Rugby World Cup 2003
The Rugby World Cup 2003 in Australia will focus attention on the rugby game.
"Discover the true lies of rugby" !
In announcing the 2003 Rugby World Cup in Sydney recently the ARU declared that this tournament was the most strategically important event ever in the history of Australian rugby union. The first TV commercial for the event was then showcased and concluded with the words "discover the true colours of rugby".
The ARU are openly targeting supporters, players and sponsors of our game around the hype of the RU World Cup in an effort to boost their domestic support in the seasons to follow. Albeit they are using that tired old argument that Rugby Union alone (as "rugby") is the only true version of the rugby game.
It seems though that no one at the NRL or ARL heard this declaration of war on rugby league as their response so far is to do and say nothing. The supporters of rugby league need to hear our administrators standing up for our sport.
While no one would deny the ARU the right to market its game in the best light possible, it must not be allowed to perpetuate historical mis-truths and claim sole ownership of the word "rugby".
The RU World Cup is simply called the "Rugby" World Cup - yet RU is not the only rugby sport in the world. For the 2003 tournament this is even more of an issue given that in Australia rugby league is by far the more dominant domestic "rugby" game.
Is it time for Rugby League to stand up and claim an equal ownership of the term "rugby"?
Can a Rugby League team enter the Rugby World Cup? Do they extend invitations to the Australian Rugby League''s Kangaroos - the greatest "rugby" team in the world? Why then is the word "Union" missing if the 2003 Rugby World Cup is a RU exclusive tournament?
Compare this to other sports such as motor racing (both in cars and bikes) and horse racing - do any of the administrators of events/tournaments in these sports claim ownership of the broader sport? No way! Unlike the RU bodies, these other sports at least have the decency to differentiate what form/class of motor racing or horse racing it is.
The upcoming 2002 Soccer World Cup is to be called "FIFA World Cup", thus clearly establishing who's sport it is. The RU World Cup should perhaps be the "IRB World Cup". Now that Union has emerged from its "amateur" status it again is seeking to claim sole ownership of the "rugby" name.
If Union is allowed to call itself Rugby and the media and the community file in behind, where will that leave Rugby League?
Sure, as fans we all know the difference and it doesn't matter - but what of attracting new fans, sponsors and players now that Union is buying its way into the sporting market?
There was a time not that long ago that all of us in the eastern states of Australia referred to the two rugby codes as "League" and "Union". However, over recent seasons the Union and much of the media have taken to referring to the game of Rugby Union (RU) as simply "Rugby". Today, the two sports are referred to more often than not as "League" and "Rugby".
Does it matter that our sport is branded by a non-descript word that is meaningless to all who hear or read it apart from fans of the game? Does rugby league have any rights to claim in regard to the use of the term "rugby"?
This push toward referring to RU as "rugby" seems to have arisen around the time of the introduction of the Super 12 competition. This greater inter-action between the southern hemisphere RU bodies has seen Australia''s RU community take on a whole new language - most notably the ridiculous referral of NSW, Queensland and ACT as "provinces" - a word that we have managed to survive without in Australia for over two centuries.
An indication of how deeply the describing of the codes as "league" and "union" in Australia had become was the arrival of the term "Super League" in 1995. Only in "rugby-playing" regions dominated by rugby league could such a non-descript term be ever seen as a logical.
There are of course other high profile examples including a radio show "Talking League" and a magazine that dropped "Rugby" from its title. Even the current NSWRL logo is along these lines with the word "League" significantly more prominent than anything else. What are we trying to do to the name of our sport?
In the meantime the RU game in Australia has increasingly lost the word "Union" from its names. While the Australian Super12 teams are all officially registered as "rugby union" bodies, their names are Waratahs Rugby, Brumbies Rugby etc. Nationally the movement is now invariably marketed as "Australian Rugby".
All of this has occurred without so much as a squeak from the game of rugby league. Sure, since late 1994 we''ve had our minds on other things, but in the meantime RU has gone openly professional and we need to act to protect the interests of rugby league.
Is allowing RU to call itself "rugby" of any concern to those in rugby league? Should it be? Do we even have a right to raise the matter as an issue?
If we want to see our sport marginalised by being seen as the small scale illegitimate off-spring of Rugby (i.e. Rugby Union) then we should continue to do nothing.
Sure outside of the rugby league heartlands few RU fans ever give RL a thought and refer to the Union game as "rugby". This is also true for many Australians, especially those who live outside of NSW and Queensland.
Ask a Victorian to explain the difference between League and Union. Most have no idea. Some might even say that "League" is the "Australian Football League" and "Union" is "rugby". If we are to expand our sport, or even protect our sport, we cannot allow RU to call itself "rugby".
In Australia, NZ, France and the UK, "rugby" is a generic word that collectively describes both sports. In fact, there is no sport today called "rugby". Between 1895 and 1908 the 19th century game of rugby gave birth to the sports of Rugby Union and Rugby League.
The "true colours of rugby" more accurately reside in rugby league.
The divide of 1895 (repeated here in 1908) happened because the bulk of the rugby community wanted to take the rugby game to a fairer and more attractive level. Yet in England and Australia the game''s administrators (ultimately the RFU) were inflexible to change. They did not want their game to follow the path of soccer and become a game for the masses of the working class.
So the bulk of the rugby community left.
By 1900 in England more than 50% of the rugby players and clubs were playing Rugby League (Northern Union). In Australia the RU was left as a carcass by 1910 - the game''s founders took RU clubs colours, names, players, officials and supporters en masse.
Which sport then displays the "true colours of rugby"? The version that rigidly opposed the will of the people that is today called Rugby Union. Or the one that has for over a century listened to its players and supporters and taken the "rugby" game to higher levels of spectacle and professionalism.
If you bother to watch the RU World Cup what will these "true colours of rugby" be that you see? Tries worth more points than goals, video replays, wired referees, sin-bin, RL defensive patterns, RL attacking lines, rucks and mauls that have only a handful of players (as in a RL play-the-ball).
If you are going along to see RU as it was in 1895 I am sorry to say it no longer exists - the RU administrators are playing a game much more akin to RL than any "true" version of rugby.
In a domestic market where the sport of Rugby League is larger than RU, how can the officials in our game remain silent while the name of our sport is mis-used? There is no sport in Australia called "rugby".
Should the ARU be permitted to operate using just the "rugby" name in its events, merchandise, ticketing, advertising etc.? It will be misleading to casual sporting fans, particularly in the AFL-mad states.
The ARU and its sponsors refer to themselves in advertisements etc. as "supporters of Australian Rugby" - yet that does not include payment/support to those playing Rugby League in Australia.
Would the parent of a RL playing child in Perth or Adelaide understand that such support does not extend to their child''s game? Would they even be mistaken enough to purchase RU products or World Cup tickets thinking it was their child''s sport?
This RU World Cup is on our turf - they are playing on our fields in Gosford, Wollongong and Townsville and not some far away RU mad country like South Africa or Wales. Rugby League in Australia must stand up for its rights domestically and for the greater good of the sport internationally.
Many people in Australia see "rugby" as one sport - because of a lack of knowledge and awareness etc. The ARU intends playing the World Cup in non-"rugby" states appealing to consumers who may not realise it is Rugby Union and not Rugby League. The ARU's Ben Tune said in regard to games in Adelaide:
"By us playing a world class international here in Adelaide, if that means 100 kids decide to pick up a rugby ball instead of an Aussie rules ball then that's fantastic."
Such unchallenged statements help to promote the myth that there is only one rugby game and it is the ARU's. This is intolerable and must end quickly.
How many of our state and national politicians - currently bending over backwards to finance and support the RU World Cup - understand that this tournament has nothing to do with Rugby League? Will all the Olympic-like volunteers called into action understand this or will they too be misled?
This approach by Australia''s RU bodies to branding their sport as "rugby" alone will also continue with the upcoming 2002 NSW club competition to be called "Premier Rugby" instead of "Premier Rugby Union".
If this misuse of the name "rugby" continues the name "Rugby League" will not be seen as distinct sport, but a minor off-shoot of the "true rugby game" (RU). Are we so smug in our heartlands in NSW and Queensland that we don''t care?
In the USA there are now RU competitions using the name League. To the Americans this makes sense as to their knowledge there is just "rugby". What if RL had have got a hold in the USA before RU? The Americans would still tell you today that they were playing "rugby".
While Rugby League has held World Cup tournaments for nearly half a century, it has never once referred to itself as a "Rugby World Cup". Interestingly, there are claims that the ERL actually owns the rights to the name "Rugby World Cup"!
Arguably, it is too late to change the name of our sport - and why should we!
The move by RL authorities in England to re-add Rugby to their name is a good move. Both rugby sports have legitimate rights to use of the name "rugby" WITHIN their names, BUT it should not be used to describe one sport alone.
Sporting fans call NFL, RU, RL, AFL & soccer all as "football" - would we allow anyone to operate a "Football World Cup" without dispute or some clarification? The Australian rugby union''s hijacking the use of the word "rugby" is no different!"
Pressure should be brought by all of us in RL to ensure that the correct terms are used in general conversation, in the media and by the official bodies.
"Rugby" is a description of the game before 1895, or it refers to both RL and RU - "What a great rugby try!" is a fair enough use in either game. In fact, in England, such an expression has always remained in use in both codes.
When you think about it in terms of being a "professional" sport, Rugby League holds over a 100 years of heritage and tradition - Union has six! With this in mind, and with a view to the broader global market, perhaps the administrators of Rugby League ought to give some thought to adding the term "Pro" to our game's name.
Pro-Rugby League infers a lot more positives than Rugby or Rugby Union.
RL1908 Editorial Comment © Sean Fagan / RL1908
RL1908 Editorial
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RL1908 - Rugby League Hall Of Fame - © Copyright 2000-2004
Entry: Rugby League 1908
