Why isn't Rugby league much bigger in Ireland? (or Wales and Scotland)

[William18]

The Broncos have had some good years and their attendance didn't even increase that much. I would say their average crowds have very little to do with performance. It just staggers me that in a large diverse city like London only 1 thousand people want to go and watch a game of rugby league.

Isn't the population of Cumbria only a couple hundred thousand? I would question how much you can grow rugby league there? Is it not already the number one sport?

 

[kenny_bee180]

That's my point, it's the number 1 sport in that region, yet they have no ESL team. Cumbria won't need any work to have a big club, with Big attendances.
Your point about London is a fair one. Especially when you consider 50% of sky sports coverage is watched by people in the south east.
So the interest seems to be there.
Perhaps it's just the RFL have no idea how to promote and grow the game.
Surely the lure of playing and living in London for a overseas player should be better than living in hull or Wigan.
Football is a winter sport, and league a summer one so the two shouldn't really be competing against each other anyway.
Perhaps it's just a cultural thing with sport in England. People are very territorial about there team and very single minded when it comes to other sports. You only to have look at any "league vs union" thread and you'll see single minded ignorance from both sides. And there two sports that should have a mutual respect and understanding of each other. So you can only imagine the opinion of football fans.

 

[Saints1]

I disagree.

The sport needs to work on the areas where the sport is strong. The quality in Super League is deteriorating at an alarming rate. The best players are either off to Australia or union with a handful of exceptions.

 

[kenny_bee180]

Trf_saints I made that point in an earlier post, that people in London would be more interested in watching a competitive sport.
I was just making the point that I can't see why the sport hasn't taken off in London.
By ensuring the game the "heartlands" is thriving it creates a much more competitive league and in turn creates more interest from other areas within the country and, most importantly of all, the national media.
And as mentioned before in this thread a strong international scene is important. I personally don't think we're too far behind the kangaroos and kiwis in terms of quality. It's the lack of high level competition that the players lack. I don't think it's a coincidence that England's best players at the world cup were nrl based ones.
Perhaps it worth trying to revisit the state of origin idea. With only 12 teams from next season there is more room in the fixture list.

 

[Saints1]

There is going to be more room. Personally I'd try and have a mid-season tri nations. The lack of an international game really hurts the sport.

 

[kenny_bee180]

Tri-nations between eng, aus and nz? Is there any room in the nrl calender for that. They'd want at least 2 week's prior to the first test. And it seem pretty pointless doing it between eng, Wales and France.
I do think playing the top nation's more often is a good idea however, it's just a logistical dilemma.
Perhaps a 4/6 team tournament between the top ESL and nrl teams at the end of each season (the current format is a bit silly as teams often have new players etc). Then the nrl would help promote the ESL through association if nothing else.

 

[William18]

I disagree.

The sport needs to work on the areas where the sport is strong. The quality in Super League is deteriorating at an alarming rate. The best players are either off to Australia or union with a handful of exceptions.

But isn't rugby league growing rapidly in the United Kingdom? From what I have read viewer numbers are decent and playing numbers are also up.

I have always thought a CUmbrian team wasn't possible because the population was too spaced out. If Whitehaven, Barrow or Workington are good enough then they will be able to move up to the Super League.

 

[kenny_bee180]

True, participation numbers are up in recent times. And actually quite considerably if Wikipedia is to believed.
Also whilst the aviva prem was on sky, superleague viewing figures were often higher. Not sure of the figures now it's on bt sport though.
And as I've said before on this thread, 50% of viewers of sky's superleague coverage are in the south. (60% of active supporters are also women, must be the short shorts).

I just think a few peoples issues are that the RFL need to get there house in order first. The likes if Wakefield and Bradford are in terrible states financially.
As for the New tv rights deal with sky. To me it was just pure stupidity. You can't tie yourself down for that long without any chance of increased revenue.

 

[SimonG]

The lack of an international game really hurts the sport.

That's pretty much the crux of the problem. You only needed to see the RLWC that there was an interest (albeit a passing interest) in the game. Both Rugby codes are similar (as is cricket) in that without an international game the sports get little attention. Union without the six nations/autumn internationals wouldn't get a mention. Jonny Wilkinson became known for a drop kick wearing an England shirt...outside the small pocket of hardcore union fans none would have a clue what club he played for. Do Geordies know they have a Union team up there?

True, participation numbers are up in recent times. And actually quite considerably if Wikipedia is to believed.
Also whilst the aviva prem was on sky, superleague viewing figures were often higher. Not sure of the figures now it's on bt sport though.
And as I've said before on this thread, 50% of viewers of sky's superleague coverage are in the south. (60% of active supporters are also women, must be the short shorts).
.

Oh I could well imagine Super League having higher viewing figures than Union club games..there's nothing in it when it comes to both. Neither are in the national consciousness and barely get a column in the papers, but the difference as mentioned before is the lack of an international game in League. Where did you get the 50% are viewers from the south? Cant see that at all as if there was the game would be reported more in the southern press (market forces).

I think you need to move away from the notion of making the Super League "more competitive" as being a way to increase interest. Thats a non factor as the truth is most non Super League fans couldn't name a team (or even a player) or know how competitive the league is. Same applies to the Union game. There's not a lot either code can do to increase viewership at club level. Union has an international game yet at club level it generates no more interest than League. Hardcore fans will watch the club game (the minority), the international game gets the casual fan (the majority). I was a casual fan (never saw a single RL club game) but what did grab my attention was the GB RL team...matches at Wembley on Grandstand. That is the formula to increase interest. The main issue I see is trying to develop international teams...the blueprint is probably Italy in Union that had a mix of Kiwis, Aussies and Italians not so long ago. Have to start somewhere.

 

[Saints1]

Completely agree.

The fact nobody has realised that every average fan misses Great Britain shows just how staggeringly short sighted the RFL actually are.

 

[SimonG]

Thing is though I don't think it's just the governing body...I have been reading the Rugby League forum the past few months and when the subject of reviving a GB team is brought up the vast majority shoot the idea down, apparently it's a "backwards" move. I couldn't work out that way of thinking at all (perhaps they want England as opposed to GB.). Either way, it's not just a requirement it's an absolute necessity to have the international game in order as u mentioned because ultimately its this format that gets the most interest which in turn will grow the game. Sam Burgess was the most talked about RL player in a long long time and all because of performances for the national team that were also on terrestrial tv. As a casual fan I hadn't heard of him before the tournament (or the remarkable story of having four brothers in one team)...the combination of a national team and it being on the BBC is no greater platform.

In terms of numbers there isn't much difference between hardcore League and Union fans in England; hardcore is the minority who go to club games week in week out hence i mentioned the limited scope for growth in the club game. The casual fan, which is the vast majority, won't go out of their way to follow a club team or be tempted to order sky..they (me) are drawn in by international competition on free to air tv. This applies to Union now, and it would apply to League if they get their house in order.

 

[Saints1]

I don't even support England RL - they just do nothing for me. Nothing at all.

And I agree with everything you say there.

 

[William18]

How can you grow the international game by combining 4 competitive teams into 1? It will allow the UK to compete with Australia better if some top Welsh or Irish players come along but do nothing to help overall competitiveness.

 

[goodNumber10]

How can you grow the international game by combining 4 competitive teams into 1? It will allow the UK to compete with Australia better if some top Welsh or Irish players come along but do nothing to help overall competitiveness.

It was a huge Brand much like the Lions in Union, it was the pinnacle and something everyone took notice of even outside of the Rugby League fan base. players grew up wanting to be a Great Britain International and it just dissapeared overnight.

Why they can't tour every four years much like the Union Lions do is beyond me, maintain the nations for the World Cup and The Great Britain team as a rotation every 2nd.

Two large profile events will help the international game grow.

 

[William18]

It was a huge Brand much like the Lions in Union, it was the pinnacle and something everyone took notice of even outside of the Rugby League fan base. players grew up wanting to be a Great Britain International and it just dissapeared overnight.

Why they can't tour every four years much like the Union Lions do is beyond me, maintain the nations for the World Cup and The Great Britain team as a rotation every 2nd.

Two large profile events will help the international game grow.

But why should there be a difference between England plus Brian Carney (Great Britain) and Great Britain minus Brian Carney (England)? I don't "get" it. All the games seem to have been played in the same northern stadiums and not got brilliant crowds. It looks like 1994 was the last big tour but the 2001 and 2003 tours were much smaller. Where the other nations ever significantly represented in Great Britain?

I think England will tour Australia next year.

 

[goodNumber10]

But why should there be a difference between England plus Brian Carney (Great Britain) and Great Britain minus Brian Carney (England)? I don't "get" it. All the games seem to have been played in the same northern stadiums and not got brilliant crowds. It looks like 1994 was the last big tour but the 2001 and 2003 tours were much smaller. Where the other nations ever significantly represented in Great Britain?

I think England will tour Australia next year.

Profile.

Why not just call the Kangaroos "Queensland with a couple of others players chucked in"?

 

[Jaguares]

I have a same question but reversed. Why isn't Rugby Union much bigger in Australia?

 

[Jaguares]

If you read the OP, you'll quickly establish that it's about the UK.

C'mon bud! It's just a little humor

 

[Big Ewis]

If you read the OP, you'll quickly establish that it's about the UK.

actually I'm quite positive the OP meant "Ireland, Wales, Scotland" as a metaphor. You just lack the depth of scope to see that...

 

[Saints1]

I have deleted every post ebt has made and I have banned him. Every single post is an attempt to demean the sport.