Made for the USA: Union or League?
Roar Rookie By matt manley, 20 Jul 2009 manley is a Roar Rookie
- Tagged:
- Rugby League, Rugby Union, US Rugby, USA Rugby
Rumors are swirling that professional rugby league is to hit America in 2010. With my roots in union, I got nervous. What could this mean for rugby as a whole here in the United States? How would professional League influence rugby in this country?
I watch League from time to time. I enjoy the State of Origin. I have studied up on the sport and the split of the two codes. I am familiar with how much League tactics have influenced Union over the years as well. My personal preference is Union, but that is just me.
I took a closer at how these two codes stack up against each other here in the US and tried to figure out which sport has the advantage when it comes to this impending battle for the hearts and minds of the American sports fan.
Looking at the games themselves, a few points jump out. For starters, League offers simpler rules. If you can understand how the game is played, you can move on to decoding the intricacies of the sport more quickly.
If you contrast that with Union, it is a lost cause. You have to have a series of charts and diagrams to explain Union to the novice. Don’t get me wrong, I love the complexity of Union; that complexity makes Union the game it is.
League has a simple progression of play that is easier to follow, especially if you understand (American) football. The concept of a tackle count is just like downs. The field is even marked out like gridiron with numbers every ten yards.
Both players and fans will enjoy the violence of League. One of the hardest things to get football players to do when switching to rugby is to wrap up their tackles. The shoulder charge will be a huge hit with Americans… sorry for that pun.
League has 11 clubs in the US, all concentrated on the East coast. A majority of the US rugby talent plays Union and plies their skills west of the Rockies. I have no doubt many Union players will defect. It is too enticing to play a game and collect a paycheck. I simply can’t blame them.
The problem for League is that they will need the Union boys if they want to have a decent competition. I have watched a little of the American National Rugby League (AMNRL) competition and it is probably the equivalent of Union Division II club rugby. This is not the NRL, not by a long shot.
After seeing the AMNRL for myself, I started to question what they were thinking. Apparently they are going with an ‘if you build it they will come’ mentality. However, creating a top down system is going about things a little backwards.
League doesn’t have enough current players to fill the competition with quality athletes nor do they have a grassroots structure to build for the future.
Union has an established club rugby structure all over the country. Resent years have seen an explosion of youth and high school rugby clubs as well. College clubs have proven to be the best way to develop future Eagles.
Honestly, I can see college rugby becoming USA Rugby’s possible answer to professional League. College sports are a huge business here in the States and rugby can piggyback on established brand names.
League will have to sell a market on a new team and a new sport. The fans will ask why they should care, and with good reason.
People already have a favorite college team, so the emotional connection is already there. You are essentially selling them only on a new sport.
I have to say that a majority of my feelings are rooted in envy and frustration.
My envy is from the feeling of being beaten to the punch. Rugby in the US has started to pick up speed in its growth. The focus on youth has proved fruitful and the future is bright. I want professional rugby here, but I want it on my terms.
My frustration is directed at USA Rugby. With all of the history, all of the infrastructure, all the potential, why doesn’t Union have a professional competition? Why can’t I watch the Tri-Nations on ESPN?
Rugby, Union or League, just needs to be marketed to properly and the sport would sell. The fact the League has taken the bull by the horns is something to be admired. I wish them well. The debate still rages and it seems that the US will be the latest battle ground in League vs. Union.
Recommend this story.
- Explore:
- Rugby League, Rugby Union, US Rugby, USA Rugby
July 20th 2009 @ 7:46pm
Christchurch said | July 20th 2009 @ 7:46pm | Report comment
There I was in the Las Vegas Hilton, searching for a good glass of wine, dropped $20 on the tables – bored. Go to the deserted sports bar and discovered a curious trash wine called white Zinfandel. A sugary little drop. Best thing was the choice of sports coverage – F1 on one screen and Taranaki vs the Wellington Lions live on the other – you can find Union in the US, even when you’re not looking for it.
July 20th 2009 @ 10:39pm
Dennis Justice said | July 20th 2009 @ 10:39pm | Report comment
I checked ncaa.org and saw the list of sports and did not see rugby for men or women listed at varsity. Not that it would shock me if they just recently made women’s rugby varsity.
Actually, it’s not that hard to make any women’s sport varsity. Title IX has forced colleges to find sports to make varsity level for women to make things “equal.” Some have argued it’s at the expense of men’s sports. Another reason you’re seeing colleges installing artificial turf everywhere, to handle the additional sports.
The perception (quite justified) is that the college game is more a “test of manhood” for the men who play since the players move on to their careers after college. No pro league to aspire to. Hell, George W. Bush and Bill Clinton, to their credit, played rugby in college. Ever hear either of them promote it when they were President?
So college is definitely not the route to getting rugby “to matter” in America’s eyes. A pro league in either or both codes would. League’s schedule better fits high school sports since American football coaches can’t really object to players playing League off-season, in fact, they should encourage it.
WCR: You’re not incurring any wrath by League supporters who have followed the NRL-US situation. As I mentioned earlier, they have had issues with trademark from the NRL, and have not updated their site at all in the last 4 months. Why even call it “NRL-US?” The “US” part shuts out opportunities for potential expansion to Canada, Mexico, even the Caribbean islands. That singular thinking doesn’t work compared to multinational competitions like SuperLeague and NRL.
I think they should change it to “United Rugby League.” I even registered http://www.unitedrugbyleague.com so I can write essays on how to grow the game, and the deal is I’d gladly transfer ownership for nothing if a SERIOUS pro league competition ever started here.
I think it COULD work with the right vision and management. We’re pretty frustrated with platitudes and promises when what we need are results.
A lot of this discussion is fun mental exercise, but the reality is it’s a “tempest in a teapot” until or unless either code delivers on a serious pro league in America.
I went to the US/Canada Union World Cup Qualifier in Charleston, S.C. Decent crowd (about 3,800 since we were on espnHD). Hot as hell. It was amazing to see in a USA Today story and even now the Eagles don’t have insurance and is paid just a $100 per diem. Many are limiting their current jobs and revenue to play. This kind of attitude is what caused the split in codes in the first place. The production of the rematch in Canada was a freaking disgrace. “Bill” was there and “he” shouldn’t have been. They messed up both national anthems, had a horrible pitch, camera work looked like camcorders, God that’s the tip of the iceberg. No wonder nobody around here takes rugby seriously.
Point is, neither code has a foothold so strong that the other should pack its bags. Not by a long shot.
July 20th 2009 @ 11:01pm
Tom Alexander. said | July 20th 2009 @ 11:01pm | Report comment
If Rugby League does have a chance, it will be on the back of Rugby Union. When you read some of the background information concerning the USNRL clubs, a number of their current home grown players are Rugby Union converts who switched codes. Brian Lowe stated in the American Rugby News, that in the US, RL doesn’t have the same stigma attached to it as it does elsewhere. And therefore, if they are sufficiently interested, RU players in the US won’t have a problem with trying out for the other code. And if you think what happened in 1895 can’t happen in this day and age, check out the Jamaican RL website, where disaffected RU clubs when given an option, switched codes en-masse. And in the process, created an instant RL competition, which gave the code a foothold in the West Indies virtually overnight.
July 21st 2009 @ 12:16am
Klestical said | July 21st 2009 @ 12:16am | Report comment
I think what USNRL are doing to establish a top-down approach to league in the US is the right idea. Union is already far ahead through the collegiate system. It is only time when it becomes a male NCAA sport considering participation rates are growing at almost 15% a year. if league has any chance at establishing itself it is going the right way about it, however with Sevens likely to be included in the Olympics, things are only going to become more difficult
July 21st 2009 @ 12:30am
Klestical said | July 21st 2009 @ 12:30am | Report comment
For all of those rugby tragics who are concerned over a USNRL 2010 proposal let me just say that the NFL back in 1991 until 2007 had established the `NFL Europe“….this recently got disbanded due to disinterest (you can have a look on the internet about this). Considering the money and coverage the NFL gets around the world (which makes the Australian NRL look like small potatoes) and it couldn`t get off the ground, I would only expect to see league continue along its current form in America and that is simply a more revamped, but still minority sport…in my opinion i can only see League in the states taking on perhaps a more upgraded form as maybe a competition similar to Gridiron Australia.
To those who think of an NFL in Australia, consider the chances of an NRL in America
July 21st 2009 @ 12:43am
Klestical said | July 21st 2009 @ 12:43am | Report comment
To those rugby tragics who are concerned over a USNRL 2010, consider this. From 1991-2007, the NFL established a NFL Europe which got disbanded due to lack of interest (have a search on the internet about this). considering the NFL`s power, money, influence and coverage around the world, it could not establish the game effectively. The amount of money the NFL has makes the NRL look like small potatoes. I can only see the new USNRL becoming no more than a more upgraded version of what it is currently in America. In such a comparison, in my opinion it will be related to, say Gridiron Australia.
If NFL can`t make it in Australia, than what chance is an NRL in America. Furthermore, the big corporate boys are no way going to see a potentially competitive sport come straight into the limelight.
July 21st 2009 @ 12:53am
Worlds Biggest said | July 21st 2009 @ 12:53am | Report comment
Interesting article Matt, if League is to make headway in the States they have a lot of catching up to do. Keep them coming !
July 21st 2009 @ 11:38am
Dennis Justice said | July 21st 2009 @ 11:38am | Report comment
NFL Europe went down because it was a MINOR LEAGUE. It still had quite a few years of decent crowds in some cities. I remember the NFL bigwigs claiming they eventually wanted to turn the teams to only domestic players on each team and it never happened. They ended up with some nonsense about having one domestic per NFL Europe team. This is why the prospect of NFL expansion to London one day is a real threat to EPL because everyone is tuned in to the reality that an expansion to NFL is much bigger than a NFL minor league.
As to my original idea, the very fact that team values are smaller for SuperLeague makes it an even better reason to consider expansion to America on the east coast. Just charge enough expansion fees to cover the expenses for x number of years of travel, and make sure you take a year showing SL games. Eventually American players WILL take the majority of sports on American teams. Break the league off in 5 years and let that be known upfront. I bet the league is competitive. IF an American league just did it on its own, it’ll be like the German version of a pro football league that had no linkage to the NFL. It’s like a MMA promotion with no affiliation to UFC. It’s not the same thing and it doesn’t work.
I don’t think Mr. Niu wants to admit NRL-US won’t happen next year, anyway. It’s a shame because it works with the right planning, vision, and a lot more people working on it.
July 21st 2009 @ 3:48pm
matt manley said | July 21st 2009 @ 3:48pm | Report comment
Dennis Justice –
With the exception of baseball, most American professional competitions came after the established college sport had gained popularity. When big name college football players started to fill the professional rosters, the pro-game took off. To say that professionalism is the best way for League to succeed is not true.
I have to agree to the connection with UFC however. There, you make a good point. I have long said that USA Rugby needs to cultivate a relationship with a single cable channel that is dedicated to making the sport successful. What the UFC has with Spike is brilliant and was a huge part of them kicking down the door and into the American home.
Granted they had two things going for them: 1) They used a reality show at the height of reality show popularity to showcase the sport. 2) They followed right behind WWE Raw which as a huge pull with the 18-35 demographic.
I do have to stress that I like a little League from time to time. It is just not my first choice. It is very true that America does not carry the baggage of the war between the two codes and I don’t want to see that start, but by having professional League and amateur Union we are doing just that.
I feel that the codes should unify. I know it is nigh on impossible to conceive, but if one country could do it, it would be the United States.
July 21st 2009 @ 4:23pm
AndyRoo said | July 21st 2009 @ 4:23pm | Report comment
Why not push Touch Football. It teaches the basics of the game but can be played by men and women (in the same team). It doesn’t quite fit the niche that the Rugby codes currently fill in the USA (dangerous game for crazy people) but it’s much easier to teach to kids, and simple enough that you don’t need a great ref.
I would think the fact that it can be played by both girls and boys would appeal to Primary School and High School PE teachers.