Rugby: Union or League

18 months ago A View From the Top wrote an opinion piece on the British and Irish Lions tour of Australia which you can read here.

Essentially the article was a tongue in cheek look at the failings of modern day Rugby Union against its spin-off Rugby League. Since the article was written, I have had more than a few Rugby Union fans defend the game to me (most of them are foreigners, because we all know there aren’t more than a few Union fans in Australia) and winning such tiresome debates has become so boring and repetitive that I have decided to settle the debate with another article. 

Below I will outline the most common points of argument taken up by Rugby Union fans and systematically debunk each statement.

Rugby Union players don’t move to Rugby League, because Rugby Union is a better game. Or, League players move to Union, because Union is a better game.

Since the last article NRL players are indeed still moving across to Union, and immediately walking into representative sides and marquee contracts. In contrast, domestically, Rugby Union players such as James O’Connor, Quade Cooper and Kurtley Beale have all flirted with the idea of switching codes at various times, but have instead opted to continue their Rugby Union careers.

So why is this? Basically these players sit comfortably in the top echelon of players in Australian Rugby Union, but if they made the switch to the NRL there is no guarantee that they would even be pass mark contributors at that level. Essentially for these players to move to the NRL they would be required to take pay cuts and be forced into double or triple the on field workload. The reason these players would need to take a pay cut is that no NRL club could justify spending marquee dollars on a player of such high risk. This is true for any Rugby Union player around the world.

On the flipside when Rugby Union clubs sign an NRL player there is no risk involved, as even reserve graders such as Berrick Barnes, Joseph Tomane and Cooper Vuna have proven capable of walking into A level international teams. The conclusions that can be made from this evidence then, is that League players go to Union because it is an easier game, with similar remuneration levels and fringe benefits including European tours. Conversely Union players do not go to League, because it is a harder game in which they will have to prove themselves before gaining similar remuneration and fringe benefits include learning to tackle.

Rugby League is boring. Rugby Union is a more interesting game.

This argument is typically outlined as above, by people with little to no understanding of the nuances of league and no supporting evidence.

Firstly if we take Rugby as a sport as the contest between advancing attackers and defenders with the object of the game placing the ball over a ‘try line’ then by any quantifiable measurement League comes out streets ahead of Union. According to any statistic - runs, possessions, tackles, tries, time the ball is in play etc - League provides much more entertainment then Union. The reasons for this are rather simply explained by the histories of each game.

Rugby League was born as a professional breakaway from the entirely amateur game of Rugby Union in the north of England in 1895. Rugby Union eventually became professional, in Australia at least, 100 years later in 1995. The reality of this is that League has a 100 year head start on Union in making the game more commercially appealing to support this professional structure. When you watch the two games this is immediately obvious, particularly with things like the amount of time the ball is in play and tries scored, which at the end of the day is what any type of ‘Rugby’ should be about.

Every single difference between the structure and rules of the two games can be attributed directly to the 100 year head start League enjoyed in commercially advancing the sport. Line outs and scrums have at various stages been phased out of Rugby League because the paying public wishes to see the ball in play. Rugby League took two players from the field to open up the spaces for athletes to showcase their skills, which is why the NRL produces Greg Inglis and the ARU purchases its Israel Folau from Rugby League. Rugby League made all goals two points and field goals one point in response to a similar malaise that plagues Rugby Union now, encouraging teams to attack for tries rather than rely on field goals or penalty goals to secure victory. While Rugby League has made these changes generations ago the International Rugby Board sits on its hands and the Rugby World Cup this year will bare more than a passing resemblance to the event held in Brazil last year.

I could keep going on this issue for hours talking about limited tackle counts, interchanges, defensive structures, coaching and every other difference between the two games but we would just keep coming back to the same point - every difference between the two games makes Rugby League a more commercially appealing product on account of it making the game more interesting for fans.

The final argument that Rugby Union fans like to bring up is their trump card. This card is played with their backs against the wall with the belief that they will win the argument based on this misguided understanding alone.

Rugby Union is more popular internationally than Rugby League so it is a better sport.

Without a doubt Rugby Union is a more popular international sport than Rugby League. But this is not on account of it being a better game. No, the reason that Rugby Union is more popular around the world is rather simple and drawn logically from a point already made above.

In 1895 the controlling and wealthier south of England refused to remunerate Rugby players and the poorer northern sides were unable to draw amateur players because of fear of injury and lost income. As a result Rugby League broke away from the establishment and kick started in the north of England with loss of income insurance the key difference between the two sports.

At this time the halcyon period of the British Empire is winding to a close before the First World War and a key plank of the British Empire’s controlling rule is a policy of cultural imperialism, more or less exporting sports (and customs, foods, goods and services etc) through its expansive colonial network. Now considering what was outlined in the preceding paragraph which sport do you think was rammed down the throats of British colonies? 

You guessed it, Rugby Union, not Rugby League. And for the next 100 years the establishment roots of Rugby Union have exploited their influence in Government across these countries to scupper any chance of Rugby League developing free of constraint. In South Africa the sports commission to this day refuses to acknowledge Rugby League as an official sport for example.

Essentially the only reason Rugby Union is more popular worldwide is because of the historical influence of the British Empire.

Against any quantifiable comparison there is no evidence to suggest Rugby Union is a better sport than Rugby League. 

However there is a hell of a lot of evidence supporting the notion that Rugby Union is a far inferior sport to Rugby League. 

For further evidence of such tune in to watch Rugby League dominate the Rugby World Cup later this year when Israel Folau breaks more try scoring records for the Wallabies, Sonny Bill Williams helps the All Blacks to back to back World Cups, Sam Burgess walks into the England midfield, and Australia, England and Samoa battle it out to utilise the sheer brutality of Ben Te’o. 

Two of the worlds premier Rugby Union talents - Israel Folau and Sonny Bill Williams - are expected to showcase their arsenal of skills developed in the NRL, at this years Rugby World Cup