International Rugby Board chairman Bernard Lapasset says that Wales cannot be certain of hosting Rugby World Cup matches when the tournament moves to England in 2015.

England won the bid to hold the tournament on its own, but Welsh Rugby Union chief executive Roger Lewis has been pushing lately for Millennium Stadium in Cardiff to host pool games involving Wales and up to two quarterfinals not involving the Welsh.

However, the Tri-Nations powerhouses have opposed Wales playing in Millennium Stadium, saying that if Wales and England are placed together in a pool then the other teams in the pool would be disadvantaged by conceding home advantage twice.

Lapasset said the IRB and England 2015 organizers have discussed using Millennium Stadium without making any decisions yet.

“No guarantee (for Wales),” Lapasset said.

“We have two objectives. The first is maximizing revenues to be successful, and the second objective is to run a quality tournament for everyone like we have done in New Zealand.

“We opened 12 venues (in New Zealand) to make it possible for as many fans to participate. It will be the same in England, but which cities in England we have not decided.”

England has proposed using Twickenham and Wembley in London, and Leicester’s Welford Road, Gloucester’s Kingsholm, Leeds’ Elland Road. The English were also interested in football arenas Old Trafford, Anfield, St. James Park and Emirates Stadium, subject to their needs.

One certainty was there will be midweek matches by the Tier One teams in 2015.

The unfair scheduling became a major issue in this World Cup, with top teams given up to a week’s rest between games at the behest of their broadcasters, who finance the IRB.

Meanwhile, the lower-rated sides had to endure frequent breaks of only four days, handicapping their chances of making the quarterfinals.

The IRB has committed to reviewing scheduling, and Lapasset said it will be easier to slot Tier One teams in midweek matches in England because the big-money broadcasters in Europe were mainly in the same time zone.

He wasn’t prepared, however, to commit to a minimum rest period for all teams.

“We have to be fair for all unions, fair for all teams engaged in the tournament, so it’s the same tournament for everyone,” he said.

“We have seen in this tournament the Tier Two teams can compete in the first week at a high level, there’s no big difference in the scores between Tier One and Tier Two, but after this it is different.

“We need to manage this process to be sure of a fair tournament for every team, and the quality of the games are the same in the whole tournament.”

He added the Tier Two and Three teams could expect more games against the Tri-Nations and Six Nations sides they need to improve themselves in the IRB tour plans drawn up from next year to the 2019 World Cup.

The main problem he believed needed addressing was ensuring the lower teams had their best players available, in the ongoing club-versus-country debate which prevented some players from appearing for the Pacific island sides in New Zealand.

“The best players in Tier Two teams don’t all play at home,” Lapasset said.

“A lot are playing in France, England, etc, and to be sure we can present the best against the best we need to ensure the Tier Two unions have the capacity to present the best players in their team.”