Why is Rugby Union more dominant than League?

Well part of League's problem was alluded to in your question -- it is "designed to be spectator friendly" -- or in other words "dumbed down for a TV audience". For anyone but the occasional Saturday afternoon viewer, League is mind-numbingly repetitive -- five downs and a kick, five downs and a kick, until a defender misses a tackle and the offense manages to break through and score. League has eliminated the entire "competitive" aspect of the game that makes Union fascinating -- and its not just at the breakdown. No lineouts, no rucking, no stripping the ball and no competitive scrums (honestly, is there anything sillier than a League scrum?). It has all but eliminated tactical kicking and the ridiculously limited 40-20 rule only acknowledges this fact. Drop goals are effectively gone as a scoring option -- in fact all the nuances and tactical subtlety of the Union game is gone. League also has the problem of -- in a sense -- being too fast. Union can draw on a large base of amateur players who love to watch and play the game. Modern League has become effectively impossible to play unless you have the luxury of training full-time. Frankly, it is no accident that Union is played worldwide, while League is effectively limited to some cities in northern England and a couple of Australian states. League caters to the type of fan who wants to see some big hits, plenty of trys and pretty much nothing else. One might as well watch gridiron football. Edit: just a response to Choo Choo's comments. Oddly enough I agree with some of what he says, except for his fundamental point, which is that Union is boring. And he needs to distinguish between the phrases "played" and "effectively played". It makes a difference. Anyway, and although I personally find League predictable and boring, it's funny how two people can watch the same game, agree on the same basic facts about it, and come to completely opposite conclusions. I am a little startled when he lumps together athletes like Ritchie McCaw, Shane Williams, Brian Habana and Brian O'Driscoll in the phrase "28 fat guys".

the reason why rugby union is more dominant than league is because when the schism of 1895 happened in huddersfield only teams from yorkshire and lancashire (amd i think cumbria) formed the northern union over payment for ''broken time'' - this was being payed for playing rugby for their club when they could be and more often than not working down the mine so one reason why rugby league is less dominant in the south of england is because the northern union in its infancy was run by working class people who loved the game so much they though that everyone should have the chance to play it whereas in the south which is more predominately middle and upper class was were the rfu was based. ran and backed by more richer people allowing more resources to be put into the development of rugby league in the south of the country. the reason why rugby union is more dominant in france than it is in england was because when the nazi's took control of france and created nazi occupied france and vichy france (a german controlled puppet state) vichy france was created in the south of france which was at that time a french rugby league heartland but corrupt rugby union organisers and officials saw the rise in popularity of rugby league and its rise in professionalism in france and sought to sabotage it thus telling the vichy government that professionalism was unfrench and detrimental to the new state thus the vichy government seized all assetts belonging to rugby league clubs and transferred them to union in effect killing off Professional rugby union in the south of france till when the catalans dragons joined the super league in 2006 the reason why rugby union is more popular in south africa is because all of the upper class colonials took it over when they settled in the country the reason why rugby union is more popular in the usa is because they saw union a more global game and chased the money like any sane person would new zealand there seems to be a balance but rugby union has a bit of better hold in that country and in the other rugby union ''power house'' australia rugby league is the dominant sport closely followed by AFL (australian rules football) and then rugby union and football

Rugby is played world wide. Besides the top rugby nations teams from Namibia, Uruguay, Georgia, Italy, Canada, USA to name a few all compete in the RWC. There are four pools of 5 teams in the RWC In rugby league it is Australia (east coast), NZ (Auscland area), England (the north of England) and a little in France and that is it. Rugbu league teams for their World Cup are made up of Australian and English players who have a thin connection to teams like Ireland and Scotland. The South Pacific nations would do very well if their players were allowed to compete for their countries rather than Australia and NZ. Also, as has been said, league has lost it's competitiveness. Uncontested scrums, no stealing the ball in tackles, no competing inn the "play the ball'. Games are decided on either player error or referee error as players can not compete form the ball any more. Txo, I played rugby from a state public school and two other public schools also provided a large number of first class playersn (including Wallabies) in Sydney Boys High and Matraville High School. Yes, a number of private schools play rugby but so to do a higher number of state and Catholic schools.

Not sure about Liam's analysis outside England, but I reckon he's on the right track there. Lots of people are not comfortable talking about class, but it certainly exists, and there is a definite correlation between traditional dichotomies of English class, geography, and the development of support for the two codes. On class and geography, one still can hardly do better than Orwell's reflection on Wigan (of course at the heart of League culture then, as now.) I think a fair analysis would find that there is still a substantial class correlation associated with League and Union in OZ, too. Where I think the economic analysis takes one is that with the general improvement in economics across the board (but by no means evenly) after WW II and the rise of social democracy and mass communications in England, there was a lessening of the hard-core class distinction, except in certain industrial and mining pockets in the North. Something quite similar works for OZ, too. I think that has strengthened Union, opening it ot a larger audience and making it easier to support, too. In the end, one's affection for one code or another is part of a cultural milieu that includes schooling, work (or profession), economic status, and the dominant culture in which one lives. If your school mates are from families that support League, chances are your father does too, and, if inclined toward sport, so probably will you. If authenticity is any part of one's adult persona, that persona will still tend, more or less strongly, to reflect those cultural artifacts from long ago. Mark L.

In my opinion, union is a game played by 28 fat guys watching 2 little guys kick the ball back and forth to one another. Total bore! I'm a forward and having played both codes have found that league is by far the more superior game. In league, I can get the ball 20-30 times per match whereas I'm lucky to get it 5 times in a union match. The tackling in league is outrageous as the defender has to make no attempt to wrap the player as he does in union. As an example, look up Sonny Bill Williams on youtube. The guy was an animal. While there are some big hits in union, there are far fewer that there are in league. Being an American and having played internationally in both codes, I find that Americans can relate more to league with its similarities to American football. At least in America, USA Rugby (the organization running union) has made it their mission to quash any attempt by the AMNRL (leage organization) to prosper in the US. Lastly, some folks here need to check their facts as to where league is played throughout the world. League is played on pretty much every continent and is the national sport of Papua New Guinea. The USA Tomohawks (league) are ranked 15th in the world just like in union. While this is my opinion and everyone is free to attack as they see fit, I just want to close by saying that I respect both codes, but feel that league is the superior game.

Basically rugby union has been around for 50 - 100 years more than league, when world wars 1 and 2 broke out allot of rugby union got canceled and this supposedly gave league a chance to become popular. Neither the less to say, rugby league has been professional for longer than Union, that's mainly because rugby union used to pride itself off being an ammature sport. However you say that Union is more popular in league, in Australia this is not the case, rugby league is the 2nd most popular sport in the country, with Aussie Rules being the 1st and I think Rugby Union and Cricket being 3rd n 4th. The Australian Kangaroo's are more popular and successful than the Wallabies. Hope that helped

Union has always been more popular than league especially in the south of Britain (Wales, London etc) when the RFU and even the WRU saw money making potential in Union they turned the game professional, yes there is more money because of this. With league there has always been this north vs south divide and a if you are a rugby union player you are commiting sin if you 'go north' this is viewed the same even in Wales thats why the League franchise failed in south Wales but suceeded in north Wales due to the WRU's ignorance there, the south of Britain tend to dismiss league whereas the north support it. Where rugby union is popular league isnt and the the opposite way around for the other argument. The rugby world cup is named so as more people watch union so it is the dominant sport in world rugby. Sorry about the long answer!

Maybe (and anyone correct me if I'm wrong here), given that Rugby was (and still is) traditionally an upper class type game, it would indicate why it has spread further round the world. Less of the poorer classes would have had the wherewithal to travel the world and take their game with them. Except of course in Australia, where convicts (usually of the lower class) were transported as slave labour, and where League has it's only real following outside of the British Isles? Just a theory

A one word answer to your question: Money!! Money is king. Union has more money involved because it is played globally...unlike League which is basically a local Sydney competition. Union can pull potential stars out of league when it wants to and has done on a number of occasions. So regardless of what you think of Union or League, Union will always be more superior because it is more lucrative. This basic principle of the more lucrative equals better quality can be applied to every sport and just about anything else you encounter in life!!!