True. But it doesn't really explain why England are not as successful as Germany at that behemoth soccer when the biggest premiership in the world is the EPL (arguably).
Nor why the All Blacks have dominated world RU for 80 years when the most money and players is in England by a country mile.
It comes down to elite talent and systems. Money helps but it does not guarantee success.
You can't compare one sport with another as there are many variables between them.
The size and wealth of the Premier League is not a gauge on where England should be. In fact the wealth is almost a hindrance to the development of the England team as the league is swamped with expensive talent from all over the world. My home city team Liverpool have an Egyptian (Mohamed Salah) and a Senegalese (Sadio Mane) as wingers, two Brazilians (Coutinho and Firmino) as the other two attacking players, a midfield which often has a Dutchman (Wijnaldum), German (Emre Can), a backline which includes Spanish (Moreno), Croatian (Lovren), Cameroon (Matip) and a Belgian goalkeeper (Mignolet). The Premier League is the United Nations.
The German league not being as wealthy to afford top global talent have more German players in it, which assists the German national team. Also Germany have infinitely more coaches; the percentage of coaches to players is much higher over there. England have made changes to this in recent years which is beginning to show at youth level, with England winning the under 17 and under 20 World Cups this year.
NZ is a RU mad nation. It's in every fabric of their culture. Anecdotal stories of old women coming up to players telling them what they should have done. In England it's a sport rooted in public schools (known as private elsewhere) which make up most of the playing pool, largely hidden from view, and makes an appearance to the general public during the six nations and RUWC. England might have more resources than NZ but we don't have their RU culture. Wales have far fewer resources than England but have been more than a match; the greatest RU team from the British isles is the Wales team of the 1970s.
Australia vs England at RL is a mismatch in terms of resources, playing pool. culture, the lot. Rugby league having a small international footprint means the money the NRL has at its disposal is largely pumped back into Australia on nurturing Australian talent. There isn't any £40 million spent on an Egyptian or £35 million on a Senegalese Premier League type scenario. The money is spent at home. In the Super League every penny is spent to keep clubs afloat. There just isn't anywhere near the funds available for player development like Australia. RL being mainstream in Australia it has sponsorship deals from blue chip companies, in England it's small northern firms. In terms of playing pool there are 44,900 who regularly play RL in England (
http://www.totalrl.com/rugby-league-27th-popular-sport-terms-participation-according-data/ ), in Australia it's 247,000. Coaches, facilities, it's on a different level. The odds are really stacked against England being competitive with Australia. England could have done better here and there, but really results between the two are par for the course.
