The All Blacks parade the World Cup in Wellington in 2011 - scenes that are unlikely to happen again.

OPINION: Don't bother, New Zealand. You will never again host another Rugby World Cup.



That is the message from World Rugby after they announced the results of their evaluation report for the 2023 World Cup. The report placed South Africa's bid as "the clear leader", with France second and Ireland trailing a distant third. Yet Ireland never had a chance. The whole thing was a flagrant fix.



In fact no smaller nation has the slightest chance of ever again holding a Rugby World Cup if we are going to play be these rules. In future only England, France, South Africa and Australia need apply because the evaluation process appears to be rigged. And here's how.



Although it carries the smallest weighting of the five categories, 'organisation and schedule' was perhaps the most symbolic in terms of Ireland's doomed bid. World Rugby could in fact re-name this category 'Catch 22.'

READ MORE:

* Hansen expected Boks first

* ABs get Springboks first up

* Japan timezone is friendly for Kiwi viewers

* Baabaas 'something special'

One of the requirements is that the "bid demonstrates the host nation has substantial experience in hosting major events." In other words Ireland was stuffed from the get go. How are you ever going to get experience of hosting a major event, if the requirement of hosting a major event is to have experience of hosting a major event?

PHOTOSPORT Toka Natua scores a try for New Zealand in the final of the women's World Cup in Belfast, Northern Ireland.

South Africa and France have both hosted football and rugby World Cups already. Australia and England have hosted recent Olympic Games. What about you, New Zealand? Hmm, a Rugby World Cup and, oh, what did you say, the 1990 Commonwealth Games? And Ireland? Sorry, can't hear you at the back.

The evaluation committee report, without apparent irony, said that Ireland's "proposal scored lower than France and South Africa due to the lack of similar stature major event experience". In other words the Women's Rugby World Cup doesn't cut it. Strange that 'equality' is apparently a stipulated requirement in another part of the evaluation. It just doesn't apply to the guys calling the shots.

It may not carry many points, but the 'organisation and schedule' category is symbolic because it seeps over into so many of the other categories. Nations that have recently hosted an Olympic Games or a football World Cup have state-of-the-art stadia with state-of-the-art technology.

HANNAH PETERS/GETTY IMAGES Brian O'Driscoll, left, was an ambassador for Ireland's doomed bid.

But Ireland got clobbered in the 'tournament infrastructure' section because several of their stadia needed technological upgrades. Ireland had plans to install these, but good intentions score way lower than already having the gadgets in place.

The Olympics has in the recent past favoured bids that sought to improve a country's infrastructure, with varied outcomes. In contrast the Rugby World Cup prefers a Bill Gates type bid that offers a house already full of money and machines.

The report said of Ireland: "The amount of upgrade work required introduces complexity and therefore a significant risk factor that is not inherent in the other two bids."

Yep, sorry again, New Zealand. I mean look at some of the Wi-Fi around this country. It's pitiful. I know the techno whizzes did some pretty glitzy things at Westpac Stadium during the Lions tour, but at some other venues the systems crashed and burned. A third World Cup, are you dreaming?

The same thing happened to Ireland around the category 'Venues and Host Cities'. Despite the fact that their bid is a remarkable symbol of unification between the two old foes of rugby and Gaelic football, the south and the north, Ireland were once more marked down because they would be upgrading some of their venues. This is apparently unacceptably risky.

You have to laugh at such an assessment when everything that South Africa says is taken at face value. The French federation is also furious, pointing out "blatant errors" and "incompetence" to World Rugby Chairman Bill Beaumont over the assessment of their stadia availability, hotels and drug testing programme. Yet South Africa, the politically most unstable of the three countries by far, a nation that was on the brink of sending the last World Cup into chaos, has had everything taken on trust.

The judges even slaughtered Ireland in the transport category, but scored South Africa equally with them in the security category. Well, if being car-jacked is your thing, then I guess that makes a lot of sense. But really?

And of course South Africa won the part of the bid called 'Financial, Commercial and Commitments'. In other words they pledged the most money. Ireland offered $230 million with a government payment guarantee, France offered $288 million underwritten by the government (ooh, score them down) and South Africa offered $307 million with a government guarantee.

Goodness, it's like closed purses in a boxing bid. 'And the winner is'...rustle of envelope…'the country that offered the most dosh'. Never mind the fact that South Africa is a financial basket case compared to France, with desperate levels of poverty. Never mind they could be spending their money on more worthwhile things.

The bid literature pompously declares that "Rugby differentiates itself from other sports based on its values, and particularly integrity and respect. Upholding these values has been an important part of the host selection process."

Oh, except when you show us the money. Then we'll grab all we can, no matter the potential human cost. And, yes, New Zealand, don't bother to apply in future, you simply won't be able to afford it. And nor should our government be forking out such money on a game. The minimum fee of $230 million is absurd.

Still, it's not even worth thinking about. New Zealand doesn't have the stadia capacity, the size of cities, the technological network or the cash. The 2011 World Cup may have been a roaring success, but goodwill to all nations and a community spirit count for little in the great modern sporting arms race.

World Rugby calls the World Cup "the financial engine that allows us to grow the game". I call it usury, that pays for too many salaries, too many offices and too many business class flights.

But New Zealand and all the other unions who are due to vote on November 15, you don't have to go along with all this spreadsheet sewage. You can still vote for the craic. You can still vote for a game that unifies a country. You still can vote for a World Cup that will bring improved stadia to a Celtic tiger that lost its roar long ago. You can still vote for some of the best fans in the world.

The choice is yours. You can vote for money. Or you can vote for beer and laughter and fellowship. It used to be what sport was all about.