League Vs. Union

I think it's the fact that RU is ingrained in the upper echelons of society. Played since conception at Universities, where future leaders of media, business, and government learn their trade. They then go off into their careers and carry their own biases with them. It's why TV companies, brands, and media outlets pour more money into it than our sport. Those business leaders and media editors who went to University with each other naturally gravitate to RU. RL isn't helped by its own birth from RU and the social and political connections and reasons that will always be associated with it. It's not a conspiracy, but it is woven into the fabric of our class system and all that goes with it.

As for how it can change?

That's the million pound question. It needs the will and some momentum from all angles to change how things are, and while I have some ideas there isn't any easy answers.

As Carnster said, it's played much more nationally in schools, private schools and universities. Far more people with money have been involved in RU over time.

Also, at pro level they have clubs throughout the UK which is more attractive to advertiser's, and those people tend to be wealthier.

Lastly, they have an international game, and more importantly in the UK, they have decent teams in England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales - this creates national interest even if the game itself is dire. I've also tried watching and liking it I find it slow and boring. Not much rugby seems to be played (putting the ball through hands, tackling etc).

Internationally they also have France and Italy for the six nations. RL was banned in France around 1940 while RU wasn't. I do wonder hope popular RL would be in France without that.

I don't know how we change it. There isn't a quick solution that's for sure. We need the game to be national and for that we need investment - this is the biggest key but I don't know where that's coming from.

Better grassroots and to develop the game in schools and amateur clubs nationally - requires money.

Teams not far from RU clubs could try and tap those fans, such as us offering people with Sale season tickets a couple of free games or a discounted season ticket, maybe it would convert some.

A more competitive SL would be a great thing and make for better TV games. Unfortunately, the money isn't there and we've brought in rules that go against the nature of the salary cap. The salary cap is unfair anyway because not all teams can spend the £2.1 million. I remember Leeds moaning about having £1m in the stands when they were in the relegation zone. I bet we barely spend that on an entire squad. The idea of a SC is twofold - ensure financial stability and to make things competitive by dispersing players. It works in American sports and the NRL because everyone can spend the cap and there aren't stupid dispensations. We need investment so all clubs can spend £2.1m and we need to remove things like discount for RU player, discount for home grown talent (this again is weighted to Wigan, Saints and Leeds), marquee player - which quickly became two when Wigan and Saints needed to retain their players - what happened to diapering players? It's conceivable a team like Wigan have a £3m wage bill while we spend £1m. This is obviously a moot point without investment. I'd love Sky or turn around an pay enough so that all team could meet the cap, remove dispensations, and let's see what happens after 5 years.

Club chairmen should also have less power. When you have a situation with 'haves' and 'have nots' people only vote for what is better for them and not the game. As I mentioned, in the NFL for example, you have the commissioner and other elements within that structure and the club owners who vote on a wide variety of things but they can all afford the cap. Money is also distributed better.

They do have a new defence coach, you know!

There's a lot of media bias against rugby league. For instance, even during the world cup, the Independent's website, in the sports section, one could select football, formula 1, rugby union, UFC, cycling, American Sports, cricket, golf... but never rugby league. Similarly with the i newspaper.

I was listening once to a London radio station talking about London sport, and when the sports correspondent eventually came to proper rugby, the show host, Robert Elms, said "Rugby league? That's just fat northerners rolling about in the mud."

Then there's the tedious reason that I've bored people with for decades: the people with influence played union at their public schools and don't like us or our game, and this influences the folk who seem to listen to people who have had a better start in life than them.  Carnster's post put it better. I remember a game at the Stoop where two blokes in Harlequins RL shirts on the way in were still rubbishing TGG.

It's at this point that I remind myself of Laurie Daley's remark: "Rugby league is a simple game played by simple folk. Rugby union is a complex game played by w@nkers."