England v USA, Friday, 7.30pm, BBC1

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

She offers eyeballs, ticket sales and merch sales.

Out of interest, I've just had a look at the rankings table.
USA are 25.7 ranking points behind England - slightly more than the gap from New Zealand to Uruguay in men's rugby. Last time those 2 played, it was 73 - 0 (Oct '23). Let's not pretend similay blow-outs don't happen in the men's game.

I think that's the issue though
Uruguay is 17th in world rugby
USA is 10th

There is 20 points difference between England and 5th place Ireland alone

England massively benefiting from early investment but how does the women's game raise the bottom line standard

In terms of projections England are not predicted to face a team less than 20 rankings points below them until the final, it's like NZ not playing a team better than Samoa until the final in the men's

Granted the final should be great, but it’s a debate I have seen on the Leicester tigers board about how this RWC could have the same impact the euros has had in women’s football, but I just don’t feel this will have the drama of the women’s football that helped draw people in.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

I think my thing is just, having the most known player in the women's game involved in the wrong side of a blowout won't help the game

Especially when she is prob moving to WWE after this World Cup by the sounds of it

My point was more about the angry dads in social media sections (and on Reddit) kicking off about her
I have noticed quite a lot of people on social media saying they're tuning in to watch the game last night as their first ever rugby game specifically because of her/her advertising it so I do wonder what they thought/will they continue watching, though?

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

My point was more about the angry dads in social media sections (and on Reddit) kicking off about her
I have noticed quite a lot of people on social media saying they're tuning in to watch the game last night as their first ever rugby game specifically because of her/her advertising it so I do wonder what they thought/will they continue watching, though?

Oh yeah, as I just mentioned in the WRU **** show thread people love to attribute anything positive about the women's game to having a negative knock on to the men's game.

Women's get more funding = Men's teams going bust

 

[Which Tyler]

I think my thing is just, having the most known player in the women's game involved in the wrong side of a blowout won't help the game

Especially when she is prob moving to WWE after this World Cup by the sounds of it

Again, she's a famous person who plays rugby, not a famous rugby player.
If Brad Pitt decided to play rugby for a bit - that wouldn't make USA contenders against the #1 side in the world, on a 29-match winning streak

I think that's the issue though
Uruguay is 17th in world rugby
USA is 10th

There is 20 points difference between England and 5th place Ireland alone

Yes, women's rugby doesn't have the depth of the men's game. It also has 1 undisputed best side in the world.
That's... really not news.
It's a newly professional sport after all - literally 3 years for any team other than England.
The other teams will catch up with England - they just haven't yet.

The point that annoys is the whole "women's rugby will never get as popular as it currently is, if it keeps getting the scoreline that made it as popular as it currently is"

Then a bunch of bullshit arguments about the most famous rugby player happening to be only okay at rugby, and playing for a fairly **** team - and seeming to think that because she's famous she must be good, and because she's personally good (which she isn't) she must be able to overcome the other 22 fairly **** players and make her nation competitive - presumably in much the same way as when the world's best player was Caucaunibuca, and Fiji were going toe to toe against all opponents....

England massively benefiting from early investment but how does the women's game raise the bottom line standard

In terms of projections England are not predicted to face a team less than 20 rankings points below them until the final, it's like NZ not playing a team better than Samoa until the final in the men's

Granted the final should be great, but it's a debate I have seen on the Leicester tigers board about how this RWC could have the same impact the euros has had in women's football, but I just don't feel this will have the drama of the women's football that helped draw people in.

Wow - you mean that professionals are sometimes better than amateurs? I'm shocked, shocked I say.
Oh, and you're projection forgot that the semifinals exist

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

Again, she's a famous person who plays rugby, not a famous rugby player.
If Brad Pitt decided to play rugby for a bit - that wouldn't make USA contenders against the #1 side in the world, on a 29-match winning streak

Harsh comparison imo

She was a rugby player before she was famous
She might not have gotten famous due to her skill but she is still an Olympic medalist

 

[Which Tyler]

Of course, she's no-where near as famous as Brad Pitt - but I can't think of any one else who was an unheard of rugby player, who went on to become famous, but still played rugby. So I used Pitt to illustrate the point.

Yes, she's good enough at 7s, and USA are good enough at 7s, to have got a bronze medal.

Ultimately, you seem to have come in with unreasonable expectation, based on the fame of one person who isn't famous for rugby, and are upset that your unreasonable expectations were unreasonable.
Or am I misunderstanding you?
If so, could you please explain your actual point again from the start? It's obviously been developing over a few posts, and has become kinda hard to pin down

 

[Which Tyler]

I mean I can't remember a single period where they didn't have like 3 other teams that posed as big a threat

Sorry, just been reading back to try to get my head around your argument. Whilst I fully agree that England are significantly better than the competition (due to being professional the longest), you've presumably forgotten about 2021 & 2016.

Currently, ranking points from England down to Canada / NZ / France (2nd - 4th) is a spread of 7.5-12 points
2021, ranking points from SA (men) to NZ, Eng, Ire is a spread of 5-9.5 points - so not quite as severe, but really not "as big a threat"
2016, ranking points from NZ (men) to Eng, SA, Aus is a spread of 7-12 points

Again though, women's rugby is newly professional. Having a head-start on professionalism is an undeniable advantage.
Women's rugby has been taking off in England over the last 4 years - and is only remotely this big in England*. It's really shouldn't be a surprise that England dominate.

Women's rugby became as popular as it currently is, whilst the most famous player played for USA, and points differences of 50+ points were common when a tier1 side plays tier2. It's unlikely to be harmed by... the exact same scenario as made it popular in the first place - even if that scenario is not ideal, and we'd all prefer more contests, and more teams coming up to the level of England - which they will - in time (with investment).



* 3 years ago, England v Wales in the 6N set a world record for attendance at a women's rugby match, with 14k. The entire RWC in NZ that year sold something like 40,500 tickets over the entire event.
Yesterday saw a football stadium in Sunderland (!) sell 42k tickets, the biggest ever for a women's XVs match (Paris olympics got 66k), Twickenham has already sold out for the final.
First international rugby match for the women was 1982 - more than a century after the first men's international (1871).

Comparing all of that to men's rugby is literally men against boys. One is a mature sport which has been professional for 30 years. One is a juvenile sport, which has been professional for 3 years. These things are simply not the same.

None of which means that you had to enjoy the rugby, or the experience, or that you have to think it has much of a future - that's all fine.
If it's that it was a blow-out, then be aware that it was always going to be a blow-out, and watch something like Scotland v Wales this afternoon, which should be way closer.

 

[ShropshireAllBlack]

I’m possibly taking this thread off topic slightly, but how much coverage is the competition getting in the US? If the argument is that loads of first time viewers there are put off, because their country took a hammering, that does assume that there is a lot of people tuning in.
The competition is getting more coverage here in the UK, for obvious reasons, but is that transferring to other countries as well?

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

Of course, she's no-where near as famous as Brad Pitt - but I can't think of any one else who was an unheard of rugby player, who went on to become famous, but still played rugby. So I used Pitt to illustrate the point.

Yes, she's good enough at 7s, and USA are good enough at 7s, to have got a bronze medal.

Ultimately, you seem to have come in with unreasonable expectation, based on the fame of one person who isn't famous for rugby, and are upset that your unreasonable expectations were unreasonable.
Or am I misunderstanding you?
If so, could you please explain your actual point again from the start? It's obviously been developing over a few posts, and has become kinda hard to pin down

My ultimate argument isn't really about Maher or USA its primary just I don't see how Women's rugby will really progress on a world scale as much

With the PWR it's kinda a bit of the rich get richer situation.

It just doesn't really seem like other countries are putting in the investment and I feel like the gap between pro men and semi men isn't as big as the gap between pro women and semi professional/amateur women.

It just feels like to me as a casual viewer whatever progress gets made England will progress ten fold more

Idk it just feels like the men game has a clear tiered system in terms of tier 1, 2, 3 with good baseline to measure off for each level. The women’s game just feels like it’s three tier 1 team (with one well ahead) and the rest together. So what’s the baseline of progression?

 

[Which Tyler]

My ultimate argument isn't really about Maher or USA its primary just I don't see how Women's rugby will really progress on a world scale as much

Which brings us back to "Womens rugby won't be as popular as it is if it keeps getting the results that made it as popular as it is (which ignoring that that it's new to this, and won't stay like this forever)"

With the PWR it's kinda a bit of the rich get richer situation.

To a degree, yeah - if you invest, you reap most of the reward of that investment.
But bear in mind that PWR is not just for English players; plenty of other countries are developing their players off the back of RFU investment.
But RFU aren't the only nation investing in women's rugby, they're just ahead of the rest.

It just doesn't really seem like other countries are putting in the investment

Your feels are wrong (though RFU invest more, and invested earlier)

I feel like the gap between pro men and semi men isn't as big as the gap between pro women and semi professional/amateur women.

Now this is true - women's rugby doesn't have the same depth as men's rugby. Women's rugby also doesn't have the history of men's rugby - it is literally younger than I am.

It just feels like to me as a casual viewer whatever progress gets made England will progress ten fold more

Unlikely, England are still maturing in terms of professionalism; but they will hit that mark way before other countries. First contracts in England were around the time that I got properly interested, rather than the odd look here and there - so about 8 years ago; with a little messing about. But it's been properly professional with a professional league, youth and pathways etc for about 2-3 years, so that'll need another 1-2 decades to mature - and puts England 6 years ahead of the rest of the world.

Idk it just feels like the men game has a clear tiered system in terms of tier 1, 2, 3 with good baseline to measure off for each level. The women's game just feels like it's three tier 1 team (with one well ahead) and the rest together.

Yes, a sport that's been going for 150 years, and professional for 30 is more settled than a sport that's been going for 40 years and professional for 3.

 

[Which Tyler]

I'm possibly taking this thread off topic slightly, but how much coverage is the competition getting in the US? If the argument is that loads of first time viewers there are put off, because their country took a hammering, that does assume that there is a lot of people tuning in.
The competition is getting more coverage here in the UK, for obvious reasons, but is that transferring to other countries as well?

@pagliaccio_euforico will be way better placed to comment than I, but I do know it's being televised stateside, and I do know a few Americans who have decided to give it a go - mostly ones I've "cajouled" into watching Olympic 7s, and now this

 

[TRF_Olyy]

To a degree, yeah - if you invest, you reap most of the reward of that investment.
But bear in mind that PWR is not just for English players; plenty of other countries are developing their players off the back of RFU investment.

Yeah, I was surprised to see that Sale have 15 players at the World Cup, only 3 with England

 

[Which Tyler]

Yeah, I was surprised to see that Sale have 15 players at the World Cup, only 3 with England

According to AI, 129 (+ Abby Dow) of the various RWC squads play in PWR - squad size is 32.
But then, it's the only professional league - though France and NZ have (I believe) partially professional leagues (so some fully pro, some semi-pro and some amateur players), and Ireland are in the process of setting one up.

16 of the USA squad ply their trade in PWR

Hartpury have more players in the Welsh squad than English

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

depends what you mean by coverage. Only 8 games are on cable tv, one is on broadcast with tape delay (our game against Samoa which we should win), the rest of it (including final) is on streaming only but paramount plus is fairly popular.

Online there has been a fair amount of coverage leading up to the tournament but we share espn.com with Australia. Reuters and ap news have it on their sports section but it’s not all over the place.

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

Are pwr clubs fully professiona?. I thought one of the perks of playing in England was how good the clubs were at getting school admissions and/or jobs for their players.

 

[Jimbo]

Again, she's a famous person who plays rugby, not a famous rugby player.
If Brad Pitt decided to play rugby for a bit - that wouldn't make USA contenders against the #1 side in the world, on a 29-match winning streak


Yes, women's rugby doesn't have the depth of the men's game. It also has 1 undisputed best side in the world.
That's... really not news.
It's a newly professional sport after all - literally 3 years for any team other than England.
The other teams will catch up with England - they just haven't yet.

The point that annoys is the whole "women's rugby will never get as popular as it currently is, if it keeps getting the scoreline that made it as popular as it currently is"

Then a bunch of bullshit arguments about the most famous rugby player happening to be only okay at rugby, and playing for a fairly **** team - and seeming to think that because she's famous she must be good, and because she's personally good (which she isn't) she must be able to overcome the other 22 fairly **** players and make her nation competitive - presumably in much the same way as when the world's best player was Caucaunibuca, and Fiji were going toe to toe against all opponents....


Wow - you mean that professionals are sometimes better than amateurs? I'm shocked, shocked I say.
Oh, and you're projection forgot that the semifinals exist

I agree with all of this and she can bust tackles will be good to see how stand out she is against opposition which are not amongst the top players in their position in the world, I think what doesn’t help is the hype (specifically from pundits) to be fair to new comers they could easily have been fooled into believing she was going to pull off Lomu level feets, just creates unrealistic expectations and perhaps needs a little tapering of her rugby ability talk wouldn’t go a miss, with all that said she’s clearly promoted the sport and however that comes about (as long as it’s savoury) is great for the growing of the game. It’s comical that people point to this divide in the women’s game like it’s unique and the men’s isn’t every but as predictable for the most part and scorelines are not cricket like scores. Despite England being on top for most of what I can remember they still have fewer WC title wins than the Black ferns it just proves what you do between WC cycles can be slightly irrelevant it still comes down to a single game of fine margins in the end, even if the yellow/red card in the last final was slightly controversial and probably ultimately determined the outcome.

 

[Which Tyler]

Are pwr clubs fully professiona?. I thought one of the perks of playing in England was how good the clubs were at getting school admissions and/or jobs for their players.

yup - but not what you'd call "well paid"
IIRC, the salary cap is approximately £1/4M

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

It just doesn't really seem like other countries are putting in the investment and I feel like the gap between pro men and semi men isn't as big as the gap between pro women and semi professional/amateur women.

after watching USA vs Canada men last night im fully convinced we are closer to elite amateur club rugby than we are to the best tier 1 nations. Outside of mcginty and ardon I had a tough time believing the guys playing were professional.

I do think the women’s World Cup will have more namibias than the men’s but hopefully in four years times the gap will close as more women are on full time contracts.

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

yup - but not what you'd call "well paid"
IIRC, the salary cap is approximately £1/4M

That’s about what MLR is but it seems like PWR does a much better job of setting women up for success off the field than mlr does for its players.

Actually think PWR should be the model for building a league with limited initial revenue. Pwhl in hockey is doing it similarly.

 

[Which Tyler]

That's about what MLR is but it seems like PWR does a much better job of setting women up for success off the field than mlr does for its players.

Probably because it's mostly based around mature clubs in the men's game, who are used to doing all of the non-salary stuff

Hartpury (Gloucester)
Exeter
Bristol
Harlequins
Leicester
Sale
Saracens
+ Ealing (Mature Championship club)
Loughborough (University)