World Rugby was left embarrassed and in disarray on Wednesday night after France was announced as the surprise host of the 2023 Rugby World Cup, prompting accusations of horse-trading and a power struggle at the heart of the sport’s governing body.

The outcome of the secret ballot casts a huge shadow over World Rugby’s decision to commission a painstaking evaluation report, which last month recommended South Africa as the “clear leader”, only for its council to throw its weight behind France two weeks later.

It is also a devastating blow to the World Rugby hierarchy, including the chairman, Bill Beaumont, after the 139-page report was published in the interests of transparency and to avoid accusations of the kind of political lobbying that has tarnished similar processes in football and Olympic circles. While it has been rife over the past two weeks, it is understood infighting at the centre of World Rugby also significantly contributed to France’s win.

Bravo, France, but at what cost to rugby’s transparency and integrity? | Robert Kitson Read more

France obtained 18 votes in the first round to South Africa’s 13, with Ireland eliminated, having received eight. France then triumphed 24 to 15 in the second round and it is understood World Rugby council members have grown concerned at the amount of power wielded by Beaumont, his vice-chairman Agustîn Pichot and the chief executive Brett Gosper, and seized the opportunity to flex their muscles by snubbing the recommendation.

South Africa received only a third of the council’s 39 votes in the first round, with England believed to be the only tier-one nation to back Ireland, then supporting France in the second round.

“Humiliation for me? I don’t think so. I don’t think so at all,” said a defiant Beaumont, who, as a former chairman and a former England captain, would have hoped for the Rugby Football Union to back South Africa. “Just because it went to France, that doesn’t mean there’s humiliation whatsoever. I think it was a very fair process and a transparent process. Countries will have disagreed with the scoring and that is obvious. You can’t blame them for that.”

Quick guide Rugby World Cup hosts Show Hide 1987 (New Zealand) Final: Eden Park, Auckland Winners: New Zealand 1991 (England, Ireland, Wales, Scotland, France) Final: Twickenham, London Winners: Australia 1995 (South Africa) Final: Ellis Park, Johannesburg Winners: South Africa 1999 (Wales) Final: Millennium Stadium, Cardiff Winners: Australia 2003 (Australia) Final: Stadium Australia, Sydney Winners: England 2007 (France) Final: Stade de France, Paris Winners: South Africa 2011 (New Zealand) Final: Eden Park, Auckland Winners: New Zealand 2015 (England) Final: Twickenham, London Winners: New Zealand 2019 (Japan) Final: International Stadium, Yokohama 2023 (France)

Photograph: Stefan Wermuth/X90073

South Africa hit out at a process described by its union’s chief executive, Jurie Roux, as “exhaustive and transparent for 15 months” only to go “entirely opaque for the past two weeks”. Mark Alexander, the South African union’s president, accused World Rugby’s council members of “breaking the rules” and its code of conduct after an ugly fortnight of recriminations, claims and counterclaims from France and Ireland over the validity of the report.

“There was a set of rules and we abided by those rules up to today,” Alexander said. “Several rules were broken during that process, which we are upset about. This is the first time ever World Rugby has got a recommendation and it has been voted against. South African rugby did not attack any of the other bidders throughout the process. It is disappointing – we have a set of rules and we have to stick to the rules.”

France struck a triumphant note after being awarded a tournament it hosted only 10 years ago. The union’s president, Bernard Laporte, has been waging war against World Rugby’s recommendation that he described as “nonsense and full of errors” over the past two weeks but spearheaded a charm offensive since then. Laporte has lobbied hard to convince council members of a bid that pledged a £500m guarantee to World Rugby, including £350m for reinvestment. “We did dispute some aspects but I’m not saying that’s why we won,” he said.

Courtney Lawes backs Owen Farrell to lead England charge against Australia Read more

South Africa’s support came from Australia, New Zealand, Argentina – in a show of Sanzaar solidarity – and Wales, because the WRU chairman, Gareth Davies, was on the subcommittee that recommended the evaluation. South Africa did not even get the backing of the African continental association.

France was backed by the majority of the continental associations, including Africa, as well as Scotland and Italy. Ireland was largely limited to English and the North American vote and the IRFU chief executive, Philip Browne, admitted his frustration at a failure to gain the backing of all the home nations. “We are very disappointed they didn’t vote for us,” he said. “Scotland went for the money and Wales went out of solidarity with Gareth Davies, England supported us and we have to thank England for that.”

Browne acknowledged France’s finances had proved pivotal and questioned whether nations such as Ireland, or the 2011 host, New Zealand, would have been selected again under the current process. “The reality is that unless you have big shiny new stadia you have to wonder why you would bid,” he said. “World Rugby need to decide what sort of tournament they want and make sure everyone understands what their vision is at the outset.”

Beaumont conceded the bidding process will almost certainly be changed. “Should there have been a recommendation? We’ll look at all these things in a debrief,” he said.