COMMENT
For South African rugby fans, the 1995 Rugby World Cup remains an almost mythical memory — Nelson Mandela, Francois Pienaar, Ellis Park and the Rainbow Nation coming together around the Springboks.
But it could remain the only time many South Africans ever see the Springboks play for the Webb Ellis Cup on home soil.
That is why Rugby’s Greatest Rivalry (RGR) has become about much more than four Tests between the Springboks and the All Blacks.
SA Rugby and NZ Rugby have established the quadrennial RGR series as the closest financial alternative to hosting a Rugby World Cup — a major international event that generates substantial revenue, mobilises huge supporter bases and gives both countries a global rugby spectacle of their own.
And that is increasingly important because the economics of hosting the World Cup are moving against traditional rugby powers such as South Africa and New Zealand, which are less economically viable than regions with stronger currencies or greater commercial potential.
SA Rugby chief executive Rian Oberholzer has made it clear that World Rugby must take its flagship tournament to the markets where it can generate the most money.
"The World Cup is the only revenue stream for World Rugby," Oberholzer said at the launch of Rugby’s Greatest Rivalry in March.
"It must fund the whole rugby ecosystem, and all the members get some funding from the World Cup. So, World Rugby must take the World Cup to where they can make the most money, and to go where they will get the most support from local government."
Oberholzer has subsequently been even more blunt about South Africa and New Zealand’s commercial disadvantage.
"If you compare us to Europe, for example, I cannot see that the money will ever be the same generated out of South Africa as what it will generate out of Europe, or in the future, maybe somewhere in the Middle East," Oberholzer said.
"It’s a World Rugby decision, not an SA Rugby decision. World Rugby will drive World Cups to where they can make the most money.
"We all have to understand that, and you can’t complain and ask for a World Cup in your country, make less money, and then want a bigger slice of the cake when it comes to the annual grant that you get from World Rugby. It is about income generation to feed the whole rugby system."
The days when the World Cup could simply be rotated around the traditional rugby nations on sentimental grounds are, in Oberholzer’s view, over.
"I think we have moved away from the philosophy that everybody must get an equal chance to host a World Cup," Oberholzer added.
"New Zealand and South Africa will not make the money out of a World Cup that World Rugby needs. I don’t think it is a negative on us; it is more about what is important for the best interests of World Rugby."
The upcoming World Cup calendar underlines his point. Australia will host the 2027 tournament, the roadshow moves to the United States in 2031, and the 2035 event has attracted bids from Spain, Italy, Japan and the Middle East, with Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates among the contenders. The successful bidder is expected to be announced late next year.
For South Africa and New Zealand, then, RGR represents an opportunity to create their own mega-event rather than wait for a World Cup that may never return to their shores.
The 2026 RGR was a resounding success on several levels. From ticket sales alone, SA Rugby earned around R200 million from the eight-match series, while the Baltimore finale was a particular cash cow, earning the union an estimated R90 million more than it would have generated had the fourth Test been staged at Loftus Versfeld or Kings Park.
And the financial returns tell only part of the story. The 71 000 crowd at M&T Bank Stadium was believed to have been more than 80% South African expatriates, creating an extraordinary sea of green and gold thousands of kilometres from home. The images told their own story — from the Springboks’ 2am arrival to the vuvuzelas, braais and celebrations that continued long after the final whistle.
Baltimore demonstrated that the Springboks can take their own version of home advantage with them. That matters because South Africa’s extraordinary record at the World Cup — four titles in eight tournaments — does not give them any greater claim to host the tournament.
The commercial equation counts for more.
SA Rugby and NZ Rugby cannot control where World Rugby takes the World Cup. But they can cash in on their own great rivalry, build an event around it and take it to markets where it can generate new revenue while strengthening their global brands.
The Baltimore Test also showcased the commercial possibilities. Two of the Springboks’ major sponsors, Coca-Cola and Nike, are based in the United States, while the match allowed SA Rugby to deepen its relationship with a market that will host the 2031 World Cup.
Some of the most valuable returns cannot be reduced to a balance sheet. For a week, social media was flooded with images of South Africans enjoying the extraordinary spectacle of a Springbok Test in America. The expat community turned Baltimore into a green-and-gold carnival, sending an unmistakable message to SA Rugby: there is a massive overseas Springbok community waiting to be mobilised.
The challenge now is to keep growing it. If SA Rugby can turn the "Braai Army" in America into a genuine travelling support base, then by the time the 2031 World Cup arrives in the United States, the Springboks may have something approaching home advantage after all.
It will not be Ellis Park in 1995, but it may be the next best thing.
And perhaps that is the real legacy of Rugby’s Greatest Rivalry: South Africa and New Zealand may have lost the realistic prospect of hosting the World Cup, but they have found a way to build something that can come close.