This to me is just insane... I get that the NFL is an absolute monster that outstrips all the big Euro soccer tournaments, but it's ultimately still a very very American game that has no history in England, so it just seems very odd to me that Londoners would embrace something the Americans - a group that plenty of English think are just culturally incompatible with them from what I can tell - have sought to impose on them over a game people living in the north of their own country have made.
Again, I look at it a bit like AFL in Sydney or NRL in Melbourne - both cities were once completely foreign territory for both codes, and few people living in Sydney in the 80s would have had any clue about Australian Football, let alone any interest in supporting it. Likewise for Rugby League in Melbourne before the storm.
It's not just Londoners, the Wembley NFL matches sell out because they are pushed as a major event, they attract the latent American football support from all over the country. You're forgetting that England is a very small place and it's pretty easy for anyone in the country to get to London within a few hours. To be honest I'd say that American football probably has a bigger fanbase in the UK than RL does, because the general public actually know what American football is and because it's portrayed as important. RL is not portrayed as important, it's portrayed to most of the country as a weird little sport that nobody really cares about and is only played in miserable little Northern towns. Nobody gets the chance to see how good the product actually is, and a lot of people are automatically biased against it and don't expect it to be any good because of the way it is portrayed. I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be a fan or even know anything about the sport if I wasn't already a fan, and it's only because I know how good the product is that I am a fan today. On the other hand I do know about the NFL, I've heard of the Dallas Cowboys and the Denver Broncos, I've heard of Tom Brady, I've heard of quarterbacks and touchdowns, I know about the Superbowl and the halftime show etc. It's infinitely more accessible than RL is to the vast majority of the country.
I get that this is completely alien for Australians and you have to understand the cultural demographics of England to really understand it properly, but it's not a situation that is going to change easily, if at all.
I suppose the obvious question is how it ever got this bad? How can League have deteriorated to the point over there that you won't hear about it an hour out of a League stronghold?
It hasn't deteriorated so much as it hasn't grown with the world. Half the problem is that most of the places RL is popular have been pretty miserable and deprived towns, especially in the 1970s and 80s which is when other sports really started to expand and left RL behind. I don't know what our administrators were doing at that time, I wasn't around then, but they f**king failed whatever it was. As for people outside the heartlands not knowing about the sport, they have never known about it because it just doesn't register with them, because there is pretty much a media blackout of RL. It doesn't even register in the public psyche. If you don't know it exists then you won't find out about it unless you stumble across it by accident. That's just the way it is.
Reading the article, that seemed to be the criticism. Is it true it was originally set up by Fulham soccer, then run by Brisbane and then went to Union's Harlequins? Because if that's the case it's no wonder it failed so badly and you really have to wonder what the f**k the RFL were doing that they weren't more involved.
The RFL did everything they could short of literally stepping in and running the club. They bent the rules for them and bailed them out time and time again, after a while there's nothing more they could do. You shouldn't judge anything based on London Broncos, they were just an absolute f**king basket case.
One thing the RFL did do in the past 10 years was invest heavily in youth development structures in London, which means there are now a large number of London-born players in Super League. In fact I would guess there are a lot more professional RL players from London than there are from Victoria even though the Storm are clearly light years ahead of London Broncos as an organization.
I'm on record here as saying I don't like rep round because it just makes no sense where it is, but I do like what it does for the Islanders all the same. Given the increasing involvement the NRL is having with the PI countries though, I'd be willing to bet they have something planned to replace it. Heck, they've already announced that Fiji v Samoa test in Samoa for October this year, so it's not like they're abandoning them.
Again, you just don't get it. It's not a case of either/or, playing mid-season internationals doesn't mean you can't play them at the end of the season, it doesn't affect that at all. I would've expected all of the Pacific nations to be playing tests at the end of every year regardless of the rep round existing or not, cancelling it so that they can do something they should've been doing all along is just stupid and regressive. As I said earlier, European soccer leagues have 3 or 4 coordinated international breaks during their season.
Hell, this weekend a Super League team released Frank Pritchard and Sika Manu to fly around the world and play in the Pacific tests even though it meant them missing an important Challenge Cup fixture, because they value the international game. NRL clubs couldn't release players who live in the vicinity even though they had a week off to do it. English RL clearly is far from perfect but if the NRL had the English attitude to international expansion and developing the sport instead of the insular mentality they have now then everyone would be better off.