By Sherry
July 14th 2009 @ 1:27am
Loading ...Related coverage
Is rugby going the way of football?
Inter Milan's Mario Balotelli cheers after scoring the 3-2 goal, during the Italy Cup soccer match between Juventus and Inter Milan, in Turin, northern Italy, Wednesday Jan. 30, 2008. AP Photo/Massimo Pinca
This question occurred to me in a roundabout way. While surfing Setanta, I came across a game of European football (or soccer, or futbol, or futebol, depending where you’re from) and was struck by the number of Latinos on both teams.
I started wondering how the game arrived in South America, did some research, and saw a direct correlation between what has happened to soccer in South America and what could happen to rugby.
But to answer the first question, how did soccer travel to South America? It took the train.
From around 1865 onwards, the Latin countries wanted what Europe and America had – a railroad system. So they had British firms come out and build them.
This caused an influx of thousands of British immigrants who came for the jobs. And they brought soccer balls with them.
And they were real soccer balls because Richard Lindon, a shoemaker and leather worker in the town of Rugby, had just invented an inflatable Indian rubber bladder which he put inside a sewn-leather cover and pumped up.
He also made a rugby ball in the traditional shape which was called the Punt-About ball. It was called this for an obvious reason: you could punt it a lot further than a leather ball stuffed with rags.
And you could really kick his soccer ball, too.
Lindon enabled both types of ball to fly, so he contributed hugely to the development of both sports.
Back to football in South America.
The immigrant Brits played the game in the schools and colleges they set up, taught the locals how to play, and the locals totally embraced it.
In fact, the first leagues in Argentine and Chile were founded in 1893, earlier than some of the famous European clubs – Juventus, 1897, Barcelona, 1899 and Real Madrid, 1902.
Uruguayan students in Montevideo formed Club Nacional in 1899 followed by Estudiates de La Plata, an all-Argentine team in 1905. Brazil’s famous Flamengo club was born in 1910.
When the train system was up and running, internationals were played regularly between South American nations. And because the railroad firms also built light rail trams for the main South American cities, spectators had an easy way to get to the local games, the football craze was on, and the growth was phenomenal.
Rio’s Maracana stadium was built for the 1950 World Cup, and 210,000 people saw Uruguay beat Brazil
2-1. However, this was a sparce crowd compared to the 300,000 that shoehorned into Wembley to watch Bolton Wanderers and West Ham decide the FA Cup final in 1923.
Wembley’s official capacity was 127,000.
But here’s something about bigtime soccer that’s keeping me awake nights: poaching.
In the 1990’s, Barcelona’s football team contained seven Dutchmen and two Brazilians. In 2007, there were no less than 340 foreign players eligible to play in the English Premier League.
Indeed, after the 2006 World Cup, only three of that year’s Argentine squad were playing in Argentina.
It’s not hard to forsee a time when cash-strapped New Zealand, or league-challenged Australia, have the majority of their top rugby players returning from rich overseas clubs to play only Tri-Nations and touring sides (if they can get a release).
And here’s something else I’m mulling: the population of the main Latin cities the Brits did business with in the 19th century – Buenos Aires, Lima, Rio, Santiago and Sao Paulo – today totals around 50 million.
What if all those railroad workers had played rugby instead of soccer?
Like this content? Buzz it up!
Free Email updates:
Our daily emails are only sent if there is content for the sport or that author. You can subscribe to multiple daily emails; or get the daily Roar email with all our content in it. We value privacy. More...
(40)
Brett McKay said | July 14th 2009 @ 8:51am | Report comment
Sherry, you may well have just asked the hypothetical to end all hypothetcials….
craig said | July 14th 2009 @ 8:56am | Report comment
They would have been finished in half the time and there would be no beer left!
Towser said | July 14th 2009 @ 9:19am | Report comment
So to twist your argument around Sherry what sort of Brits came here then as opposed to South America. Because clearly from the sport of choice of the earlier settlements they came with Rugby balls not footballs. In fact in the southern states they scratched their own balls choosing neither British sports as the main choice. Post war migration changed the dynamics of Australian ball sports ,leaving an evolving landscape. However that doesnt change the fact that the British were all over the world in the 1800’s spreading the empire & industrial expertise. So I dont buy the argument deduced from your last line that if the British had brought rugby balls rather than footballs that South Americans would be playing predominantly Rugby.
It doesnt explain the different take up by different countries of British sports at that time. Too simplistic to say the Rajah came to India with cricket bats first rather than football or Rugby balls,so cricket prevails in India. Perhaps there was an element of “cricket in the water of India”at that time in history that caused their leaning towards cricket. Similarly in South America for football & in this country Rugby in the Northern states & Australian Rules in the Southern states. No matter what balls you took to the USA from outside at that time they were determined to create sports in their image,simply because thats what they did with everything,particularly taps in hotels.
True Tah said | July 14th 2009 @ 9:21am | Report comment
Sherry
in answer to your question, yes some of those British railway workers did play rugby, hence the presence of rugby in Argentina today. I understand that the Christian Brothers also favoured rugby as a form of muscular Christianity, whereas the Jesuits preferred futbol.
Generally speaking, those British immigrants who went to Australia/NZ/South Africa/Canada (i.e. British colonies) tended to be more rugby orientated, which is why rugby or sports orientated with rugby are prominent. On the other side, the sport of the merchant marine sailors was futbol, and they tended to deal with countries not part of the British Empire and they, along with railway workers, were responsible for introducing the game to Latin America and Turkey.
Art Sapphire said | July 14th 2009 @ 9:33am | Report comment
Sherry – I don’t want to be mean but, seriously man, this is one of the biggest pieces of football envy ever written by a rubgy follower on this website.
If the number of foreign football players plying their trade in the big leagues is keeping you awake at night, I suggest you start taking some sleeping pills and try going back to sleep.
In answer to your question.
Q. What if all those railroad workers had played rugby instead of soccer?
A. They would have played amongst themselves as there were Brits playing a much more enjoyable game of football down at the docks and the locals were going mad for it
Mike said | July 14th 2009 @ 9:45am | Report comment
“In fact in the southern states they scratched their own balls choosing neither British sports as the main choice.”
Towser, AFL is just as much a “British sport” as Rugby or Association Football. I know some romantics like to speculate about aboriginal influence or Gaelic football, but the rules of AFL when first written down in 1857 simply combined various elements that were all present in British football at the time – running with the ball, marking in general play followed by a free kick, tackling, striking the ball with the hand. grounding the ball whilst carrying it, etc.
The codification of various forms of football in the mid-19th century (which led in turn to all our modern codes) was not a process of invention, but of collation – there were a myriad different styles or codes of football in Britain, and each group of codifiers chose a combination of the particular rules that they believed would be most acceptable to their founding member clubs.
Mike said | July 14th 2009 @ 9:50am | Report comment
Oops, Towser I should just clarify: I did not mean by the above to suggest that ALL British football players in the mid-19th century carried the ball, marked in general play etc! Rather, that there were a myriad different combinations of rules in use in various places in the UK, and nothing in the rules of Melbourne Football Club in 1857 was “new”. Even the particular combination of rules chosen by MFC was pretty close to a number of other British examples known from mid-C19.
Obviously, by the mid-C19, the distinction was starting to become obvious, between those clubs who wanted a carrying and tackling game versus those who wanted to limit it to kicking, but even in 1857 there was no rigid divide, and many rules straddled both sides of a very amorphous “fence”.
Nick said | July 14th 2009 @ 10:24am | Report comment
French railway workers took the game of Rugby to Madagascar, where it remains the most popular sport on the island… so yes, some railway workers did bring rugby…
True Tah said | July 14th 2009 @ 10:29am | Report comment
Nick
given the state of the Malagasy rail system, I think the Froggy rail engineers spent too much time playing rugby!
The Bear said | July 14th 2009 @ 11:06am | Report comment
Interesting points… I speculate that Rugby balls had as much chance as Footballs, so it was survival of the popular. Perhaps the S.Americans were more challenged by it (?) and so took the road road for maximum satisfaction. By the way since when is Football called European Football… I am sure the Poms lay claim to it, like Cricket, Rugby and League. Last I heard the Poms didn’t class themselves as “Europeans”. Can of worms, go forth!!!
Ben of Phnom Penh said | July 14th 2009 @ 11:35am | Report comment
For a period rugby was far more popular than football in mainland Europe. FC Nürnberg was formed by some students that wanted to play something other than rugby which was all the craze in Germany at the time. The last gold medal awarded at the Olympics for rugby in 1910……. USA.
Currently the situation you described already occurs. I spent several years working in the Pacific and many of the Polynesians left for Australia and or New Zealand to play, often gaining citizenship in the process via various relatives, resulting in a degrading of the local game and national sides.
Football and rugby alike have to remain flexible as world demographics wax and wane. The growing economies of East Asia may prove the next big challenge for all codes of football; which is partly why the FFA embracing Asia is so inspired. I’d urge rugby to do the same.
Brian said | July 14th 2009 @ 12:19pm | Report comment
I thought Argentinians do play Rugby. They might even play more if anyone in the Rugby world ever thought of putting them in a meaningful competition? Forget the 19th century Rugby is still shooting itself in the foot
Ignacio said | July 14th 2009 @ 1:05pm | Report comment
In Argentina football wasn’t the only sport brought by the English. In fact, the first football match played was in a Cricket club, which ironically was relegated by football,rugby and polo despite having most infrastructure at the end of the XIX century.
About why rugby didn’t caught in the same way as football, the only reason I find is because the majority of the population are descendants of Italian and Spanish immigrants, then you have Germans, French, Austrians,Polish, English,Irish,etc. This 2 big communities maybe found easier to play football which was more related to their cultures (calcio for example) and specially because rugby was more a sport for the elites.
Sorry for my English.
True Tah said | July 14th 2009 @ 1:41pm | Report comment
Ignacio
I was under the impression that futbol was not the most popular sport in Italy under the 1920s (cycling was bigger until then) and didnt most of the Italian immigrants to Argentina immigrate prior to this?
sheek said | July 14th 2009 @ 2:06pm | Report comment
Sherry,
From a historical viewpoint, this is an article i would have loved to write. Enjoyed the history lesson. Have read about football coming to South America before, but not in such clear, simplistic terms.
In your last sentence you appear to have contradicted yourself. I’m sure you said both types of football (actual) arrived in South America, but soccer (used here for contrast) quickly prevailed over rugby.
Indeed, one needs to dig deeper to understand why association football took off in South America; American/Canadian football in North America; rugby in Australia, New Zealand & South Africa; & cricket & hockey in India & Pakistan?
And furthermore, why rugby league prevailed in two Australian states, & not much elsewhere. And why the remainder of the Australian states adopted their own version of football?
As a final footnote, the world has a lot to thank the English for, so why are we so mean to them? If the French had founded us for example, we would speak a beautiful language & have a wonderful culinary culture, but our society would be up the creek in most other ways!!!
As much as we bag them, the British did a lot of things very, very well in the 18th/19th centuries.
sheek said | July 14th 2009 @ 2:11pm | Report comment
Anyway, you don’t need to be a Rhodes scholar to figure out rugby will precisely go the way of football. Rugby union in Australia & NZL is broke (comparatively speaking) in opposition to AFL, NRL, FFA & European rugby.
Unless there’s dramatic changes, & I can’t see that happening in the short-term, most of our leading players will be in Europe before too much longer. FIFA can’t control the migration of their leading players, so what hope does the ARU, NZRU or IRB for that matter, have?
Ignacio said | July 14th 2009 @ 2:12pm | Report comment
True Tah,
As you say football wasn’t the most popular sport, but the Italians had already in their culture the game of Calcio (name that they use today for the game of Football), wich was some kind of mix between football and rugby.
That’s the reason why I say that they embraced football faster than rugby, because of tradition and because they weren’t part of the elite of the country that played rugby.
About the Italian immigration, lots of them came well after 1920, specially after the WW2. The trend finished around 1960 if I remember well.
True Tah said | July 14th 2009 @ 2:14pm | Report comment
Ignacio – I understand what you mean by calcio, whilst it can be used for futbol, it was also used for Florentine football again a bit differant.
Rusty0256 said | July 14th 2009 @ 2:24pm | Report comment
“What if all those railroad workers had played rugby instead of soccer?”
And if my mother had married my uncle I’d be my cousin.
Ignacio said | July 14th 2009 @ 2:32pm | Report comment
True Tah,
Other interesting fact is the foundation dates of the clubs. For example, Boca Juniors in 1905 by 5 Genoese immigrants; Velez Sarsfield in 1910 by Italians (even they changed their shirt to one with the colours of the Italian flag), Union de Santa Fe in 1907 by Italian immigrants too.
Obviously this dates are a testament of the importance of the game at that time in Argentina, but shows too that it was the preferred game by the newcomers.
Jecker Bonds said | July 14th 2009 @ 3:57pm | Report comment
Sherry is absolutely correct. I grew up in Miraflores, Lima, and a school outing to the sports section of the museum would outline how the British who came to build the railways and the trams in SA brought the game of futbol with them. Tru Tah is correct re Brit sailors first introducing the game, but they played on 24-hour leaves then got back on their ships and sailed away while the immigrants who came for the rail and factory jobs stayed and opened schools and clubs and spread the game. And as these workers came mainly from industrial Britain, while some workers went to Brazil and Argentina from Germany – and to Peru which is how I got my first name – and to Uruguay from Italy, (great pasta in La Boca) they naturally played the game that prevailed at home, the one with the round ball.
The British introduced rugby to Argentina but it was soon swamped by futbol and remains so partly because the Pumas never produced a god like Maradona, Batistuta, Zanetti and Messi. Hugo Porta, the only Argentine to be inducted into the Rugby Hall of Fame, was never forgiven by a lot of people for passing up a contract with Boca Juniors. Also, the best the Pumas could do in a RWC was a semi-final appearance while the Argentines won the FIFA World Cup twice and were runners-up twice.
And for those who follow the game in SA, here’s a quiz – In the Copa Libertadores from 1960 to 2006, BA has won it 17 times. Which city has the next best record – Santos, Rio, Montevideo, Lima, Sao Paulo or La Plata?
Answer supplied late tomorrow.
True Tah said | July 14th 2009 @ 4:07pm | Report comment
Jecker
re: Hugo Porta’s decision to pass up contract with Boca, I understand he wanted to become an architect, and it would have been hard for him to be a professional architect and a professional futbol player.
He was a damn fine rugby player, and Argentine rugby is eternally grateful for his achievements for Los Pumas.
Art Sapphire said | July 14th 2009 @ 4:52pm | Report comment
The Answer – is Montevideo – 8 cups (Penarol 5, Nacional 3)
But a Uruguayan team has not won the Copa since 1988.
Nacional got knocked out by Estudiantes in the semis a few weeks ago.
The year’s final is between Estudiantes and Cruzeiro. The first leg finished 0- 0 in Argentina.
The second leg will be played on Thursday morning in Brazil and I expect Cruzeiro to win. It will be on Setanta.
jimbo said | July 14th 2009 @ 4:55pm | Report comment
Jecker,
That would be Montevideo in Uruguay with Penarol and Nacional having a good record in the Liberators Cup.
jimbo said | July 14th 2009 @ 5:02pm | Report comment
Sherry,
Is it football or is it soccer?
300K for a Wembley game is a little inflated – 126,947 is the recorded attendance for that game.
Interesting article, got me thinking if my auntie had balls what could she have been?
Over the years South Americans have been exposed to all sorts of influences from overseas travellers – and that’s how football was introduced to South America in the early 1900s.
They have also been exposed to Gridiron, Rugby, tennis and lots of other things including Butt Shaking, for which Brazil is also a world champion.
They seem to be naturally talented at football and that’s where they’ve done best.
South American countries are also a little poorer so the players represent good value for overseas clubs for their entertainment and skill levels – particularly if they get them as youngsters.
Valencia snapped up Messi when he was just 13 and paid for all his expenses including growth hormone treatment to try and make him grow a bit taller.
Rugby is certainly growing internationally but it might be a while before Brazil or even Argentina win a World Rugby Title.
jimbo said | July 14th 2009 @ 5:24pm | Report comment
Correction, Barcelona snapped up Messi when he was just 13 and . . .
one of those big bad Barry brain snaps . . .
netrug said | July 14th 2009 @ 5:57pm | Report comment
From what I can gather, Rugby was brought to Argentina in the 1890s and clubs were a mixture of cricket, polo, Rugby and soccer.
Spain’s famous Barcelona football club was formed by a German, Paul Haas, using Swiss, English and Spanish players. The club also ran a Rugby side. The original club badge incorporated Rugby goalposts.
F C Milan was originally named the Milan Cricket and Football Club because it was founded by the English. It iis also the reason why, to this day, the club uses the English spelling, Milan, not the Italian, Milano.
Anothe club in Europe formed by the English is the Swiss football club, Grasshoppers. Tom Griffith was the founder and once again, English spelling is used.
It appears the British spead their own games far and wide, soccer, cricket, Rugby and polo. The French did not do so the same extent. However, in Africa, the French introduced Rugby quite successfuly to their then colonies. However, soccer remains the top sport by Rugby has a strong base in al former French spheres of influence.
sheek said | July 14th 2009 @ 6:07pm | Report comment
Netrug,
The French have actually been very influential in rugby through FIRA, the alternate ruling body to IRB.
When France was kicked out of the 5N from 1932-39, they formed FIRA & went looking for opponents in Eastern Europe. This continued after WW2, & countries like Italy, Romania, Russia, Georgia, Spain & Portugal, among others, can thank France for showing an interest in their development when most of the so called ‘big 8′ were otherwise interested in only themselves.
France are also the prime mover in Northern African rugby in countries like Morooco, Algeria, Tunisia & Ivory Coast.
South Africa also invested considerable manpower & ideas into the development of Argentine rugby, from the 50s through to the 80s.
Working Class Rugger said | July 14th 2009 @ 7:51pm | Report comment
Sheek
FIRA still do an admirable job at spreading the game through Europe and these days Northern Africa. The 2009 U18’s european Championships has all 42 member nations competing over several divisions. And there work alongside the French in north Africa is beginning to pay dividends with Tunisia being realistic chances of toppling Namibia to qualify for NZ in 2011.
They have also assisted the seeding process ofr the game in Eygpt.
netrug said | July 15th 2009 @ 12:05am | Report comment
In some respects FIRA is the true controlling body of Rugby. It was FIRA who went to the Olympic committee to try to get Rugby into the Olympics stating they had 54 menbers compared to the IRB’s 12.
The IRB got most upset with this and offered FIRA a seat on the IRB provided they withdrew their claim of being Rugby’s main body.
Unfortunately, FIRA took the 30 pieces of silver so we still have the inept and undemocratic IRB still running (ruining) the game.
Steffy said | July 15th 2009 @ 4:29am | Report comment
Maybe the brits who played union were far too full of themselves to spread the game much beyond the people they regarded as socially suitable. Sport is essentially a competitive pursuit but union in England wasn’t even played in leagues until the 1980s. One of the resons why rugby split into union and rugby league in 1895 was the desire of the northern rugby clubs to organise and play in leagues and cups which was very much frowned upon by the RFU.
Knives Out said | July 15th 2009 @ 5:24am | Report comment
What about the Six Nations, formerly the Home International Championship and the Five Nations?
Steffy said | July 15th 2009 @ 6:42am | Report comment
They are internationals – there was also a county championship – most people didn’t get to play in them – no clubs ever got to play in them.
Knives Out said | July 15th 2009 @ 6:50am | Report comment
International competition is surely the highest honour of all. Incidentally, I think you should specify what country you are referring to, Steffy, because ‘brits’ is ignorantly broad. As far as I am aware the game of rugby union had a different social context in England than it did in Wales, for example.
Jecker Bonds said | July 15th 2009 @ 7:27am | Report comment
ART SAPPHIRE and JIMBO – Montevideo is correct. Nice to know there are some fans on The Roar who follows SA futbol. SP is next with 4, and Asucion, LP and PA have 3 apiece.
Re. the ‘23 game – Wembley’s lawyers advised the ground to declare an attendance of 127,000 because they thought an extra 2,000 could be defended if any of the people who were hurt in the crush on the terraces when the pitch was cleared made a fuss. The police estimated 240,000 but hundreds of men who’d served in the Great War and were used to huge agglomerations put the figure at 300,000.
TRUE TAH – Hugo Porta did become an architect but a lot of Argentine futbol fans never forgave him for going over to “the other side” – specially when they’d read of his exploits on the rugby field. I saw him play against the Wallabies in BA in ‘79, and saw the Grand Slam Wallabies in England and Scotland in ‘84. Hugo was the opposite of Mark Ella – Ella was OK kick, terrific run, Porta was OK run, terrific kick. Several times the majority of points (sometimes all the points) the Pumas scored came from Hugo’s boot. Elderly rugby fans in Britain/Ireland/France who saw all the greats, including near-legendary Aussie fan Rex Goodwin, rate Puig Aubert as the greatest kicker they ever saw with Hugo close behind. But there’s no doubt that Hugo singlehandedly put Argentine rugby on another level.
Maybe you’ve been to some of the rugby pubs and bodegas in BA. Sooner or later the talk gets around to which player in the Copa would make the best rugby kicker.
sheek said | July 15th 2009 @ 11:36am | Report comment
And perhaps FIRA ought to be running rugby. Names & acronyms sound so much better in French – FIFA, FINA, FIRA……….
Besides, French is such a beautiful language. The “Prix de l’Arc de Triomph” sounds so much better than the “Arch of Triumph Prize”!
Rob said | July 15th 2009 @ 12:38pm | Report comment
Jecker…
They’re not the only ones! The club I support is responsible for 2 of the three Libertadores trophies owned by PA (Porto Alegre)… Stupid losing the semis to Cruzeiro, and the Final in 2007 to Boca! Grr! Still angry about that first leg at La Bombonera in 2007…
Steffy said | July 15th 2009 @ 5:18pm | Report comment
“International competition is surely the highest honour of all. Incidentally”
Indeed, but its not a great way to sell a game is it: “Come and play rugby union and if you apply yourself, are very good at the game and have a deal of luck you might get to play in a competitive game in 10 years time”
Working Class Rugger said | July 15th 2009 @ 5:46pm | Report comment
‘you might get to play in a competitive game in 10 years time’ Believe it or not whilst the international game is a major strength of RU its not everything. You can have competitive games throughout any level of Rugby Union. You don’t need to play on the international stage. What a complete load of bull.
Steffy said | July 15th 2009 @ 6:31pm | Report comment
WCR, in union in england a club cup competition was introduced in the 70s and leagues in the 80s. Before that it was just friendly fixtures arranged with whoever the fixtures secretary was chummy with.