Dutch aim for Super League in Ten Years

[ParraEelsNRL]

How so?

Too early in the morning now, I'll respond tomorrow mate.

 

[Wellsy4HullFC]

Your absolutely right about the first point.
About the second, I beg to differ. I'm saying in 20 years that league will be poised to overtake one of the Big 4. Things will have to be done right, I can't agree more, but in time it can happen. Not that long ago in North America bicycle racing was huge, running was a huge spectator sport. They have been eclipsed by the Big 4. There is nothing to say that rugby league can not eclipse one or any number of the Big 4. But it has to be done right. Part of doing things right is learning from mistakes, yours and other peoples mistakes. Believe me, I not going into this without doing my homework first.

There is: common sense.

Common sense tells you that when the least valuable sport of those big four (ice hockey) has an average value of about US$200m (AUS$ 197.6m / £129.7m) per franchise (and there are 30 of them), and the most valuable rugby league competition in the world (NRL) most likely has an average franchise worth of less than half of that, a new competition in America (that hasn't got any significant developments other than a few amateur clubs) will not knock off one of the big four and also become the biggest rugby league competition in the world in 20 years.

I don't have a source for the average NRL franchise worth (average NHL franchise worth can be found here), but when you look at the fact that the NRL salary cap is rising to AUS$7m, and the NHL has a cap of over US$60m, you really need to sit back and realise how big the big four in USA really are.

Your passion for the game is clear. But you're letting your passion for your game cloud your judgement if you truly believe it will happen in 20 years.

As for your third point - if it doesn't happen, it doesn't happen. As I said, the time will pass anyway. I won't lose any sleep over it either way. But, as I've said countless time before, and will say again - rugby league deserves to be on a bigger stage world-wide. So I'm going to see what I can do about it.

Well said.

 

[Wellsy4HullFC]

Too early in the morning now, I'll respond tomorrow mate.

I forget what time it is in Aus! It's 4:10pm here and nearly dark :lol:

 

[PacificCoastRL]

There is: common sense.

Common sense tells you that when the least valuable sport of those big four (ice hockey) has an average value of about US$200m (AUS$ 197.6m / £129.7m) per franchise (and there are 30 of them), and the most valuable rugby league competition in the world (NRL) most likely has an average franchise worth of less than half of that, a new competition in America (that hasn't got any significant developments other than a few amateur clubs) will not knock off one of the big four and also become the biggest rugby league competition in the world in 20 years.

I don't have a source for the average NRL franchise worth (average NHL franchise worth can be found here), but when you look at the fact that the NRL salary cap is rising to AUS$7m, and the NHL has a cap of over US$60m, you really need to sit back and realise how big the big four in USA really are.

Your passion for the game is clear. But you're letting your passion for your game cloud your judgement if you truly believe it will happen in 20 years.




Well said.

I think that one of the biggest factors in franchise worth is where they are situated. The old adage - location, location, location. Anything in North America will be worth more just based on population and access to a media juggernaut. I venture to say that in twenty years a rugby league franchise in a well-run North American competition could be worth more than an Australian or English team just based on the fact it is located in North America.

 

[sheepbender]

I agree with a lot of what you have said in this thread, but what you have just said about the storm is wayyyyyyy off the mark.

No, Im pretty sure Wellsy is spot on. I moved down from Brisbane to Melbourne last year and was shocked by the lack of attention the Storm gets.
In the 2010 season, there was no ad on TV, then this year they had one, but only to try n drum up support because of the Storm bein stripped of their premierships, to get people back into the game.

The Storm do not feature in the newspapers, even though News Limited owns them and the papers, they do not feature on TV, theyre not on Billboards, they dont do public signings, Ive heard they do school clinics, but Ive seen no proof..

Unless you drive past their stadium on training days or game days, you wouldnt know they existed..
And when Ive been to a game, granted usually only Storm v Broncos, they crowd is predominantly Kiwi/Islander.

If the Storm weren't fully bankrolled by News Limited, theyd av died years ago.

 

[ParraEelsNRL]

Melbourne have the advantage of being in the same country as a place where RL is biggest in the world.

And for 90 years RL was ignored, it got no televised games when TV came about no mention on the news not even the scores, stuff all newspaper coverage if any and it was generally ignored or non existent.

You can still come across Victorians these days that don't even know the game exists.

They have the advantage of actually KNOWING what RL is, and they've had (albeit small) League competitions running for nearly a century.

Most do these days, but before the storm came along, that wasn't the case.

Vic has had a small comp only a few times in its history, it's never had a continual comp running since it started up. At times it would last for 5 years then disappear for 10 and so on. Usually it was made up of expats from NSW/QLD from the army and other such organisations.

And yet the only reason they've survived this long (and will continue to survive) is because they are bankrolled 100% by News Limited, part owners of the league. It's not outside investment.

The Storm themselves can survive without money from News, the reason they get 6 million a year is to fund not just the storm, but all RL down there, no other team has this burden put on them. And the 6 million they do get is not from News at all, it is from the other 15 NRL clubs. News thinks they are owed money for the SL war which they started, weird thinking if you ask me, but hey, they're super rich and I'm not and they got there doing it their way.

The Melbourne model will not work in Europe. The owners of SL cannot afford to spend millions on a SL club to keep them afloat for 10 years. It's a very poor example.

Of course it won't.

But the Storm model will work if you don't burden the whole organisation with having to build up the whole infrastructure by themselves from the ground up.

This is where the governing body would need to come in while the club looked after itself with TV funding rights, sponsorship and or private ownership, the Governing body would take care of the rest.

Only Australians suggest these European based competitions involving the likes of Barcelona, Italy, etc. are viable. If they're that viable, how come the NRL hasn't expanded further than the East Coast and Auckland?

It's not only Australians mate.

I've been calling for a 2nd NZ side for years, but we can't do anything until News is out and we start getting the money the game deserves, SL hasn't been held back by being part owned by News who only care for profits, the NRL has and that's why Fox sports has made all this money over the last 16 years, they have bled RL dry while drip feeding it.

The other codes out here have all benefited from what RL has done on Foxsports, it's time RL got what it deserved.

 

[VictoryFC]

There is: common sense.

Common sense tells you that when the least valuable sport of those big four (ice hockey) has an average value of about US$200m (AUS$ 197.6m / £129.7m) per franchise (and there are 30 of them), and the most valuable rugby league competition in the world (NRL) most likely has an average franchise worth of less than half of that, a new competition in America (that hasn't got any significant developments other than a few amateur clubs) will not knock off one of the big four and also become the biggest rugby league competition in the world in 20 years.

I don't have a source for the average NRL franchise worth (average NHL franchise worth can be found here), but when you look at the fact that the NRL salary cap is rising to AUS$7m, and the NHL has a cap of over US$60m, you really need to sit back and realise how big the big four in USA really are.

Your passion for the game is clear. But you're letting your passion for your game cloud your judgement if you truly believe it will happen in 20 years.

You are pretty much the only person talking any sense in this thread. Talk of US clubs being valued at anything even over 10 million in the next 50 years is fanciful, let alone in the next decade.

For a professional comp in the United States to take off in 20 years time, you would already need a player base of at least 5-10 million as of today. And that's a conservative number too. Not tomorrow, not in a few years, but right now. So, if today by some miracle of mankind the US had 10 million registered League players, you would really only see the fruits of that in a professional league in around 15-20 years time. It's the only way of ensuring a professional league can flourish. And that's only to make a sustainable league. Certainly not one that is going to be valued more than an NRL club, or one that is going to attract media and mainstream attention.

The value of sports franchises are derived mostly from their assets (like a stadium for instance) and player salaries. That's usually whats referred to when you see a value for a team. It is how much a club/franchise is worth if you were to sell every one of its assets today. Obviously things like shares and whatnot fall into this category as well.

To be able to pay players, you get income usually from three areas: matchday revenue, rights contracts, and sponsorship.

The NRL and SL have growth in all three of those areas, and that growth will continue. The US has virtually nothing in that department. My point? The virtue of "being in North America" doesn't mean anything. You will not see a pro league in the US match the NRL or SL (or any one of its clubs) in value within 50 years, let alone 20.

 

[yakstorm]

To put NRL clubs in context with say NHL clubs, an NRL club would have an annual revenue turn over of between 20 million to 30 million.

The Broncos who are naturally at the upper level reported just over $30 million in their 2010 Annual Report.

Now considering the 'value' of a club has a lot of variables coming down to assets owned, profit/loss, liquidity and so on, we'll just multiply the Broncos revenue against the average difference between revenue and value on that NHL list (2.3). That would put the Broncos (which naturally would be number 1 in value in our competition) at just shy of $70 million....

So in short around half the value of the two weakest NHL clubs...

 

[Wellsy4HullFC]

I think that one of the biggest factors in franchise worth is where they are situated. The old adage - location, location, location. Anything in North America will be worth more just based on population and access to a media juggernaut. I venture to say that in twenty years a rugby league franchise in a well-run North American competition could be worth more than an Australian or English team just based on the fact it is located in North America.

I think if you really believe that then you're very naive. Simply being in America doesn't up your value. You actually have to have something valuable. It might give you more chance in achieving value, but it's not valuable alone.

Access to a high population and media juggernaut means nothing if you aren't accessing it. Otherwise London Broncos would be the most valuable team in the world.

 

[PacificCoastRL]

I think if you really believe that then you're very naive. Simply being in America doesn't up your value. You actually have to have something valuable. It might give you more chance in achieving value, but it's not valuable alone.

Access to a high population and media juggernaut means nothing if you aren't accessing it. Otherwise London Broncos would be the most valuable team in the world.[/QUOTE]
So you agree with me then. Obviously you've got to do more than just be in America, but it helps. Now things have to be done right. Also -the Broncos new regime has admitted that one of their biggest downfalls has been lack of marketing. And they expect to do more marketing and reap the benefits. And you know what - I said 20 years, I was throwing a number out there for arguments sake. What do you think the number is? Oh, I know, never.

 

[PacificCoastRL]

You are pretty much the only person talking any sense in this thread. Talk of US clubs being valued at anything even over 10 million in the next 50 years is fanciful, let alone in the next decade.

For a professional comp in the United States to take off in 20 years time, you would already need a player base of at least 5-10 million as of today. And that's a conservative number too. Not tomorrow, not in a few years, but right now. So, if today by some miracle of mankind the US had 10 million registered League players, you would really only see the fruits of that in a professional league in around 15-20 years time. It's the only way of ensuring a professional league can flourish. And that's only to make a sustainable league. Certainly not one that is going to be valued more than an NRL club, or one that is going to attract media and mainstream attention.

The value of sports franchises are derived mostly from their assets (like a stadium for instance) and player salaries. That's usually whats referred to when you see a value for a team. It is how much a club/franchise is worth if you were to sell every one of its assets today. Obviously things like shares and whatnot fall into this category as well.

To be able to pay players, you get income usually from three areas: matchday revenue, rights contracts, and sponsorship.

The NRL and SL have growth in all three of those areas, and that growth will continue. The US has virtually nothing in that department. My point? The virtue of "being in North America" doesn't mean anything. You will not see a pro league in the US match the NRL or SL (or any one of its clubs) in value within 50 years, let alone 20.

And if the Broncos were in the U.S. they would be worth more. Take a look at the Rabbitohs as another example. If the NRL were an American competition the Rabbitohs, based on their history, championships, etc. would be compared to the iconic teams in North America. The Yankees in baseball, the Canadiens in hockey, the Celtics in basketball and the Cowboys in football. The population of the US compared to the population of Australia has a direct effect on worth. You talk about matchday revenue - a full house for a Broncos game would be considered a poor to mediocre crowd in the NFL, and how much money do you think uniform suppliers hand out to pro teams in North America? I'd venture to say more than they do in Australia, again based on how many sets of eyes will see them. Same for sponsorship. American and Australian sports groups both have captive audiences, with the Americans way ahead when it comes to numbers and market coverage. You're right, being in America doesn't guarantee success, but, because of the population base and the fact the media feeds Americans craving for sports, success is there for the taking, if things are done right. I'll get back to you on numbers once I research that, but I think you are way off.

 

[Wellsy4HullFC]

So you agree with me then. Obviously you've got to do more than just be in America, but it helps. Now things have to be done right. Also -the Broncos new regime has admitted that one of their biggest downfalls has been lack of marketing. And they expect to do more marketing and reap the benefits. And you know what - I said 20 years, I was throwing a number out there for arguments sake. What do you think the number is? Oh, I know, never.

No, I do not agree with you as you said this: "Anything in North America will be worth more just based on population and access to a media juggernaut." It is simply not true. All they have is greater potential.

Big metropolises also have a lot of competition from other sports. So although you have a big population, you have to share it with more, especially in America, which greatly harms the potential. Look at London. There's 5 Premier League football teams, and other 9 in the Football League. Also there's 3 top leave rugby union teams. Just because they are going to do some more marketing doesn't mean anything will come of it. We've been hearing it for years. I personally don't think that Hughes has enough money or connections to make much of an impact in London with the Broncos.

Lastly, you've basically just admitted that you haven't really given the number much thought and you just threw one in there. So your basically making a point out of a number you don't really believe in too much yourself for the sake of arguing. As for my number (the number of years I think it will take to break in to the top four sports in America) then I can't really give you one. I won't say never, as there is a (very very small) chance it could happen. I will say not in yours or my lifetime will you see it happen.

 

[PacificCoastRL]

Wellsy - I'm pretty sure it won't happen in my lifetime. I'm closer to 60 than 50, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't make the effort. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
Victory - after a quick search on the internet - I have found one number that will interest you. There are just over 1.1 million football players registered with the National Federation of High Schools in the United States. I would say that this will be the largest number you will find. The numbers in college in the States I am sure are less as there are less teams, and besides, those college players were once high school players and theoretically would be counted twice if included. I'd say the true player base would be the high school number. Even if you added players from college and other minor associations I'm sure you wouldn't reach your number of 5 million, as virtually all players in the States, who play football, will have played high school football at one time or another. As for basketball - just over 545,000 - again from the NFHS. Both of these sports are huge in the states. The NFL is the arguably the best sporting competition in the world when it comes to attendance, market value, etc. The NBA is not far behind. Just curious - how many kids play rugby league in Australia and England?

 

[PacificCoastRL]

Further to my previous post. Some numbers for rugby league. I mentioned there are 1.1 million players playing high school football in the States. These are the players that feed the NFL after they have gone to college. Remember the NFL is the leader as far as worldwide sports leagues go. There are actually about 10,000 players who graduate every year from college football teams making them eligible for the NFL draft. The NFL only drafts about 200 of those players yearly. So why do you feel there needs to be a player base of 5 to 10 million to support a North American rugby league competition? The roster sizes in football are over twice the size of a rugby league roster and they get by with the above numbers. I would say a decent sized rugby league competition could get by with about half the numbers of the NFL. Further to my point. There are about 270,000 school aged players in Australia who play the sport at a competitive level. There are also about 1,000,000 school aged kids who get some form of rugby league based training as part of there curriculum. Again, no where near the 5 to 10 million you have quoted. The same is true in England where there are 300,000 players registered with the RFL. Now, the rugby league numbers at the grass roots level in the US and Canada are no where near these levels at this time, but, with some hard work over the next while (I'm not going to put a number to this) things can and should approach the Australian and English numbers at some point in the future (again I won't put a number to this because that is what you guys seem to dwell on). I'm saying a pro comp in the States can come about because the game of rugby league is second to none. It is arguably the fastest-paced sport going. Football and baseball pale in comparision in terms of "ball in play". As does soccer, union and cricket and any other sport you care to mention. And in today's world were everything needs to be moving all the time to keep people interested, rugby league fits the bill.

 

[VictoryFC]

And if the Broncos were in the U.S. they would be worth more. Take a look at the Rabbitohs as another example. If the NRL were an American competition the Rabbitohs, based on their history, championships, etc. would be compared to the iconic teams in North America. The Yankees in baseball, the Canadiens in hockey, the Celtics in basketball and the Cowboys in football. The population of the US compared to the population of Australia has a direct effect on worth. You talk about matchday revenue - a full house for a Broncos game would be considered a poor to mediocre crowd in the NFL, and how much money do you think uniform suppliers hand out to pro teams in North America? I'd venture to say more than they do in Australia, again based on how many sets of eyes will see them. Same for sponsorship. American and Australian sports groups both have captive audiences, with the Americans way ahead when it comes to numbers and market coverage. You're right, being in America doesn't guarantee success, but, because of the population base and the fact the media feeds Americans craving for sports, success is there for the taking, if things are done right. I'll get back to you on numbers once I research that, but I think you are way off.

1. Yes, if Rugby League was the equivalent of the NFL in the US, then a hypothetical Broncos team would absolutely be valued over a billion. That's not the argument though, because the reality is that League is not a popular sport in the US. This mitigates any kind of benefit of being in the United States.

2. Again, I stress -- if League was a very popular sport in some hypothetical world, then the values would be a lot larger, because TV contracts would be worth more, stadiums would be more expensive, and player salaries would be much higher. No arguments whatsoever there.

Population of US has a direct effect on value...

Completely agree, if you are comparing apples and apples. What we are comparing are apples and oranges.

If League was the equivalent of gridiron, then we'd demographics like population would back up your argument in the US. As it stands, the sport isn't as popular, so demographics become far less of an issue.

To sum up: I think we're arguing the same thing, but approaching it from different angles. I'm not disagreeing that the US demographics allow for things to be more valuable. They absolutely do. What I'm saying is that using League in that argument isn't right, because League isn't a popular sport in the US. If it enjoyed the popularity that it does over here, then you would be 100% right. Since it doesn't, its not enough to say that American League teams would be valued more than SL/NRL clubs simply because they are in the US. Only sports which are popular can take advantage of advantageous demographics.

Victory - after a quick search on the internet - I have found one number that will interest you. There are just over 1.1 million football players registered with the National Federation of High Schools in the United States. I would say that this will be the largest number you will find. The numbers in college in the States I am sure are less as there are less teams, and besides, those college players were once high school players and theoretically would be counted twice if included. I'd say the true player base would be the high school number. Even if you added players from college and other minor associations I'm sure you wouldn't reach your number of 5 million, as virtually all players in the States, who play football, will have played high school football at one time or another. As for basketball - just over 545,000 - again from the NFHS. Both of these sports are huge in the states. The NFL is the arguably the best sporting competition in the world when it comes to attendance, market value, etc. The NBA is not far behind. Just curious - how many kids play rugby league in Australia and England?

I'm not gonna go out looking for the numbers, but having read US participation rates a few years ago, it went something like this....

Baseball - 15 million
Basketball - 12 million
Gridiron - 8 million

We're going to have to agree to disagree regarding participation rates, if you believe that gridiron has 1.1 million players in all age groups.

Further to my previous post. Some numbers for rugby league. I mentioned there are 1.1 million players playing high school football in the States. These are the players that feed the NFL after they have gone to college. Remember the NFL is the leader as far as worldwide sports leagues go. There are actually about 10,000 players who graduate every year from college football teams making them eligible for the NFL draft. The NFL only drafts about 200 of those players yearly. So why do you feel there needs to be a player base of 5 to 10 million to support a North American rugby league competition? The roster sizes in football are over twice the size of a rugby league roster and they get by with the above numbers. I would say a decent sized rugby league competition could get by with about half the numbers of the NFL. Further to my point. There are about 270,000 school aged players in Australia who play the sport at a competitive level. There are also about 1,000,000 school aged kids who get some form of rugby league based training as part of there curriculum. Again, no where near the 5 to 10 million you have quoted. The same is true in England where there are 300,000 players registered with the RFL. Now, the rugby league numbers at the grass roots level in the US and Canada are no where near these levels at this time, but, with some hard work over the next while (I'm not going to put a number to this) things can and should approach the Australian and English numbers at some point in the future (again I won't put a number to this because that is what you guys seem to dwell on). I'm saying a pro comp in the States can come about because the game of rugby league is second to none. It is arguably the fastest-paced sport going. Football and baseball pale in comparision in terms of "ball in play". As does soccer, union and cricket and any other sport you care to mention. And in today's world were everything needs to be moving all the time to keep people interested, rugby league fits the bill.

So why do you feel there needs to be a player base of 5 to 10 million to support a North American rugby league competition?

I never said that. My comment had nothing to do with the player base as a means of providing personnel for a league. My comment had to do with a player base providing interest in the sport long term. The NRL produces talent on the back of 100k participation rates. That's not the issue. It's the support for the game you need. Lower participation rates in Australia work because League is entrenched. In a foreign market, its suicidal.

Look, if you're an administrator of a sport that it isn't popular, and you want to take off in the United States, you simply have to follow what soccer did. Its often derided, but you won't find a better example of a sport growing in a very cluttered and hostile sports market.

Yet 20 years after having no professional comp (and earlier attempts that failed), the MLS is starting to look like the real deal. And they did it with a player base that FIFA counts at over 24 million, which includes 4.5 million registered players. It is this group of people that make up the support base for the MLS. People exposed to any sport at a younger age are far more likely to support it in their lifetimes.

So it took them hosting a World Cup, coverage of later World Cups, good performances at WC's, massive participation rates, exposure to European leagues, the clout of being an international sport, embedded migrants from soccer playing countries, etc etc.... all that and it still remains a minority sport. Now how on earth do you expect League to progress with a player base that is a 100th of the popular sports? That's why a player base of 5-10 million is important. Not so they have depth in the front or back row, but so there are people who can fuel interest in the game.

Further to my point. There are about 270,000 school aged players in Australia who play the sport at a competitive level. There are also about 1,000,000 school aged kids who get some form of rugby league based training as part of there curriculum. Again, no where near the 5 to 10 million you have quoted.

You're just not listening are you? You a brick wall or something?

5-10 million is important for the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Not Australia. Your reading comprehension needs some work. That's the 5th time you've completely missed the point of what is being said. The smaller the population, the smaller the number of participants for popularity that is required. If you have 500 people in a village, and 200 of them play netball, netball is going to be pretty popular. If you have 200 netball players in a country of 50 million, then netball is less popular than suicide.

It is arguably the fastest-paced sport going. Football and baseball pale in comparision in terms of "ball in play". As does soccer, union and cricket and any other sport you care to mention.

You don't really get how sports work. There are so many people like you its mind boggling. It has nothing to do with whats exciting or fast. It has mostly to do with what people grow up on....and they usually grow up on the most accessible sports. The majority of the world isn't growing up on League. And therein lies the biggest problem with your argument.

Soccer is the worlds most popular sport, and the slowest and least physical of all the football codes. Does that not speak volumes to how geniused your position is that "League will conquer all because its the most exciting"? Soccer should be the least popular football code. Funny how it worked out isn't it?

Something tells me you're going to miss the point of everything again, and ramble on about something peripheral. But it doesn't matter. Live in your ignorance, just don't too hold your breath waiting for that US League club which is valued more than an NRL club.

 

[VictoryFC]

And if the Broncos were in the U.S. they would be worth more. Take a look at the Rabbitohs as another example. If the NRL were an American competition the Rabbitohs, based on their history, championships, etc. would be compared to the iconic teams in North America. The Yankees in baseball, the Canadiens in hockey, the Celtics in basketball and the Cowboys in football. The population of the US compared to the population of Australia has a direct effect on worth. You talk about matchday revenue - a full house for a Broncos game would be considered a poor to mediocre crowd in the NFL, and how much money do you think uniform suppliers hand out to pro teams in North America? I'd venture to say more than they do in Australia, again based on how many sets of eyes will see them. Same for sponsorship. American and Australian sports groups both have captive audiences, with the Americans way ahead when it comes to numbers and market coverage. You're right, being in America doesn't guarantee success, but, because of the population base and the fact the media feeds Americans craving for sports, success is there for the taking, if things are done right. I'll get back to you on numbers once I research that, but I think you are way off.

1. Yes, if Rugby League was the equivalent of the NFL in the US, then a hypothetical Broncos team would absolutely be valued over a billion. That's not the argument though, because the reality is that League is not a popular sport in the US. This mitigates any kind of benefit of being in the United States.

2. Again, I stress -- if League was a very popular sport in some hypothetical world, then the values would be a lot larger, because TV contracts would be worth more, stadiums would be more expensive, and player salaries would be much higher. No arguments whatsoever there.

Population of US has a direct effect on value...

Completely agree, if you are comparing apples and apples. What we are comparing are apples and oranges.

If League was the equivalent of gridiron, then we'd demographics like population would back up your argument in the US. As it stands, the sport isn't as popular, so demographics become far less of an issue.

To sum up: I think we're arguing the same thing, but approaching it from different angles. I'm not disagreeing that the US demographics allow for things to be more valuable. They absolutely do. What I'm saying is that using League in that argument isn't right, because League isn't a popular sport in the US. If it enjoyed the popularity that it does over here, then you would be 100% right. Since it doesn't, its not enough to say that American League teams would be valued more than SL/NRL clubs simply because they are in the US. Only sports which are popular can take advantage of advantageous demographics.

Victory - after a quick search on the internet - I have found one number that will interest you. There are just over 1.1 million football players registered with the National Federation of High Schools in the United States. I would say that this will be the largest number you will find. The numbers in college in the States I am sure are less as there are less teams, and besides, those college players were once high school players and theoretically would be counted twice if included. I'd say the true player base would be the high school number. Even if you added players from college and other minor associations I'm sure you wouldn't reach your number of 5 million, as virtually all players in the States, who play football, will have played high school football at one time or another. As for basketball - just over 545,000 - again from the NFHS. Both of these sports are huge in the states. The NFL is the arguably the best sporting competition in the world when it comes to attendance, market value, etc. The NBA is not far behind. Just curious - how many kids play rugby league in Australia and England?

I'm not gonna go out looking for the numbers, but having read US participation rates a few years ago, it went something like this....

Baseball - 15 million
Basketball - 12 million
Gridiron - 8 million

We're going to have to agree to disagree regarding participation rates, if you believe that gridiron has 1.1 million players in all age groups.

Further to my previous post. Some numbers for rugby league. I mentioned there are 1.1 million players playing high school football in the States. These are the players that feed the NFL after they have gone to college. Remember the NFL is the leader as far as worldwide sports leagues go. There are actually about 10,000 players who graduate every year from college football teams making them eligible for the NFL draft. The NFL only drafts about 200 of those players yearly. So why do you feel there needs to be a player base of 5 to 10 million to support a North American rugby league competition? The roster sizes in football are over twice the size of a rugby league roster and they get by with the above numbers. I would say a decent sized rugby league competition could get by with about half the numbers of the NFL. Further to my point. There are about 270,000 school aged players in Australia who play the sport at a competitive level. There are also about 1,000,000 school aged kids who get some form of rugby league based training as part of there curriculum. Again, no where near the 5 to 10 million you have quoted. The same is true in England where there are 300,000 players registered with the RFL. Now, the rugby league numbers at the grass roots level in the US and Canada are no where near these levels at this time, but, with some hard work over the next while (I'm not going to put a number to this) things can and should approach the Australian and English numbers at some point in the future (again I won't put a number to this because that is what you guys seem to dwell on). I'm saying a pro comp in the States can come about because the game of rugby league is second to none. It is arguably the fastest-paced sport going. Football and baseball pale in comparision in terms of "ball in play". As does soccer, union and cricket and any other sport you care to mention. And in today's world were everything needs to be moving all the time to keep people interested, rugby league fits the bill.

So why do you feel there needs to be a player base of 5 to 10 million to support a North American rugby league competition?

I never said that. My comment had nothing to do with the player base as a means of providing personnel for a league. My comment had to do with a player base providing interest in the sport long term. The NRL produces talent on the back of 100k participation rates. That's not the issue. It's the support for the game you need. Lower participation rates in Australia work because League is entrenched. In a foreign market, its suicidal.

Look, if you're an administrator of a sport that it isn't popular, and you want to take off in the United States, you simply have to follow what soccer did. Its often derided, but you won't find a better example of a sport growing in a very cluttered and hostile sports market.

Yet 20 years after having no professional comp (and earlier attempts that failed), the MLS is starting to look like the real deal. And they did it with a player base that FIFA counts at over 24 million, which includes 4.5 million registered players. It is this group of people that make up the support base for the MLS. People exposed to any sport at a younger age are far more likely to support it in their lifetimes.

So it took them hosting a World Cup, coverage of later World Cups, good performances at WC's, massive participation rates, exposure to European leagues, the clout of being an international sport, embedded migrants from soccer playing countries, etc etc.... all that and it still remains a minority sport. Now how on earth do you expect League to progress with a player base that is a 100th of the popular sports? That's why a player base of 5-10 million is important. Not so they have depth in the front or back row, but so there are people who can fuel interest in the game.

Further to my point. There are about 270,000 school aged players in Australia who play the sport at a competitive level. There are also about 1,000,000 school aged kids who get some form of rugby league based training as part of there curriculum. Again, no where near the 5 to 10 million you have quoted.

You're just not listening are you? You a brick wall or something?

5-10 million is important for the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Not Australia. Your reading comprehension needs some work. That's the 5th time you've completely missed the point of what is being said. The smaller the population, the smaller the number of participants for popularity that is required. If you have 500 people in a village, and 200 of them play netball, netball is going to be pretty popular. If you have 200 netball players in a country of 50 million, then netball is less popular than suicide.

It is arguably the fastest-paced sport going. Football and baseball pale in comparision in terms of "ball in play". As does soccer, union and cricket and any other sport you care to mention.

You don't really get how sports work. There are so many people like you its mind boggling. It has nothing to do with whats exciting or fast. It has mostly to do with what people grow up on....and they usually grow up on the most accessible sports. The majority of the world - United States included - isn't growing up on League. And therein lies the biggest problem with your argument.

Soccer is the worlds most popular sport, and the slowest and least physical of all the football codes. Does that not speak volumes to how warped your position is that "League will conquer all because its the most exciting"? Soccer should be the least popular football code. Funny how it worked out isn't it?

Something tells me you're going to miss the point of everything again, and ramble on about something peripheral. But it doesn't matter. Live in your ignorance, just don't too hold your breath waiting for that US League club which is valued more than an NRL club.

 

[PacificCoastRL]

Victory, first of all you said 5-10 million needed for a player base. You didn't qualify it in any way. I can't read your mind. You only qualify items after I've commented on them. And I said there are 1.1 million players in high school. You said, I said there are 1.1 million in all age groups. I didn't say that. These are just two examples of how you have either qualified something after I have commented on it or have taken what I have clearly stated and changed it to suit your agenda. Secondly, I've not once in any way disparaged you. I'm frustrated with your stance just as you are with mine, but I've not resorted to name calling as you have. I'm not going to argue points of view with someone who can't have a conversation without resorting to name calling when someone begs to differ. You should be able to get your point across without that.

 

[Steve Davy]

At the risk of returning to the subject, I initially dismissed this story, but have heard positive things. It probably will not work, as it is a difficult task, which does not mean it should not be attempted but that it will take huge effort, money and some good fortune.

The same applies to the USA. It is an enormous task and it is being attempted, but sometimes those expressing optimism appear to belittle the task, which prompts a reaction they see as miserable. To have rugby league reach the point that rugby union is already at will be huge, then we can look to get further again.

 

[deluded pom?]

Better to try and fail than to never try at all.

 

[Wellsy4HullFC]

Better to try and fail than to never try at all.

It is.

But it is also better to try with realistic targets rather than impossible ones that will disappoint and delude everyone from the start and make the task a joke.