The fact that the organisers of the rugby World Cup are anticipating profits of more than £90 million from this year’s tournament in France amply demonstrates the growing popularity and strength of the sport. In financial terms alone, it will be the most successful ever, even before Saturday’s final between England and South Africa, with the projected bumper surplus about a quarter more than that generated in Australia in 2003.

The tournament is also basking in the glow of record television audiences of more than four billion and record ticket sales of 2.27 million, which translates into average crowds of 47,000 for each of the 48 matches.

The numbers show how well the French public has supported the tournament – there were games played, too, at Murrayfield and the Millennium Stadium, Cardiff – and reflects positively on the organisation of the host federation. The feel-good factor will certainly not harm Bernard Lapasset’s candidacy for the chairmanship of the IRB in succession to Syd Millar.

The upshot is twofold. First, the board will have more money to plough back into the development of the sport over and above the considerable sums that it is investing in new tournaments, structures and support initiatives worldwide. A dividend has been evident with the dramatic and, perhaps, unexpected improvement in performance among the smaller nations here.

Expert View

The nature of England’s march on Paris makes it a fantastic Boy’s Own story

Sir Clive Woodward

• More

• Post a comment

BACKGROUND

• Cueto ready to prove his point in Dad’s Army

• Hipkiss bid to force Ashton’s hand falls short

• Clive Woodward: Why England are my favourites

• Resurgent Gomarsall sets his sights on summit

BACKGROUND

• France exceed all expectations as hosts

• Steyn presents threat in close final

• Broccoli for breakfast is recipe for success

• The rough (sleeper’s) guide to Paris

BACKGROUND

• Robinson calls for 'one last push'

• Springboks unchanged for final

Multimedia

• Graphic: where the final could be won

Multimedia

• The World Cup Podcast

• Josh Lewsey's video diary

• The Rugby World Cup blog

Secondly, and most significantly, that extra competitiveness shown on the field by teams such as Georgia, Fiji, Tonga and the United States has killed off plans effectively to cut the numbers of participating countries in New Zealand in 2011 from 20 to 16. That has to be a good thing. With careful nurturing and continued progress, who knows what these teams could achieve in four years’ time.

The Times understands that there has been a seismic shift in sentiment this week as delegates from the 115 member countries have gathered in Paris before tomorrow’s full IRB council meeting, which is expected to discuss the matter. It is difficult to find anybody who believes that a scaled-down tournament is a sensible, viable or legitimate option. If adopted, it would backfire spectacularly on the IRB, countering the mission statement to spread the game globally.

There had been reservations about the one-sided nature of matches and the financial and logistical burden to New Zealand of staging a 20-team tournament. A vote has been put back until next month, when any plans to cut back should officially be dismissed.

Japan had been among many nations wondering why such an initiative was being considered. They lost out to New Zealand for the right to host the 2011 tournament, tenders for which were for 20 teams. If the number of countries was cut by four, Japan may not qualify, leaving Asia probably without a representative.

That is unthinkable, as the IRB appreciates. Asia has 6 per cent of the world’s players but 60 per cent of the population. It is a market that cannot be ignored.

“We were puzzled to hear such rumours,” Nobby Mashimo, the chairman of the Japan RFU, said. “It would not just affect us, but other smaller nations. Our bid, which we spent three years researching and which cost £1 million, was based firmly, like those of New Zealand and South Africa, on a 20-team tender document. It would be very difficult to understand how that could be changed at this stage.

“There is a moral argument, as well. This is not just a case for Japan and Asia. But the 2011 bid was intended to make rugby more global. That is why we stood up. That is why we have found it very difficult now to understand why someone would want to make it smaller. We wanted to change the rugby atmosphere, especially after the success of the 2002 football World Cup [which was held in Japan and South Korea].”

Japan announced a year ago that it will bid for the 2015 rugby World Cup, with reports suggesting that England may throw their hat in the ring. But Japan must be considered favourites, although they would have to ensure government or corporate financial guarantees to Rugby World Cup Ltd, the tournament organiser. For political reasons, they were unable to do so two years ago when the vote was taken. Helen Clark, the New Zealand Prime Minister, did in person, swinging the decision in her nation’s favour.