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

LIVE

{{item.title}}

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

J
JW 26 minutes ago
Does South Africa have a future in European competition?

I rated Lowe well enough to be an AB. Remember we were picking the likes of George Bridge above such players so theres no disputing a lot of bad decisions have been made by those last two coaches. Does a team like the ABs need a finicky winger who you have to adapt and change a lot of your style with to get benefit from? No, not really. But he still would have been a basic improvement on players like even Savea at the tail of his career, Bridge, and could even have converted into the answer of replacing Beauden at the back. Instead we persisted with NMS, Naholo, Havili, Reece, all players we would have cared even less about losing and all because Rieko had Lowe's number 11 jersey nailed down.


He was of course only 23 when he decided to leave, it was back in the beggining of the period they had started retaining players (from 2018 onwards I think, they came out saying theyre going to be more aggressive at some point). So he might, all of them, only just missed out.


The main point that Ed made is that situations like Lowe's, Aki's, JGP's, aren't going to happen in future. That's a bit of a "NZ" only problem, because those players need to reach such a high standard to be chosen by the All Blacks, were as a country like Ireland wants them a lot earlier like that. This is basically the 'ready in 3 years' concept Ireland relied on, versus the '5 years and they've left' concept' were that player is now ready to be chosen by the All Blacks (given a contract to play Super, ala SBW, and hopefully Manu).


The 'mercenary' thing that will take longer to expire, and which I was referring to, is the grandparents rule. The new kids coming through now aren't going to have as many gp born overseas, so the amount of players that can leave with a prospect of International rugby offer are going to drop dramatically at some point. All these kiwi fellas playing for a PI, is going to stop sadly.


The new era problem that will replace those old concerns is now French and Japanese clubs (doing the same as NRL teams have done for decades by) picking kids out of school. The problem here is not so much a national identity one, than it is a farm system where 9 in 10 players are left with nothing. A stunted education and no support in a foreign country (well they'll get kicked out of those countries were they don't in Australia).


It's the same sort of situation were NZ would be the big guy, but there weren't many downsides with it. The only one I can think was brought up but a poster on this site, I can't recall who it was, but he seemed to know a lot of kids coming from the Islands weren't really given the capability to fly back home during school xms holidays etc. That is probably something that should be fixed by the union. Otherwise getting someone like Fakatava over here for his last year of school definitely results in NZ being able to pick the cherries off the top but it also allows that player to develop and be able to represent Tonga and under age and possibly even later in his career. Where as a kid being taken from NZ is arguably going to be worse off in every respect other than perhaps money. Not going to develop as a person, not going to develop as a player as much, so I have a lotof sympathy for NZs case that I don't include them in that group but I certainly see where you're coming from and it encourages other countries to think they can do the same while not realising they're making a much worse experience/situation.

143 Go to comments
LONG READ
LONG READ Does the next Wallabies coach have to be an Australian? Does the next Wallabies coach have to be an Australian?
Search