The Future of Rugby?

As we all know in the coming world cup there are only say 13 or so teams who are harbouring dreams of getting to the 1/4s and only a handful of those can realisticly win it, I am asking two questions, the first of which is who will be the next team to make the leap for tier 2 to tier 1 and start competing with these teams? Will it be a team like Japan, Goergia or Russia? Or someone else start to shine?
My second question is more interessing (to me at any rate) and is what do you see the balance of power in rugby being in 20 years at the 11th world cup in 2031? Will the the same teams dominate? Will now weak teams become strong and overtake the current big boys? Or will the answer be some were in the middle groud?
I will leave it to you, the members of 606v2

Tiers
The unions of the IRB are classified into tiers:
"High Performance" is composed of 17 unions : the participants of the Six Nations Championship (England, France, Ireland, Italy, Scotland, and Wales), the Tri-nations (Australia, New Zealand, South Africa), the Pacific Nations Cup (Fiji, Japan, Samoa, Tonga) and Argentina, Canada, Romania, and the United States.
The second tier comprises all other board members. These members include Georgia, Portugal, Russia, Morocco and Tunisia which are currently being actively funded by the IRB to achieve high performance status.


If rugby takes off in Russia then I see them being one of the dominant sides in Europe but that will not happen in the near future.
The question also needs to be asked will any of the Tier 1 nations drop down to Tier 2 is there a danger of that happening to Scotland in the next few years?
I don't see much change in the balance of power in the next 20 years the same top 10 sides will be there or there about.

[quote="Cymroglan"][b]Tiers[/b]
The unions of the IRB are classified into tiers:
"High Performance" is composed of 17 unions : the participants of the Six Nations Championship (England, France, Ireland, Italy, Scotland, and Wales), the Tri-nations (Australia, New Zealand, South Africa), the Pacific Nations Cup (Fiji, Japan, Samoa, Tonga) and Argentina, Canada, [b]Romania[/b], and the United States.
The second tier comprises all other board members. These members include Georgia, Portugal, Russia, Morocco and Tunisia which are currently being actively funded by the IRB to achieve high performance status.[quote]

I would have thought Georgia and Russia would be better then them at the moment??
The irb should invest more money in easteren europe in my opinion, its where i think rugby will boom as they have some huge people who would be suited to rugby.

Irish Curry wrote:As we all know in the coming world cup there are only say 13 or so teams who are harbouring dreams of getting to the 1/4s and only a handful of those can realisticly win it, I am asking two questions, the first of which is who will be the next team to make the leap for tier 2 to tier 1 and start competing with these teams? Will it be a team like Japan, Goergia or Russia? Or someone else start to shine?
My second question is more interessing (to me at any rate) and is what do you see the balance of power in rugby being in 20 years at the 11th world cup in 2031? Will the the same teams dominate? Will now weak teams become strong and overtake the current big boys? Or will the answer be some were in the middle groud?
I will leave it to you, the members of 606v2

1) I'll answer the questions in reverse order, all the IRB funding goes to the big established nations, the IRB invests heavily in developing the game, but not enough to pay people professionally, so they can never compete at that level. Nothing will change.

2) Some weaker nation may at some point get a freak group of players and be competitive.
Canada had a good team in 1991 to 1993 and beat Wales and France.
Romania had a good team in the 1980's and beat Wales and a few others.
Samoa had an amazing team in 1991 but all the stars got poached by New Zealand.

Sadly since the game has gone professional no team apart from Argentina in 2007 has made the grade. Most of what Italy achieved was on the back of the Amateur era, they soon fell behind again when the game went professional. Just as they got good all their players got to old and retired.

The best thing the game could do is scrap the Lions and have a European Cup instead, to give some smaller nations the chance to promote their game properly and give them an audience.
After rugby World Cups countries like Spain, and especially Germany get a lot of public interest, but those people wonder where their country is, and as their country isnt in it, they lose interest again, and your back to square one.
It needn't actually be longer than 4 weeks either, 5 games with 4 pools of 4 teams, with everyone playing 5 games would be fine. Provided you skipped to the Semis after the pool stage. with everyone in the pools going into a semi final at various stages so everyone can win something.

[quote="AlynDavies"][quote="Irish Curry"]As we all know in the coming world cup there are only say 13 or so teams who are harbouring dreams of getting to the 1/4s and only a handful of those can realisticly win it, I am asking two questions, the first of which is who will be the next team to make the leap for tier 2 to tier 1 and start competing with these teams? Will it be a team like Japan, Goergia or Russia? Or someone else start to shine?
My second question is more interessing (to me at any rate) and is what do you see the balance of power in rugby being in 20 years at the 11th world cup in 2031? Will the the same teams dominate? Will now weak teams become strong and overtake the current big boys? Or will the answer be some were in the middle groud?
I will leave it to you, the members of 606v2 [/quote]

1) I'll answer the questions in reverse order, all the IRB funding goes to the big established nations, the IRB invests heavily in developing the game, but not enough to pay people professionally, so they can never compete at that level. Nothing will change.

2) Some weaker nation may at some point get a freak group of players and be competitive.
Canada had a good team in 1991 to 1993 and beat Wales and France.
Romania had a good team in the 1980's and beat Wales and a few others.
Samoa had an amazing team in 1991 but all the stars got poached by New Zealand.

Sadly since the game has gone professional no team apart from Argentina in 2007 has made the grade. Most of what Italy achieved was on the back of the Amateur era, they soon fell behind again when the game went professional. Just as they got good all their players got to old and retired.

The best thing the game could do is scrap the Lions and have a European Cup instead, to give some smaller nations the chance to promote their game properly and give them an audience.
After rugby World Cups countries like Spain, and especially Germany get a lot of public interest, but those people wonder where their country is, and as their country isnt in it, they lose interest again, and your back to square one.
It needn't actually be longer than 4 weeks either, 5 games with 4 pools of 4 teams, with everyone playing 5 games would be fine. Provided you skipped to the Semis after the pool stage. with everyone in the pools going into a semi final at various stages so everyone can win something.[/quote]

So asuming it would be seeded the draw would be something like this,
Pot 1 : France, Ireland, England, Wales
Pot 2 : Scotland, Italy, Georgia, Russia
Pot 3 : Portugal, Spain, Romania, Germany
Pot 4 : Morocco, Tunisia...??
Those lesser teams would get hammered by the bigger teams though

I was thinking about this quite a bit over the past few days and was going to write an article on it but couldn't get the motivation to get going so thanks.

The way I was looking at it is that in 2019, rugby will be making its first step out of its comfort zone with the World Cup being staged in Japan. At that world cup, I wouldn't expect any new nations to make a play for the quarter finals just yet, though with home advantage Japan might cause a shock. What the iRB should be hoping and aiming for is that the qualifying for the World Cup becomes a tougher process with more teams realistically involved while the depth of the smaller teams in the World Cup proper field stronger depth and are competitive across all their matches in their group.

What is important in my opinion is that the Pacific Nations are kept strong. They are vital in the development of Japan, a key nation, and provide the colour and interest the World Cup needs in the group stages. Getting Tests at home from touring Northern Hemisphere sides and New Zealand or Australia would be massive fillips for these sides that would help them feel part of the rugby fraternity.

In Africa, we need to see another nation challenge Namibia. We are seeing improvement from nations like Kenya, Tunisia and Zimbabwe and it would be fantastic to see one of these countries lining out at the World Cup.

In Europe, I won't go into the old Five Nations, but Italy can still be considered a developing nation. By 2019, I would love to have seen them finish in the top 2 of the Six Nations. I would also hope that they would have 2-3 more professional sides but in what league this will happen, I'm not too sure.

Russia and Georgia are the two side most primed for growth. It would be good to see the Russian league improving to the point that they would have representation in European club competition while Georgia and Russia got more matches against top tier nations.

Raising awareness of the game and playing numbers in nations like Spain, Germany, Portugal and Belgium is important.

In the Americas, I think that it would be good by 2019 that we saw steady growth in both Canada and the USA. You hear a lot of stuff about the sport booming in the US but it would be good if we see a solid foundation consolidated with the game taken up earlier across the board.

Seeing Argentina be competitive in the Four Nations and possibly having one or two away victories would be really good.


Sevens will have made its first appearance at the Olympics and hopefully we see the value of that exposure over the next 4 years before the next Olympics in 2020. Hopefully the iRB Sevens Series sees new competitors and also some new venues like somewhere in South America, a new Asian venue and a location in continental Europe.


I think that rugby's traditions need to be kept but incorporate the changes we all see. The Lions Tour should not be gotten rid of but maybe playing Tests against Pacific Nations would be good while the return of Test Series is fantastic in my opinion, especially if there is renewal of mid week matches. Countries like Japan, Pacific Islands and the USA must receive incoming Tours though.

Although I don`t see SA dropping down the top ten list too far, the reality is that rumours are allready surfacing that quotas are going to be laid on the table next year. If they do persist with this action you may see SA dip due to the quality of quota players and the numbers that may be enforced on squads. If the participation numbers of non whites do not increase significantly it could take many years for the standard of the super teams and national team to get back up again.

But then these threats surface before and after every world cup, and is always the reality for rugby in SA

Still an inevitable watering down i see it biltong.
You could say (and im certainly not saying you are) the qoutas causing non whites who are better to miss out is a misjustice. But how many non whites have missed out since 1900 had they been given the opportinity.
How many lomus joneses shelfords nepias and dare i say it pdvs have we missed out on over the last 100 years?
the quota system is about speeding up a fix that has taken 100 years to create and im all for it.
Short term the results may suffer but if done right the fruits of SA rugby will fall well into future generations.
Thats why pdv, despite his shortcomings as a coach is truly a milestone in SA rugby. Imagine his life as s child compared to ours.
Imagine his memoirs when he gets to share them openly and with honesty in a few years.
Regardless of his results he will go down as one of the greats in SA rugby so. A true pioneer. Showing what can be possible as an example to many.

There...lunch time now.
Talk to you nearer to the match biltong.

Sadly we have no control over the politics of our country,when you consider
the horrors that befell the white farmers and Families in Rhodesia.That the British Government refused aid etc.who`s to say SA were right or wrong with apartheid.
The sadness is many Non -whites of both countries never had the chance to shine.
It was your loss you never saw the skills of the likes of Jimmy Mill,Pat Walsh,George Nepia,Johnny Smith,his ill fated brother Peter[dead at 29]etc.
in the republic.
It may be tha tPeter De Villiers is the tip of the iceberg,that he is ALREADY constrained by quotas.
It may even be that another Coloured Coach will eventualy replace him,that you now have an apartheid in reverse.
As when they tried to replace the Spring bok with the Protea,Politics in sport
stinks.Politics using Sport as a propaganda weapon More so,Bok over All Black supremacy 1976 series for example and Chris Bezen dhouit.
When a ref states after giving his side,a series deciding match says to the losers."Sorry lads,you`r going home I have to live here" says it all.
Or the cold war when sport was a propaganda tool for Soviet Bloc and Capitalism.Drugs testing it was easier to find a clean one there were so few.When governments forced individuals to cheat for political ends.
Spring bok Rugby is up there with the best, always has been,new players and coaches will come along and adapt.
Post RWC laws involving Breakdown/.tackle area,offside,and Scrummage will certainly be looked at.
What was a fairly simple process,has been made over complex by constant tampering with them.
The breaktrough from tier 2 to tier1 has occurred with Australia emerging when pro era started[instead of being a mini-tours for Boks,ABs and Lions,France,more recently Italy,and with the 4Ns Argentina but they have been there or there about for years.
There was a European league including the likes Romania,Spain, Italy,France played regularly.
Expansion of The Pacific Islands ,with more tours of tier 1 sides ,plus maybe suggested discarded Australian/All Blacks players being available to them.
Japan at club level has been a pension fund for SH players and coaches for years .a t last are progresing
Canada/USA not really changing much there native sports still being paramount.
Whatever happened to Uruguay they had tours from the Boks.who were the South American Jaguars.?
4Ns and 6Ns Rugby will stay more or less the same but RWCs or qualiyfing for them will become more difficult as more countries join.

That's right Alan but point is we do have control of our politics. Politics and people go hand in hand as do the choices we make.

South Africa was able to end its silly regime purely because of the actions of people both in SA and abroad with groups like HART and CARE as well as the multitude of sanctions applied. In the end whats logical and fair comes to the front anyway, in the end. Its how we get there that matters. Quotas are just about speeding the process up.

[quote="MBTGOG"]I was thinking about this quite a bit over the past few days and was going to write an article on it but couldn't get the motivation to get going so thanks.[/quote]

Ah great minds think alike

Irish Curry wrote:

MBTGOG wrote:I was thinking about this quite a bit over the past few days and was going to write an article on it but couldn't get the motivation to get going so thanks.

Ah great minds think alike

More importantly, what do you think of what I wrote?

[quote="MBTGOG"][quote="Irish Curry"][quote="MBTGOG"]I was thinking about this quite a bit over the past few days and was going to write an article on it but couldn't get the motivation to get going so thanks.[/quote]

Ah great minds think alike [/quote]

More importantly, what do you think of what I wrote?

[/quote]

You made good points and i think the more rugby gets out of its comfert mode the more it will grow. The 2023 and 2027 world cups could be key as to where there are played places like the US, Canada or Italy come to mind.
Maybe the 2023 wc in Italy with a few matchs in Germany or elsewhere and maybe in 2027 joint hosts with the US and Canada.
This is what soccer did and rugby must do the same.

I think we need to be realistic about the RWC traveling around developing the game.
The IRB gets its money from the RWC. That's the argument for not having it in NZ again.
How much will it make in Japan? We will see. But if it can't earn a decent profit in Japan which has played rugby for sometimes how much could it make in the USA.
I think the mid to long term future is for it to bounce back and forth between UK, France, Aust and SA.

May be in 50 years time when those big Chinese players (think Yao Ming) start taking it seriously it might go back to Asia.

MBTGOG
I think you comment that it would be a massive fillip for the Pacific nations to play tests at home against New Zealand is totally misguided or naive, it has been proven that what these nations need is money,By holding tests in New Zealand especially in Auckland is far more viable,Ticket price and volume of ticket sales etc etc....The proceeds are then given to the particular Island union and everyone wins.its these proceeds that are the Massive fillip.
The Polynesians in Auckland definitely support rugby in a very big way,perhaps proof of this is the fact that the second game to sell out in this years World cup was the samoa v South Africa game,and only after the Final....
Perhaps a bit of understanding from IRB member countries outside of Australasia would be a bit of a fillip too.....

I would say the countries that look capable of making a step up are Argentina, Italy and Russia.

aucklandlaurie wrote: MBTGOG
I think you comment that it would be a massive fillip for the Pacific nations to play tests at home against New Zealand is totally misguided or naive, it has been proven that what these nations need is money,By holding tests in New Zealand especially in Auckland is far more viable,Ticket price and volume of ticket sales etc etc....The proceeds are then given to the particular Island union and everyone wins.its these proceeds that are the Massive fillip.
The Polynesians in Auckland definitely support rugby in a very big way,perhaps proof of this is the fact that the second game to sell out in this years World cup was the samoa v South Africa game,and only after the Final....
Perhaps a bit of understanding from IRB member countries outside of Australasia would be a bit of a fillip too.....

Well then, why don't New Zealand organise more of those games rather than picking Fiji as a last minute team to fill in for a fundraiser. Also, I talked about those games being played on the Islands, not for the financial aspect but rather to feel part of the rugby community.

A good article. Sadly, for the next say 5/10 years, I don't think much will change in terms of which teams are competitve. The way the funding and irb voting works means that the status quo will remain (I think anyway).

But I think the teams which should break through will be Georgia, Russia and Japan. Having the world cup in Japan in particular will be a huge boost for them and I hope that a surge in popularity that it causes will get Japan into the top 10.

I think Samoa and Fiji will always be pushing for the top ten but are they realistically ever going to get enough funding to be regularly beating the established teams? I think we all would like them to do it but it will be hard, particularly if the economic migration continues to Australia and New Zealand.

I know Rhodesia/Zim was mentioned above, they were in the first couple of world cups and you do have to wonder if they would at least be better than Namibia if it wasnt for the issues in the country. A team with hypothetically Pocock, Beast, Mujati and Chavanga in would be fairly handy I would think?

Rather than having any grand ambitions to expand the game i just hope it doesn't contract in the next 20 or so years.

If you look at Cricket, which has a very strong parellel with rugby in terms of its British empire roots and comparable global spread, the interest in the game has waned in the West Indies thanks largely to growth of American sports. Could the same thing happen with Rugby in established countries?

Virtualy all governing bodies be it NFL, FIFA, MLB or the IRB talk about growing their respective games, not everyone will be successful though because of the finite time and money people can allocate to playing and following sport.

I don't think myself that Fiji or Samoa will ever be a consistent presence in the top 10 but keeping them strong is very important for the game as it raises the teams below them but also keeps the teams above them from getting complacent.

Zimbabwe are growing again and I think over the next 10-15 years will become a stronger nation unless more troubles in the country screw it all up.

Islingtonv2 wrote:Rather than having any grand ambitions to expand the game i just hope it doesn't contract in the next 20 or so years.

If you look at Cricket, which has a very strong parellel with rugby in terms of its British empire roots and comparable global spread, the interest in the game has waned in the West Indies thanks largely to growth of American sports. Could the same thing happen with Rugby in established countries?

Virtualy all governing bodies be it NFL, FIFA, MLB or the IRB talk about growing their respective games, not everyone will be successful though because of the finite time and money people can allocate to playing and following sport.

Interesting but the point of cricket is different in that there is no major side that is outside the old commonwealth whereas in rugby, we have sides like France and Argentina who are provide very different cultures.

Also, when small teams do well, we don't just kick them out of the next tournament, like the ICC did to Ireland recently. Also, look at all the different sides in Sevens.

I think rugby is more popular globally than cricket so I hope it will be able to hold onto its fans.

The sevens is an interesting point in that teams like Kenya do far better than they ever would in 15's and with sevens in the Olympics it likely that the 'lesser' rugby nations are going to continue to improve there. But how is the success of sevens going to translate into competing at the top level? It is hard to see how it going to happen unless rugby becomes professional in more countries.

MBTGOG wrote:

Islingtonv2 wrote:Rather than having any grand ambitions to expand the game i just hope it doesn't contract in the next 20 or so years.

If you look at Cricket, which has a very strong parellel with rugby in terms of its British empire roots and comparable global spread, the interest in the game has waned in the West Indies thanks largely to growth of American sports. Could the same thing happen with Rugby in established countries?

Virtualy all governing bodies be it NFL, FIFA, MLB or the IRB talk about growing their respective games, not everyone will be successful though because of the finite time and money people can allocate to playing and following sport.

Interesting but the point of cricket is different in that there is no major side that is outside the old commonwealth whereas in rugby, we have sides like France and Argentina who are provide very different cultures.

Also, when small teams do well, we don't just kick them out of the next tournament, like the ICC did to Ireland recently. Also, look at all the different sides in Sevens.

Rugby certainly has an advantage with Sevens being a gateway for small nations i grant you. Btw the ICC saw the error of their ways and have now amended the format for the next world cup.

But my point is that there is such huge competition globally with virtually every major sport having some sort of expansion ambitions. Modern media exposure means the growing middle classes in developing countries such as China, Brazil etc can watch virtually any sport they like through their idiot box. Compare Rugby to the NFL for example. Rugby is more complex to follow, is not backed by the glitz of an American TV production, offers less financial reward and is not linked to American youth culture which is so appealing globally. Which do you think will win out?

Bathman_in_London wrote:I think rugby is more popular globally than cricket so I hope it will be able to hold onto its fans.

The sevens is an interesting point in that teams like Kenya do far better than they ever would in 15's and with sevens in the Olympics it likely that the 'lesser' rugby nations are going to continue to improve there. But how is the success of sevens going to translate into competing at the top level? It is hard to see how it going to happen unless rugby becomes professional in more countries.

What is the basis for that statement? Cricket was like a religion in the West Indies only 20 years ago but has now been completely erroded. I hope the IRB are not so complacent about their core market.

Islingtonv2 wrote:

MBTGOG wrote:

Islingtonv2 wrote:Rather than having any grand ambitions to expand the game i just hope it doesn't contract in the next 20 or so years.

If you look at Cricket, which has a very strong parellel with rugby in terms of its British empire roots and comparable global spread, the interest in the game has waned in the West Indies thanks largely to growth of American sports. Could the same thing happen with Rugby in established countries?

Virtualy all governing bodies be it NFL, FIFA, MLB or the IRB talk about growing their respective games, not everyone will be successful though because of the finite time and money people can allocate to playing and following sport.

Interesting but the point of cricket is different in that there is no major side that is outside the old commonwealth whereas in rugby, we have sides like France and Argentina who are provide very different cultures.

Also, when small teams do well, we don't just kick them out of the next tournament, like the ICC did to Ireland recently. Also, look at all the different sides in Sevens.

Rugby certainly has an advantage with Sevens being a gateway for small nations i grant you. Btw the ICC saw the error of their ways and have now amended the format for the next world cup.

But my point is that there is such huge competition globally with virtually every major sport having some sort of expansion ambitions. Modern media exposure means the growing middle classes in developing countries such as China, Brazil etc can watch virtually any sport they like through their idiot box. Compare Rugby to the NFL for example. Rugby is more complex to follow, is not backed by the glitz of an American TV production, offers less financial reward and is not linked to American youth culture which is so appealing globally. Which do you think will win out?

Rugby, because it markets itself as a world sport where as the NFL will always be an American sport.

MBTGOG wrote:

Islingtonv2 wrote:

MBTGOG wrote:

Islingtonv2 wrote:Rather than having any grand ambitions to expand the game i just hope it doesn't contract in the next 20 or so years.

If you look at Cricket, which has a very strong parellel with rugby in terms of its British empire roots and comparable global spread, the interest in the game has waned in the West Indies thanks largely to growth of American sports. Could the same thing happen with Rugby in established countries?

Virtualy all governing bodies be it NFL, FIFA, MLB or the IRB talk about growing their respective games, not everyone will be successful though because of the finite time and money people can allocate to playing and following sport.

Interesting but the point of cricket is different in that there is no major side that is outside the old commonwealth whereas in rugby, we have sides like France and Argentina who are provide very different cultures.

Also, when small teams do well, we don't just kick them out of the next tournament, like the ICC did to Ireland recently. Also, look at all the different sides in Sevens.

Rugby certainly has an advantage with Sevens being a gateway for small nations i grant you. Btw the ICC saw the error of their ways and have now amended the format for the next world cup.

But my point is that there is such huge competition globally with virtually every major sport having some sort of expansion ambitions. Modern media exposure means the growing middle classes in developing countries such as China, Brazil etc can watch virtually any sport they like through their idiot box. Compare Rugby to the NFL for example. Rugby is more complex to follow, is not backed by the glitz of an American TV production, offers less financial reward and is not linked to American youth culture which is so appealing globally. Which do you think will win out?

Rugby, because it markets itself as a world sport where as the NFL will always be an American sport.

I hope you are right but i have my doubts, lets compare notes in 30 years.

Bathman_in_London wrote:I think rugby is more popular globally than cricket so I hope it will be able to hold onto its fans.

The sevens is an interesting point in that teams like Kenya do far better than they ever would in 15's and with sevens in the Olympics it likely that the 'lesser' rugby nations are going to continue to improve there. But how is the success of sevens going to translate into competing at the top level? It is hard to see how it going to happen unless rugby becomes professional in more countries.

I think there will always be teams that will do better in 7s than the full game but the 7s is the showpiece. People will be interested in it and want to try it out. By trying it out, they will have to play the full game. There is not enough 7s rugby throughout the year to just play that, not professionally anyway.

Islingtonv2 wrote:

MBTGOG wrote:

Islingtonv2 wrote:

MBTGOG wrote:

Islingtonv2 wrote:Rather than having any grand ambitions to expand the game i just hope it doesn't contract in the next 20 or so years.

If you look at Cricket, which has a very strong parellel with rugby in terms of its British empire roots and comparable global spread, the interest in the game has waned in the West Indies thanks largely to growth of American sports. Could the same thing happen with Rugby in established countries?

Virtualy all governing bodies be it NFL, FIFA, MLB or the IRB talk about growing their respective games, not everyone will be successful though because of the finite time and money people can allocate to playing and following sport.

Interesting but the point of cricket is different in that there is no major side that is outside the old commonwealth whereas in rugby, we have sides like France and Argentina who are provide very different cultures.

Also, when small teams do well, we don't just kick them out of the next tournament, like the ICC did to Ireland recently. Also, look at all the different sides in Sevens.

Rugby certainly has an advantage with Sevens being a gateway for small nations i grant you. Btw the ICC saw the error of their ways and have now amended the format for the next world cup.

But my point is that there is such huge competition globally with virtually every major sport having some sort of expansion ambitions. Modern media exposure means the growing middle classes in developing countries such as China, Brazil etc can watch virtually any sport they like through their idiot box. Compare Rugby to the NFL for example. Rugby is more complex to follow, is not backed by the glitz of an American TV production, offers less financial reward and is not linked to American youth culture which is so appealing globally. Which do you think will win out?

Rugby, because it markets itself as a world sport where as the NFL will always be an American sport.

I hope you are right but i have my doubts, lets compare notes in 30 years.

No problem. American football will always have a higher profile, but they have no real interest in making it a sport outside of America. They just want to sell their merchandise in a bigger market.

Basketball is the sport we should be wary of. In my opinion, that is the world's second largest team sport.

[quote="MBTGOG"]

Basketball is the sport we should be wary of. In my opinion, that is the world's second largest team sport.

[/quote]

I'm not sure about that I mean its a very differrent skills base to rugby. As for American football I think the players who dont make the grade for the NFL would be perfect for rugby and efforts should be made to try and get them to play rugby.