Could rugby ever be as global as basketball or even football?

[Kiwiwomble]

Rugby will never be as big as football. Not disputing that. But that probably has more to do with football getting a global "head start" than the complexity of the rules. Look at the States. "Soccer" still hasn't really picked up there yet the NFL is huge with all its ridiculous rules. Kids just want to be like their heroes on TV. They'd all play roller hockey if that was the most popular sport.

Football didn't really get a head start over rugby, the fabled webb ellis incident is supposed to have taken place in the 1820's with he first internationals in the 1870's, the FA was formed in the 1860's, do we think maybe 10 years counts as a head start?

 

[FNS]

It's not a head start. Football is simple, easy to play, hard rules can be diched like offside and the game is fun. Rugby involves a lot of contact, passing the ball only backwards or in the same line, offside would destroy any fun attemp to play it. The list goes on.

 

[miccloarch]

the fabled webb ellis incident

The point of that fable is that rugby is a type of football, that's why it's called rugby football. Football was first.

Anyway I was talking more about the 20th century when sport became professional (and in that sense, rugby is decades behind other sports). The market is saturated and football got in first. FIFA has a head start that rugby will never be able to make up, but World Rugby, the incompetent fools they are, can still do a lot better.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

Not disputing that. But that probably has more to do with football getting a global "head start" than the complexity of the rules. Look at the States. "Soccer" still hasn't really picked up there yet the NFL is huge with all its ridiculous rules. Kids just want to be like their heroes on TV. They'd all play roller hockey if that was the most popular sport.

Disagree. In order for a sport to be popular, you need to be able for people everywhere to play it. Again, opportunity.
Think of poor people in say, Kinshasa or Yangon or Managua, who can barely afford to put a meal on the table. How do you think their parents will be able to afford roller skates for their kids? I can tell you one thing. Food or no food on the table, odds are those kids play football.

Football's success has a very simple recipe: Minimal infrastructure, simple rules, and controversy. The greatest goal in the history of the sport was not the most talked-about goal from the same bloody game.
That is one of the two main reasons why FIFA stood against VAR for so long.

Rugby doesn't need much infrastructure but still more than football, the rules are way more complicated and the organizing bodies do a genuine effort to bring transparency and accountability to the game. About this last one, not saying they are doing a good job, but their aim is clear.

 

[The Seeker]

As global as Basketball, doubtful. Football, no way. But that's one of the things that I like about rugby, it's a special sport that not everyone understands.

 

[miccloarch]

Disagree. In order for a sport to be popular, you need to be able for people everywhere to play it. Again, opportunity.
Think of poor people in say, Kinshasa or Yangon or Managua, who can barely afford to put a meal on the table. How do you think their parents will be able to afford roller skates for their kids? I can tell you one thing. Food or no food on the table, odds are those kids play football.

Not to be pedantic, roller hockey is a really stupid sport, but hypothetically speaking, if it were indeed the most popular sport I'm pretty sure even poor families would find a way to make their kids happy. My point is marketing plays a huge role in the modern world because it can affect a kid's entire outlook on the world.

Football's success has a very simple recipe: Minimal infrastructure, simple rules, and controversy. The greatest goal in the history of the sport was not the most talked-about goal from the same bloody game.
That is one of the two main reasons why FIFA stood against VAR for so long.

Simplicity helps, but really money is the biggest factor. Again I point to the NFL, but there's also athletics / track and field sports. It couldn't get simpler than running a 100m race, yet football is still bigger. You mention controversy, which is just a nice way of saying "corruption."

Rugby doesn't need much infrastructure but still more than football, the rules are way more complicated and the organizing bodies do a genuine effort to bring transparency and accountability to the game. About this last one, not saying they are doing a good job, but their aim is clear.

Incompetency is what it is whichever way you paint it but IMO the whole NH v SH thing is actually holding rugby back more than anything. Neither side wants to give in and share the wealth because that would be too "socialist." Ok lads, enjoy your monumentally boring 6N, EC, RC and SR then. Your sport will only die a slow death that way.

 

[Kiwiwomble]

@miccloarch i think you've got the cart before the horse here, Rugby didn't got professional as early as other sports BECAUSE its wasn't as popular, popularity drives the attendance and viewing markets and those things drive the money to make it professional...all comes down to how wide its spread and how poplar it is to start with

football spread because the core of the game is very simple (no hands, kick ball in net) where the core of rugby is you cant pass forward...every time ive tried to explain rugby to people the first thing they ask is why you cant pass forward...

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

Not to be pedantic, roller hockey is a really stupid sport, but hypothetically speaking, if it were indeed the most popular sport I'm pretty sure even poor families would find a way to make their kids happy.

Are you serious?
This has been studied far and wide. Sports that require money to be played tend to have very, very few poor people competing at it.
I can name pages football players that come from poor backgrounds. Not New Zealand poor,, but south american shantytown poor.
Now, just to contrast, how many F1 drives do you think have similar backgrounds? Zero.
How about rally? Zero
How about skiing? Zero
How about Polo? Zero
How about sailing? Zero.
How about golf? Very, very few, and they were all "poor" in rich countries, usually starting as caddies with free access to clubs and field.

Now, look at the percentage of people from a poor background in sports that require little to no money to participate. Both Maradona and Pele come from shantytowns.
Look at 100-meter racing. Wrestling. Boxing, long-distance running.
Tons, i mean TONS of people who come from some of the poorest places on earth.

The evidence is overwhelming and clear for anyone who wants to see it.

Simplicity helps, but really money is the biggest factor.

Problem with that argument is that football was already the biggest sport before they put money on it.













Sports that require



I guarantee you, without an iota of doubt, that kids in southern Sudan would love to have an iPhone. How many do you think got one

 

[Tooting Carmen]

The gradual financial fallout caused by Covid has unfortunately put into sharp relief many much deeper and underlying problems with rugby. In particular, the few wealthy Tier One countries and their clubs spending beyond their means - even France, considered to have the most financially healthy and independent club system, has reported that around half of the teams in their top two leagues are close to running out of money; the poor and closed global governance of the game; but most of all, the inability or unwillingness of the promoters and practitioners of the sport to spread it globally.

Australian rugby's impending collapse would not actually be such an issue were it to occur in soccer, given that the latter has dozens if not hundreds of truly competitive nations, but this is not the case in rugby, where Australia plays a highly substantial role at the top level of the sport. The sad truth is that most countries ranked outside the top 20 by World Rugby would be comfortably beaten even by the Dragons and Zebre, while I'd also wager that even some Tier Two nations would really struggle against a full-strength Leinster or Saracens. That the Six Nations Championship is still regarded as such a crucial event in rugby, whereas the Home Nations Championship was discarded decades ago in soccer speaks volumes: in the latter, the Home Nations are ultimately just four/five nations out of many genuine players, whereas in the former they (together with France and yes, even Italy) have a very disproportionate importance.