Would it ever be possible for the US to host the Rugby [Union] World Cup, like FIFA did for football/soccer here in 1994? What would factors would need to be in place for that to happen?
Ya. Good point P-Celtic. I think its something that the IRB would love to happen. Let me explain. They'd love to have a tv audience and a attendance base to be able to even consider it. I actually think Canada could stage it in the future if it was 4 groups. Maybe.......
People here have a much better understanding of soccer than they do rugby union. There are the biases and the stereotypes, but in the end, millions play and watch soccer.
The US wouldn't host a RWC until rugby gets much more popular here. That being said, one way to help it along would be for some entity to come in and form a nationwide league kind of the way that the MLS was formed to become the number one league in the US. In fact, with the number of soccer-specific stadiums being built in MLS cities, the MLS could sponsor the MLR (major league rugby) and have the games player in their stadiums. Case in point: The US-Uruguay game was played in Salt Lake's new SSS which had just barely opened in October. I don't know what the attendance was, but at least a rugby game was played there before a pointy-ball game . For all intents and purposes, it looks like the MLS experiment is working for soccer in America. The same thing could possibly work for rugby. A 6 to 8 team league in places where there are already SSS would work. We could even include some teams from Canada like Vancouver and Toronto since rugby seems to be a bit more popular up there.
Since it's (currently) only 10 teams, I think it would be easier to host the Rugby League World Cup. While it might even be less popular than union here (if that's possible), it's closer to American football, so it would probably be easier for the casual viewer to pick up. From what I understand, the RL season runs spring to fall, so I wonder if some NFL owners would be interested in putting a league together using NFL stadiums, which are mostly empty prior to August/September.
I wrote to Nigel Melville and he wrote back to say that he was in discussions with some of the MLS owners about starting a pro league, but that the global financial crisis was going to put things on hold for a while.
League is not rugby! It's funny how league supporters keep saying that league would appeal to the American public more because of it's simple nature, but last I checked there were only 10 league clubs versus hundreds of high school, college and club rugby teams.
Sorry to disappoint, but I am a yank born and bred. I lived in the north of England for 7 year and the "manufactured bias" there against rugby is much greater. The bottom line is rugby is trying to take the next step in America and introducing league is only going to split the fan base, players and resources. So, you can take your attitude back to Australia where league is the preferred form of football!
I have nothing against rugby union, except that it bores me. So people shouldn't try and introduce a sport to America because it might cause fans of another sport to follow it? That's ridiculous. Was it ok for MLS to start even though that might cause people to not watch as much NFL or MLB?
That's why I called in manufactured. Theirs is cultural. Then again, the GP manages to have Sale Sharks and [formerly and in the future] Leeds Carnegie in league heartlands. The bias can't be that bad.
What do you know? Just because I am not from England or Oz doesn't mean I can't have an opinion. I am not just sitting back on my porch in America and deciding to hate league, I lived in Yorkshire, have friends who are big fans and gone to live matches. The thing that I have noticed is league fans have such chips on their shoulders about rugby. All you ever hear is rugby union is an elist sport and league is for the working class. Well, I say that is a lot of bull! Looked at Wales, New Zealand, Ireland, Samoa, Fiji, Tonga, Canada, Japan and the US. When i lived in York the local newspaper would only cover the York Knights rugby league and local TV Look North would also only cover league. The bias again rugby is big in the north of England.
Your friends are in England. They're referring to the social implications relevant to their country. Same goes for Australia. Nobody said it was an establishment sport all over the world. If they did, they're dumb. The bias against league is bigger most other places. It exists from both sides and they're both stupid.
The purists can argue ad infinitum over union and league, but I would be happy with anything other than regular american football. When your rugby union world ranking is where the US is at this moment, any type of professional rugby (union or league) would help the national team. Although there are differences in the game, they aren't big enough that a decent rugby union team could not be formed from a national professional rugby League league and vise versa. From what I have read in this thread, rugby league is the most popular form of rugby in Australia, but they field a pretty good rugby union team. FYI. The French also play rugby league (rugby a treize) , but the league is small and the teams are pretty well limited to the areas around Carcassonne/Perpignan and Avignon. Still, when a union team wants a back who can run, they will recruit someone from a rugby league team.
You cannot regularly compete in both codes. The organizing bodies would throw a fit. When one switches from one to the other, it's a pretty permanent deal. Wendell Sailor is an obvious exception, though.
You know, going by memory, there is an Aussie RL player in the USA Eagles (union) system. Sadly like a lot of USA Eagles he is an American by passport only. Yankee Rob is right RL has a bias. Go up the M1 and when you see any sign north of Nottingham you've entered League territory.