Who believes that RL can be the number 1 sport in the world?

[Miller was a legend]

Gridiron is the undisputed #1 sport, played at both the pro and college levels, in a country of 312 million. That's roughly equal to the combined populations of Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Argentina, Italy, France and the entire British Isles. Again, it depends on the criteria measured here.

On that basis, I vote Marhjong. Played in a country of over 1.3 billion. That roughly equal to ummm...... well lots

 

[Canard]

Gridiron is the undisputed #1 sport, played at both the pro and college levels, in a country of 312 million. That's roughly equal to the combined populations of Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Argentina, Italy, France and the entire British Isles. Again, it depends on the criteria measured here.

Cricket is the No.1 sport in India a population twice that of the Seppo's.

That must be the No.1 sport in the world by your criteria.

 

[84 Baby]

Big comment, Tennis is extremely popular in Europe, parts of North America and South America.

Cricket is definitely because the entire combined population of India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh & Afghanistan support & play cricket. Basketball is different question. It depends on criteria. Dollars and supporters goes to tennis but participation goes to basketball. I assisted on a university report few years ago now and basketball was one of the surprise packets. Participation rates from every age & competitiveness groups was through the roof. Similar to soccer in that it has mass appeal at younger ages and people continue playing regardless of how good they are. The other ones people forget are table tennis (it has similar following across Eastern Asia as cricket does in subcontinent), volleyball (we are the only continent without a major league) and the real surprise packets hockey and baseball.

 

[High Flyers]

thread smells of AFL troll

it's something you'd see the nutters at Bigpoofy discuss about their game

I love your trolling efforts, stirring up the afl nutjobs in the fight club but you got it wrong this time.

Im not trying to sound like a big footy nutter but wanted to know what the future looks like. Im actually really excited by what's around the corner for league...

 

[krudmonk]

Rofl Football/Soccer is played in every country on every level. It sh!ts all over Gridiron in the number of players.

Where the hell did I compare it to soccer? Read that first sentence again, or get someone to help you.

On that basis, I vote Marhjong. Played in a country of over 1.3 billion. That roughly equal to ummm...... well lots

Just putting things in perspective.

 

[docbrown]

No.

But the NRL can be the number one sports league in the Pacific Region.

If the new IC expands its scope and starts funding and developing pathways, you could see a strengthening of the grassroots and leagues in nearby countries. If players can stay in the region rather than going to Europe, they may be inclined to switch from union to league as well. That strengthens both the international game as well as providing the NRL an increased player pool for expansion.

Then combine that with improved Australian grassroots. The body types for League are different to the AFL hatracks - there's a serious untapped player potential in WA, SA, VIC and TAS plus capitalising on existing areas. Bringing touch football back into the rugby league fold, you can help keep talent rising through the ranks.

With that rising potential, expansion in time could cover the remaining major media and population markets - Perth, Adelaide, Central Coast, Western Brisbane, Sunshine Coast, Central QLD, Christchurch and Wellington in a 22-24 team competition.

AFL can't achieve that because it will never have a significant presence in the major population centres of NSW, QLD & NZ where other codes dominate it. Soccer will struggle in the shadow of other well established codes. Union will struggle to have anything other than a niche bastardised Super conference needing to be propped up by other countries.

Only the NRL has the potential to cover every major market and every major secondary market.

 

[High Flyers]

No.

But the NRL can be the number one sports league in the Pacific Region.

If the new IC expands its scope and starts funding and developing pathways, you could see a strengthening of the grassroots and leagues in nearby countries. If players can stay in the region rather than going to Europe, they may be inclined to switch from union to league as well. That strengthens both the international game as well as providing the NRL an increased player pool for expansion.

Then combine that with improved Australian grassroots. The body types for League are different to the AFL hatracks - there's a serious untapped player potential in WA, SA, VIC and TAS plus capitalising on existing areas. Bringing touch football back into the rugby league fold, you can help keep talent rising through the ranks.

With that rising potential, expansion in time could cover the remaining major media and population markets - Perth, Adelaide, Central Coast, Western Brisbane, Sunshine Coast, Central QLD, Christchurch and Wellington in a 22-24 team competition.

AFL can't achieve that because it will never have a significant presence in the major population centres of NSW, QLD & NZ where other codes dominate it. Soccer will struggle in the shadow of other well established codes. Union will struggle to have anything other than a niche bastardised Super conference needing to be propped up by other countries.

Only the NRL has the potential to cover every major market and every major secondary market.

Thanks for the great post Doc. Love your insights mate!

 

[Politis]

Couple of points

1.the game's been around for 100 years+ not just the last 20 years like some seem to think
2.the game isn't at a all time low, that arguably happened in 1997 in Australia, 1941 in France and probably around the 1970's in England
3. imo the game has never got close to realising its full potential. It is arguably the toughest game in the world yet we fail to market it as such for fear of scaring the mums. UFC has no such fears and look what a global phenomenon that's become!
4. Until we get serious about developing other countries and massively raising the profile of the Int game we won't realise the potential we have
5. Th next decade will see RL become the undisputed number one code in Australia (presuming the IC doesn't stuff it up!)
6. The game has always been blighted by lack of vision and quality leadership, maybe that will change, maybe not.

Spot on, couldnt agree more!

 

[Lambretta]

it will never take over golf.

Drunken golf or sober golf or the golf where you root shit loads of girls?

 

[dangerousdave]

Big comment, Tennis is extremely popular in Europe, parts of North America and South America.

Basketball is the number one team sport in China and the Philo´s total population about 1.5 Billion

Cricket is the number one sport in India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. Total population about 1.6 Billion

Tennis is a secondary sport in Europe and North and South America... not really a comparison then right?

 

[Usain Bolt]

Wanking is the undisputed number one sport on Australia

 

[juro]

To quote Kevin Bloody Wilson...

So if you say you don't wank,
You're a liar,
And a fool if you say that you do,
So next time you see,
Prince Charles on TVhttp://www.hotlyrics.net/lyrics/K/Kevin_Bloody_Wilson/I_Gave_Up_Wanking.html#
Remember he wanked himself too.

 

[TheRam]

My fear is the great financial implosion that is going to happen very soon. We are only months away if not weeks. The only thing that can starve it off for a while is if the major central banks just keep printing money to steady the markets, like they just did today. But it can't and won't go on forever cause eventually this trick is seen for what it is, causing massive inflation and currency devaluation, amongst many other problems.

I just hope we can sneak in our TV deal before it is to late or if we don't, RL once again will get fu*ked over.

COME ON IC, HURRY THE FU*K UP!!!

 

[Canard]

Deep Ram.

Im not really up on most financial matters, Id look to Moffo for advice in that area......

 

[Valheru]

Cricket is definitely because the entire combined population of India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh & Afghanistan support & play cricket. Basketball is different question. It depends on criteria. Dollars and supporters goes to tennis but participation goes to basketball. I assisted on a university report few years ago now and basketball was one of the surprise packets. Participation rates from every age & competitiveness groups was through the roof. Similar to soccer in that it has mass appeal at younger ages and people continue playing regardless of how good they are. The other ones people forget are table tennis (it has similar following across Eastern Asia as cricket does in subcontinent), volleyball (we are the only continent without a major league) and the real surprise packets hockey and baseball.

All true. It really does depend on what criteria i.e. money, participation, the amount of people who like it, the amount of countries where it is popular etc.

To use your example of ping pong there are probably more people who enjoy that sport then there are who enjoy rugby league. However, it is hard to argue ping pong is “bigger” given the other criteria available.

Soccer would lead in all categories but after that it gets a little less clear.

 

[juro]

My fear is the great financial implosion that is going to happen very soon. We are only months away if not weeks. The only thing that can starve it off for a while is if the major central banks just keep printing money to steady the markets, like they just did today. But it can't and won't go on forever cause eventually this trick is seen for what it is, causing massive inflation and currency devaluation, amongst many other problems.

I just hope we can sneak in our TV deal before it is to late or if we don't, RL once again will get fu*ked over.

COME ON IC, HURRY THE FU*K UP!!!

So we have massive inflation. All of a sudden, AFL's $1.25bn doesn't seem so big any more... :lol:

 

[WAPAU]

I know that whatever I write parra will accuse me of trolling but here go's anyway.

I dont see the point in rugby league just trying to feed off rugby union in countries like russia, france, canada, america, italy etc.

I mean really what at all does that achieve, sure you get some people playing the game and you might even be able to put out a half decent international team when you throw in the Australian mercenaries, but to me at least it just seems like a pointless exercise. When do these teams ever kick on?

I think the way forward for rl is to target countries where rugby isnt played like lebanon and serbia. That way they can develop the game from the ground up rather than the top down.

I think proper international eligibility rules are also imperative; as is a proper international season.

I was running it I would have a euro and pacific cup, the winner of each moves onto the a smaller more elite 6 country world cup, held every 3 years. So the international schedule would go,
Year 1: Aus 3 test tour of GB, NZ 3 test tour of France.
Year 2: Euro and Pacific Cups, Aus 3 test tour france, NZ 3 test tour GB.
Year 3: 6 team world cup.
In addition to this every year, aus would play 3 tests against nz, likewise GB would play 3 tests against france.

So thats 6 tests a year for the big 4, as well as a euro and pacific cup for the minnows. You could also throw in some minnow tours in the first year of the cycle but its all dependent on funding.

I think the basis of a credible international competition is there, but the ego's of those in charge will mean leagues potential will never be reached and instead league will try and copy soccer and union, in a less effective and less popular manner.

Embrace change and a different way forward and I'm sure their will be credible growth.

 

[ParraEelsNRL]

I know that whatever I write parra will accuse me of trolling but here go's anyway.

I dont see the point in rugby league just trying to feed off rugby union in countries like russia, france, canada, america, italy etc.

I mean really what at all does that achieve, sure you get some people playing the game and you might even be able to put out a half decent international team when you throw in the Australian mercenaries, but to me at least it just seems like a pointless exercise. When do these teams ever kick on?

I think the way forward for rl is to target countries where rugby isnt played like lebanon and serbia. That way they can develop the game from the ground up rather than the top down.

I think proper international eligibility rules are also imperative; as is a proper international season.

I was running it I would have a euro and pacific cup, the winner of each moves onto the a smaller more elite 6 country world cup, held every 3 years. So the international schedule would go,
Year 1: Aus 3 test tour of GB, NZ 3 test tour of France.
Year 2: Euro and Pacific Cups, Aus 3 test tour france, NZ 3 test tour GB.
Year 3: 6 team world cup.
In addition to this every year, aus would play 3 tests against nz, likewise GB would play 3 tests against france.

So thats 6 tests a year for the big 4, as well as a euro and pacific cup for the minnows. You could also throw in some minnow tours in the first year of the cycle but its all dependent on funding.

I think the basis of a credible international competition is there, but the ego's of those in charge will mean leagues potential will never be reached and instead league will try and copy soccer and union, in a less effective and less popular manner.

Embrace change and a different way forward and I'm sure their will be credible growth.

You seem obsessed with me Faaf.

 

[WAPAU]

You seem obsessed with me Faaf.

Don't flatter yourself darling.

 

[ParraEelsNRL]

Don't flatter yourself darling.

Enjoy yourself until your next ban from here.