ $31.3 million (£17m) after staging the seventh RWC, some NZ $8 million (£4.3m) lower than forecast.
Given New Zealand’s geographic isolation, there was never any bullish talk regarding forecast profits. Instead, the government and rugby officials saw the opportunity of hosting a major international sporting tournament as a chance to showcase the nation. Their rather low-key approach worked.
Ultimately, more than 133,000 people made the journey to New Zealand, a surge in support which resulted in 1.35 million ticket sales, while the tournament enjoyed television coverage in 207 territories and a cumulative broadcast audience in excess of 3 billion.
Following the announcement regarding tournament losses, IRB chairman Bernard Lapasset said the results underscored the success of an event which had delivered significant economic, trade and sporting returns for New Zealand.
“A partnership with national and local government is an important aspect of event delivery,” explained M Lapasset, who added, “New Zealand highlighted that through the significant economic returns for the host nation, the growth of major event expertise and experience, business to business opportunities and increases in rugby engagement, Rugby World Cup is definitely a low-risk, high-return event for a host nation.”
It’s likely that the New Zealand government agreed with this slightly Orwellian assessment of apparent commercial failure dressed as success.
It covered £11.6 million of the tournament’s losses, although as the nation attracted 133,000 visitors, the likelihood is they each injected considerably more than the £90 a head required to cover this shortfall by a factor of at least ten. This could be justifiably considered a decent return on investment in anyone’s books.
Don’t miss
Even as far back as July 2009, when England was awarded the 2015 RWC, the RFU was smart enough to anticipate losses at the 2011 tournament. Accordingly, it blasted other would-be hosts out of the water.
Neither South Africa nor Italy could compete with the RFU’s bold assertion that it would target sales of 3 million tickets (later revised to 2.9m) and generate revenues of £300 million, more than enough to cover the IRB’s £80 million fee, payable for hosting the tournament.
Whereas New Zealand contented itself on showing the world where it was and what a beautiful place it is to visit, the emphasis of the 2015 RWC already seems to be solely on profit. This has upset a number of rugby folk.
When Leicester’s Welford Road Stadium (capacity 24,000) was omitted from the list of RWC venues, the club’s chief executive, Simon Cohen, said, “Rugby World Cup should not just be about the finances. It should be a battle for the heart and soul of rugby people and you would like to think that rugby stadiums would play their part in that battle.”
Mr Cohen was unlikely to be amused at the news that Leicester City’s King Power Stadium (capacity 32,262) will host at least one Pool C match.
In fact, only five of the tournament’s 48 matches will be played at grounds north of Birmingham. Not only are each of the three stadia (Elland Road, St James’ Park and the Etihad Stadium) used to hosting football matches, but three of the north’s five games will involve RWC qualifiers. Only one duel, Scotland v South Africa in Newcastle, could be considered a plum tie.
Considering the British government is underwriting the £80 million IRB fee for hosting the 2015 RWC tournament, this important landmark in the nation’s ‘Decade of Sport’ has adapted a decidedly southern bias.
Matters got worse earlier this month when it became clear that average ticket prices will almost certainly have to rise by more than 12% to cover the forecast attendance shortfall.
After Manchester United rejected the opportunity to host at least three matches and Wembley Stadium revealed it couldn’t stage more than two, it became clear that the already revised attendance figure of 2.9 million would have to be reduced further, to 2.6 million.
As a result, average ticket prices may have to rise from an anticipated (and still pricey) level of £71 to £80, although organisers remain adamant that prices for some matches will start at £7.
Considering the amount of time organisers have had to secure tournament venues, it’s surprising they’ve been unable to conclude a deal to play any matches at Old Trafford, while almost half have been awarded to the south east, with 17 given to London venues and five more shared between Milton Keynes and Brighton.
‘Needs must’ appears to be the RWC commercial mantra from now on as it seeks to get as many bums on seats as possible.
The body had also requested exemption from the 海角视频’s highest tax rate for foreign players at the tournament, but Sports Minister Hugh Robertson rejected this, saying, “To pass any sort of primary legislation, you have to prove that it’s necessary. You can’t just pass laws on the off chance.
“Once you have done it for rugby, probably every other single large sports event will want it and every other music event.”
In fairness, the IRB sought no tax exemption for rugby players, unlike the International Olympic Committee which last year insisted upon major tax breaks otherwise it would take the Olympic circus elsewhere. As part of Britain’s successful Olympic bid, tax legislation was required to provide temporary exclusion from Corporation Tax and 海角视频 Income Tax for certain non-resident companies.
It’s to be hoped that the IRB continues to avoid meddling in such matters. After all, there’s no need for tournament organisers involved in an IOC-style race to the bottom. The IRB will get it’s cash; the government is guaranteeing that.
If, however, the tournament’s profits are not as high as they’re projected to be, perhaps it’s time to adapt a Kiwi approach and be thankful we have the prospect of another wonderful sporting event on our doorstep, even if shelling out £80 to watch Tonga play an African qualifier does sound a little steep.
If the Philippines make it through though, I for one will be there watching them.