RFU chairman Martyn Thomas Japanese Rugby Union president Nobby Mashimo have reason to smile alongside the Webb Ellis Cup © Getty Images

The prospect of the sport’s showpiece event taking place outside its traditional boundaries is certainly an exciting one and the fact it will be visiting Asia – a continent with a true hunger for the game - makes the announcement all the more pleasing.

The decision to break new ground is long overdue of course but should be applauded all the same as a brave and bold move. Japan should perhaps be preparing to welcome the world’s best in 2011 but they lost out to New Zealand in the race for that tournament as a result of the dark arts otherwise known as committee room manoeuvrings.

On that occasion the rugby world appeared to be aligning itself behind Japan but the tournament was handed to New Zealand in a surprising and somewhat controversial turnaround. Thankfully for Japan there was no last-minute heartbreak this time and I am confident that the home of the Cherry Blossoms - currently ranked 14th in the world and not yet assured of a place at RWC'11 - will breathe new life into the tournament.

The International Rugby Board (IRB) have repeatedly opted for the safe bet of a World Cup hosted by a leading nation instead of breaking the mould by staging a tournament in a country where the sport does not have such a strong foothold. But the sport’s powerbrokers cannot be criticised too readily for taking such a stance.

Rugby is no different to any other professional sport and above all – money talks. The fact that the IRB gets 95% of its income from the tournament underlines the fact that they need to get it right when it comes to handing out the hosting rights. This is not a game of pass-the-parcel at a child’s birthday party – there is no obligation to share the prize.

The decision to opt for England may well have been made in Dublin on Tuesday afternoon – or perhaps last month when the Rugby Football Union received the significant backing of tournament organisers Rugby World Cup Limited (RWCL) – but the path to this day leads way back to November 18, 2005 when New Zealand were awarded the rights to host Rugby World Cup 2011.

The conclusion reached that day put the IRB in a bind that brought us here today.

With the battle for the Webb Ellis Cup continuing to grow in terms of popularity and commercial importance (it is the world third-largest sporting event behind the Olympics and the Fifa World Cup) there was a misguided feeling that the tournament had to return to New Zealand before it became too big an event to be staged in the Land of the Long White Cloud. There would have been no such sympathy had that process taken place amidst a financial recession such as that which we are witnessing now. Let's leave the emotion on the field and ban it from the boardroom in the future.

Rugby World Cup 2007 in France was outstanding in many aspects including the bulging balance sheet it produced with a £122m surplus thanks to lucrative sponsorship packages, broadcasting deals and merchandising revenue. Plus tournament organisers sold a staggering 2.2m tickets.

In contrast, New Zealand is predicted to make a £20m loss - the first in Rugby World Cup history - largely due to the size of stadia and the global economic turndown. Ticket revenue is New Zealand's only way of covering the reported NZ$320m cost of hosting the tournament as the IRB keeps all other income. With a limited amount of tickets set to be released the hosts are highly unlikely to reap any direct reward and will no doubt hope for a positive effect in terms of tourism to offset this.

Limited stadia also surely mean less hospitality options and less fans spending money on official merchandise which will no doubt eat into the IRB's revenue from the tournament. The big TV rights deals for the tournament - the ones covering Europe - have yet to be agreed but the downturn in advertising revenue will hamper any bid from a commercial broadcaster. In the UK, ITV (broadcasters of RWC'07) are suffering in the economic climate with the license fee-funded BBC and satelite broadcaster Sky waiting in the wings. Either way the level of fees agreed will be another interesting talking point with time zones demanding early morning kick offs in Europe where evening kick offs would command the higher advertising revenue.

There is no way the New Zealand tournament will match that of their French counterparts and the IRB know this and are planning to make up that shortfall at the earliest opportunity. There are no financial gurarantees in place for 2011 as opposed to 2015 and 2019 when the hosts will have to stump up £80m and £96m respectively.

The IRB bean counters will be working overtime as they are committed to spending £150m on the development of the game in the next four years alone and so a tournament in England made commercial sense long before the 26-strong IRB Council had waded through the hefty dossier produced by RWCL and their consulting partners.

The figures produced by the RFU in their own detailed bid will have had the eyes of Bernard Lapasset, chairman of both the IRB and RWCL, and his fellow suits rolling like the reels on a slot machine. England’s “low risk, high return” approach and their pledge to generate in the region of £300m for the game were obviously powerful persuaders although an eventual 16-10 vote suggests the RFU did not have it all their own way.

RWCL’s endorsement of the English and Japanese bids meant that any other result from today’s vote would have made a laughing stock of the sport. But such is the shadow of the sport’s amateur ways that today’s finale to an 11-month tender process risked such ridicule - especially when you invite the world's media along. And the vote count, Japan won by the same margin, suggests that such a scenario was all too near to becoming an embarrassing reality.

Delight for England and Japan obviously means disappointment for South Africa and Italy – the other two bidders to have reached this far in the process.

According to reports, South Africa fought until the finish to turn the tide in their favour but for the second tournament in a row – they were also edged out for RWC’11 when they arguably held commercial sway – they must admit defeat.

They may have offered a larger guarantee than that demanded by the IRB for the 2015 and 2019 events respectively but most importantly they could not match the overall commercial clout of England. The South African Rugby Union’s failure to capitalise on this year’s British & Irish Lions tour, with empty seats at nearly all the games, will not have been missed by the IRB. As a result they must now wait until at least 2023 to play host to the world’s best once again.

Development of the game was the key factor in this process both in terms of funding it and delivering on that long-held promise. In Lapasset’s own words there was a need to, “maximise commercial revenues for re-investment in the Game.”

England, with their passionate fans and world-class stadiums, will no doubt deliver a superb tournament as part of what is set to be an unprecedented ‘decade of sport’ and more importantly a healthy financial return. OK, it will once again see games take place in another country but we can put up with a trip or two to the magnificent Millennium Stadium - at least the tournament will not be as watered down as it was in 1991.

But it is the staging of the 2019 event that will have true fans talking and do not be surprised if Japan, with an amazing ten years to prepare, laughs off its doubters with the greatest tournament the sport has ever seen. The sport's biggest prize is truly in safe hands.