Northern Edition

Select Edition

Northern Northern
Southern Southern
Global Global
New Zealand New Zealand
France France

Numbers confirm Rugby League World Cup now utterly dwarfed by Union equivalent

Sam Burgess at the RLWC in Australia

While the international dimension of Rugby League has traditionally played second fiddle to the sport’s club game, a comparison between League and Union’s flagship international tournaments is not a flattering one for the thirteen man game.

ADVERTISEMENT

Many hailed the increased competitiveness of Fiji, PNG and Tonga as a sign of improvement in the tournament’s spectacle value, but a crunching of numbers suggests the gulf between the codes is, if anything, widening.

And increased competition is so very badly needed in the sport. Outside of New Zealand’s shock win in 2008, no side other than Australia has won the tournament since 1972 – when a Great Britain team held the trophy aloft. By comparison, since Rugby Union’s World Cup inaugural tournament in 1987, four different teams have won, while a fifth – France – has contested and lost three finals.

Yet at the core of the gulf is the sheer number of people in attendance.

Last year’s RLWC saw 373,461 people pass through the stiles, with an average attendance across its 28 games of 13,338, a drop of 18 percent on the previous tournament’s average of 16,374.

Its union equivalent in London in 2015 saw 2,477,805 attend the tournament’s 48 games; this despite RWC2015 being the most expensively ticketed large-scale sporting event in history.

The average attendance of 51,621 was three times that of league’s 2017 event.

Yet this attendance was not down to stadium size alone. RLWC 2017 had a stadium capacity fill percentage of just 49.75. Nowhere was this more apparent than in England’s pool game with Lebanon, where just 10,237 turned up at Allianz Park, a stadium which holds 44,000.

The RLWC’s ability to fill stadiums was way behind RWC2015, which enjoyed a very healthy 95 percent fill rate across its 48 games.

ADVERTISEMENT

Many blamed the Australian public’s apparent indifference to attending matches; there was an average attendance of just 11,436 across the 18 games played on Australian soil.

Neighbours New Zealand managed an average attendance of 17,601 in the seven games hosted in a country where the fifteen man code is traditionally king. It should be noted that the two matches held in PNG were both sellouts, albeit in the modestly sized 14,800 capacity Oil Search National Football Stadium.

In fact union’s least attended World Cup, the somewhat thrown together 1987 tournament, still managed a gross attendance of 604,500, significantly more than league’s record-breaking 2013 World Cup in England, which managed a solid 458,483.

While the NRL may still reign supreme over union in Australia, it has also seen a fall in numbers in recent years, a decline that is broadly in line with decreases in attendances in the majority of sporting codes right across the globe.

ADVERTISEMENT

If World Cups are a vehicle to sell a sport to a wider global audience, then Rugby League would be advised to arrest this decline, otherwise it runs the risk of falling even further behind its union equivalent.

ADVERTISEMENT

Cape Town | Leg 1 | Day 2 | HSBC Challenger Series 2025 | Full Day Replay

Gloucester-Hartpury vs Bristol Bears | PWR 2024/25 | Full Match Replay

Boks Office | Episode 36 | Six Nations Round 3 Review

Why did Scotland's Finn Russell take the crucial kick from the wrong place? | Whistle Watch

England A vs Ireland A | Full Match Replay

Kubota Spears vs Shizuoka BlueRevs | JRLO 2024/2025 | Full Match Replay

O2 Inside Line: This Rose | Episode 3 | France Week

Watch now: Lomu - The Lost Tapes

Trending on RugbyPass

Comments

0 Comments
Be the first to comment...

Join free and tell us what you really think!

Sign up for free
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Features

Comments on RugbyPass

T
Tom 40 minutes ago
English rugby pundits and fans really need to get a grip

However I think the “if their opponents had scored more points then England would have lost” retrospective is pointless at best and silly at worst.

I completely understand your view on this but England were the worst team in both games and if we're letting the result detract from the evaluation of the performance then we're doing ourselves a disservice. England fans should not get excited because we scraped two fortunate wins, it was a swing in variance and long term that variance will come crashing down on England because they did not play well. Ifs and buts aside I don't think anyone thinks England are better than either France or Scotland. The performance is what matters, results follow performances in the long run.


You could for sure argue that the games they lost they could have won if the bounce of a ball went differently. In none of those narrow loses did England feel considerably the better team and there weren't moments you'd chalk up to massive amounts of fortune. In the two narrow loses they very much felt like the worst team and there were many moments where the rub of the green went England's way. Ultimately, they've had an uptick in variance which will average itself out to more losses because they're not good. These two results don't mean anything has been fixed. As I say, performances are what I'm looking for, not results, the results come if the performances are good and right now the performance in every game has more or less been dire.

4 Go to comments
R
RedWarriors 1 hour ago
France change two for Ireland but stick with 7-1 bench tactic

I saw Ben Kayser saying the French players would be livid and motivated due to the Ringrose ban etc. Galthie and Ntamack know the exact reason why the bans differ and one must assume the French squad does also. Galthie is playing silly buggers.


As the red card for Ringrose fell right before a fallow week, he WAS released by Leinster who provided accompanying substantiation. Precedent shows club matches are included in bans in such cases. For Galthie/France alone precedents are Atonio (2023), Haouas (2023), and Danty (2024). Club matches counted for bans.


Ntamack was different because France were due to play a match the following week (versus England). Therefore Galthie COULD NOT release Ntamack. In the written decision, Galthie tried to argue that Ntamack would be released after England but had to admit that a lot depended on outcome of England match which was unknowable. On top of that Ntamack was the starting outhalf for France.

The precedents for the Ntamack situation are O’Mahony (2021) where club games did not count, and Willemse (2024) where Willemse had a 10 match ban reduced to 4 and club matches DID count for the suspension.


So Galthie has had three cases like Ringrose (Atonio, Haouas, Danty) with same outcome as Ringrose. He had one previous case like Ntamack where he succeeded, but he was aware of and even mentioned the O’Mahony case where all the ban was for International matches.


In a nutshell. Why were those players allowed club matches to count? Because they WERE released for the club games.

Why did club matches not count for O’Mahony and Ntamack? Because they WERE NOT released for the club games which meant they could not reach the evidential threshold required.


Why is he demanding a World Rugby inquiry when he knows the reasons for such decisions, has known for years, has benefitted for years? France know this and Ireland knows this.

Dupont and the French team are honorable. This wont sit well with them. I would argue this is a bigger motivator for Ireland than for France.


Conclusion: Galthie is under serious pressure to win this match

32 Go to comments
LONG READ
LONG READ The numbers show Super Rugby Pacific just got even tougher The numbers show Super Rugby Pacific just got even tougher
Search