US setting up a pro league this summer

Reports are in that the US beings trialling 600 athletes who have just missed out on the NFL and Canadian Football, or have been dropped after a year. Henry Paul is involved. I think that 30 players will go on to be included in a team connected with existing US pro players and will play a home and away game against an English premiership side. The idea is to utilise the NFL stadiums in the off season.

Could fail. Could go well. If it does go anywhere near well, I'm guessing the IRB, and certain clubs will pay the price for a lack of strategic structure in the game. Your thoughts.

If the Americans ever take rugby union seriously then they would quickly become one of the best sides in the world, I have never understood why they have not done it yet though. The game is tailer made for the Americans, high scoring and physical, but I suppose they would want it played in quarters instead of two halves so they could fir more adverts in.

LordDowlais wrote:If the Americans ever take rugby union seriously then they would quickly become one of the best sides in the world, I have never understood why they have not done it yet though. The game is tailer made for the Americans, high scoring and physical, but I suppose they would want it played in quarters instead of two halves so they could fir more adverts in.

I dunno. At the moment 2 of their backrow players - John Quill and Liam Og Murphy - couldn't make it into the Munster academy. A winger with blinding pace is no good if he can't pass, can't kick, has poor positional sense and can't tackle.

They can match anyone for strength, physicality and fitness. When it comes to defensive structures and tactical awareness they're quite some way off the top 10.

The Saint wrote:They can match anyone for strength, physicality and fitness. When it comes to defensive structures and tactical awareness they're quite some way off the top 10.

All they need to do is pay top dollar for some of the best coaches from around the world and then theyr'e there.

600 NFL converts is all well and good, and they will be full of natural talent, but they'll need to build their squads around some experienced rugby players too. If they could tempt the likes of Ngwenya and their other overseas players back, and give contracts to the best of their current amateurs then supplement that with converts from other sports then it might work out

But are they actually setting up a league or is it just one team playing one English team home and away?

There have been rugby teams/clubs in the US for years. American/Grid Iron football evolved from Rugby. The reason that Rugby has not taken off in the states, is simply the fact it is not seen as a commercial sport. The American psychie is all about money and capitalism, if you can make millions (probably billions now) from the sport then it is a past time and not worth it. Therefore there is no coverage, and therefore extremly little support, hence no revenue stream, hence no following, hence..... a vicious circle.

To my knowledge, the Rugby World Cup is only covered by small broadcasters and not the networks.

I cant see a time where rugby will overtake other maintstream sports in the US, well not in my lifetime.

It won't takeover, but it could have a place among all the other sports that the yanks participate in. They certainly have enough people and athletes. Though should it ever get as big as NFL then we may see another super power consistently ranked No.1.

sirBiggles wrote:There have been rugby teams/clubs in the US for years. American/Grid Iron football evolved from Rugby. The reason that Rugby has not taken off in the states, is simply the fact it is not seen as a commercial sport. The American psychie is all about money and capitalism, if you can make millions (probably billions now) from the sport then it is a past time and not worth it. Therefore there is no coverage, and therefore extremly little support, hence no revenue stream, hence no following, hence..... a vicious circle.

To my knowledge, the Rugby World Cup is only covered by small broadcasters and not the networks.

I cant see a time where rugby will overtake other maintstream sports in the US, well not in my lifetime.

Well all that might be true Biggles...but America is big enough to cater for a fringe sport (in American terms) and still compete at the highest level if they actually get serious within that small fringe movement. If they got serious, they would soon have enough talent to make many mid-top 10 ranking sides sweat. With actual success against big sides in big contests (WC) then the interest might grow through greater numbers of that large population. But for now, they could still do damage as they are if they really knuckled down and pulled in some good coaching talent.

That, and Rugby union uses a much different energy system than American football. It's all well and good being 6ft 8, 130 Kg and being able to sprint 100m in 11 seconds, but if you can't last the pace of a test match then you're out of luck.

Funny - I am not optimistic but... considering the crowds they get in the american football stadia for just college games you cant help thinking that if they could get even a fraction of those people through the door things could pick up very quickly.

Good luck to them

SecretFly wrote:

sirBiggles wrote:There have been rugby teams/clubs in the US for years. American/Grid Iron football evolved from Rugby. The reason that Rugby has not taken off in the states, is simply the fact it is not seen as a commercial sport. The American psychie is all about money and capitalism, if you can make millions (probably billions now) from the sport then it is a past time and not worth it. Therefore there is no coverage, and therefore extremly little support, hence no revenue stream, hence no following, hence..... a vicious circle.

To my knowledge, the Rugby World Cup is only covered by small broadcasters and not the networks.

I cant see a time where rugby will overtake other maintstream sports in the US, well not in my lifetime.

Well all that might be true Biggles...but America is big enough to cater for a fringe sport (in American terms) and still compete at the highest level if they actually get serious within that small fringe movement. If they got serious, they would soon have enough talent to make many mid-top 10 ranking sides sweat. With actual success against big sides in big contests (WC) then the interest might grow through greater numbers of that large population. But for now, they could still do damage as they are if they really knuckled down and pulled in some good coaching talent.

I think you'd be surprised how long it will take for the USA to catch up, even if they invested 2 billion right now they wouldn't spend it in the right areas, the infrastructure would be topsy turvy as they would need immediate recoup, and the league/nation would be stagnent for a while.

With regards to fringe sports, the football market has become pretty big, MLS has superstars from south America and europe, and there are a certain few teams who have become very marketable. However their international side fails to make any sort of impact at tournaments, and they lack any sort of death. Any rugby league would emulate the MLS structure in which they would need to trial the league for a few years, prove popularity, build on that success, and if/when the league became marketable to a point where millions of dollars were involved every day then install an infrstructure in which talent could be produced on a regular enough basis to make any sort of impact on the world stage.

As it stands they are poaching athletes from the NFL and converting them into physical specemins who have a very limited skillset.

We always talk about the top 2 inches in international rugby, well physicality and athletisism will get you to within a foot of those 2 inches, that extra foot has to come from intrinsic ability, and lifetime dedication to the sport, which they don't have any view to getting anywhere near right now.

I think sometimes we all forget how much time, effort and heritage goes into our simplistic looking sport, we have developed our teams over decades, and it isn't as easy as throwing money at the sport to catch us up

"If the Americans ever take rugby union seriously then they would quickly become one of the best sides in the world"

Not sure about that, but imagine if Germany took rugby seriously!!!!!

This has NFL support. The plan is to use Eastern franchises to base the teams, the matches to be played during the NFL off season and shown on the NFL TV channel, they are trying to make use of the infrastructure that is already there. This IMSHO makes a lot of sense. It would not be competing against NFL but more as a supplement to it

thebluesmancometh wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

sirBiggles wrote:There have been rugby teams/clubs in the US for years. American/Grid Iron football evolved from Rugby. The reason that Rugby has not taken off in the states, is simply the fact it is not seen as a commercial sport. The American psychie is all about money and capitalism, if you can make millions (probably billions now) from the sport then it is a past time and not worth it. Therefore there is no coverage, and therefore extremly little support, hence no revenue stream, hence no following, hence..... a vicious circle.

To my knowledge, the Rugby World Cup is only covered by small broadcasters and not the networks.

I cant see a time where rugby will overtake other maintstream sports in the US, well not in my lifetime.

Well all that might be true Biggles...but America is big enough to cater for a fringe sport (in American terms) and still compete at the highest level if they actually get serious within that small fringe movement. If they got serious, they would soon have enough talent to make many mid-top 10 ranking sides sweat. With actual success against big sides in big contests (WC) then the interest might grow through greater numbers of that large population. But for now, they could still do damage as they are if they really knuckled down and pulled in some good coaching talent.

I think you'd be surprised how long it will take for the USA to catch up, even if they invested 2 billion right now they wouldn't spend it in the right areas, the infrastructure would be topsy turvy as they would need immediate recoup, and the league/nation would be stagnent for a while.

With regards to fringe sports, the football market has become pretty big, MLS has superstars from south America and europe, and there are a certain few teams who have become very marketable. However their international side fails to make any sort of impact at tournaments, and they lack any sort of death.

I wouldn't be surprised by anything, blues. Either in it taking less time or longer time. We all follow patterns too often when trying to assess the future. That didn't happen there so it couldn't happen in the other place. Life happens outside the predictions sometimes or else betting wouldn't work.

The football market in America IS pretty big and the American team is 29th in the world ranking. Rugby isn't nearly so big or organised and their National team is 16th in the world. Higher than Russia, Georgia, Romania, Spain and Portugal, some of the nations mentioned during the HC debates as strong enough to be joined to an improved European club competition.

So that's America without the serious infrastructure and only now thinking of a serious league. America is big enough and has enough resources in people and prospective sponsors to attract serious attention from world renowned coaches if they want to get serious about their rugby..within the confines of their limited fringe audience. It might take decades... I won't be surprised if it doesn't.

Its worth noting too that the IRB are pumping a load of money into the USA, Russia and other big countries.


Personally I'd prefer to see them pump more money into European countries like Belgium, Germany, Holland, Spain etc and get that ball rolling.

have u seen the size of the American football players and they can run too . if they had a professional league then they be serious competition . any one remember a guy called the refrigerater .he was so big players would freeze when he ran at them

theres an intresting bit in this link
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-14725789

Comparing American Footballers to rugby players
American footballers are on average bigger and stronger ( I wonder would they pass rugby drug testing?)

But average distance covered in a game:
American football 0.19 miles
Rugby 4.35 miles

Thats where a lot of the converts would really need to focus their fitness traning, out of the gym and onto the running track.

A pro league would be intresting, Esp if we could introduce the top teams into a Northern Hemp cup, after all we are in talks about changing the H-cup, if Canada did somrthing similar why not, maybe they would be Almin level at first?

The professional league they are looking to set up looks like it is going to be six clubs on the Eastern Sea Board. I don't know how American sport works, would they play each other once home and away or multiple times? Can't see them making enough ticket sales based on 5 home games.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2013/may/11/us-rugby-union-professional-league-nfl

In this view, the planned six-team league in NFL stadiums along the East Coast needs to be privately-run: capitalism, not the Corinthian spirit, is the way to grow a sport. Governing bodies lack the ambition, energy, international focus and business intelligence to expand leagues; look at how rapidly the Premier League developed in England after the Football Association and Football League were essentially outmanoeuvered by the clubs.

So it could eventually be like the NFL...with east coast groups, west, north south etc...and play a few finals...

I think USA could be very good at it if they took it seriously why not? Physically they'll be more than prepared...ability wise ...again with training why not...

Oh and Victor, i think you'll find Germany will start improving soon...thats one country in Europe that could really make a mark on the game...and ive expected it for some time.

People are missing the point. Rugby is all about getting the balance right.

Players have to be big but if they're too big they won't be able to cover as much ground.
If they're too tall they will be at a disadvantage in rucks etc with having a higher center of gravity.
If their center of gravity is very low then they might be disadvantaged in terms of mobility or size.
If they're too light they'll lose the collisions.


The average weight of most international packs is roughly the same, just under 900kgs. Sometimes packs will be heavier, sometimes lighter depending on the gameplan. It doesn't vary much.


Looking at the average height of a rugby team I guess its about 6ft 2 or 3 inches. Not exactly giants. Any town or village in the leading rugby playing countries would be able to put out a bigger team.


Rugby players are far closer to normal size than American footballers because American footballers have to just specialise in 1 thing while rugby players have to be good all rounders.


I've just described the physical ability of players. I have not touched on skill, reading of the game, being tactically aware, being good decision makers etc. They're all areas the USA need to work on on top of finding the best balanced athletes.

The US need to get all their overseas players playing for them first of all. The likes of Manoa only has 1 cap.

Then they need to sort out their scrum because that is a major weakness for them.

SecretFly wrote:

thebluesmancometh wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

sirBiggles wrote:There have been rugby teams/clubs in the US for years. American/Grid Iron football evolved from Rugby. The reason that Rugby has not taken off in the states, is simply the fact it is not seen as a commercial sport. The American psychie is all about money and capitalism, if you can make millions (probably billions now) from the sport then it is a past time and not worth it. Therefore there is no coverage, and therefore extremly little support, hence no revenue stream, hence no following, hence..... a vicious circle.

To my knowledge, the Rugby World Cup is only covered by small broadcasters and not the networks.

I cant see a time where rugby will overtake other maintstream sports in the US, well not in my lifetime.

Well all that might be true Biggles...but America is big enough to cater for a fringe sport (in American terms) and still compete at the highest level if they actually get serious within that small fringe movement. If they got serious, they would soon have enough talent to make many mid-top 10 ranking sides sweat. With actual success against big sides in big contests (WC) then the interest might grow through greater numbers of that large population. But for now, they could still do damage as they are if they really knuckled down and pulled in some good coaching talent.

I think you'd be surprised how long it will take for the USA to catch up, even if they invested 2 billion right now they wouldn't spend it in the right areas, the infrastructure would be topsy turvy as they would need immediate recoup, and the league/nation would be stagnent for a while.

With regards to fringe sports, the football market has become pretty big, MLS has superstars from south America and europe, and there are a certain few teams who have become very marketable. However their international side fails to make any sort of impact at tournaments, and they lack any sort of death.

I wouldn't be surprised by anything, blues. Either in it taking less time or longer time. We all follow patterns too often when trying to assess the future. That didn't happen there so it couldn't happen in the other place. Life happens outside the predictions sometimes or else betting wouldn't work.

The football market in America IS pretty big and the American team is 29th in the world ranking. Rugby isn't nearly so big or organised and their National team is 16th in the world. Higher than Russia, Georgia, Romania, Spain and Portugal, some of the nations mentioned during the HC debates as strong enough to be joined to an improved European club competition.

So that's America without the serious infrastructure and only now thinking of a serious league. America is big enough and has enough resources in people and prospective sponsors to attract serious attention from world renowned coaches if they want to get serious about their rugby..within the confines of their limited fringe audience. It might take decades... I won't be surprised if it doesn't.

So basically your half expecting the Japanese t become world leaders in the next few years?

My point is if theres no appetite for the sport then there is no league, before the junior systems, academies and infrastructure can be brought in (as it's a risk to think about it before there is an audience) a potential league will need big money, big signings and to ignite the masses into becoming an audience... the MLS is the exact same thing a rugby league would be, how many years has the MLS been going, based around semi pro europeans, students and south Americans? The MLS is now only worth the TV audience, with big name signings and still the Americans can't produce enough talent in a sport with such huge money, such massive research and science and with so many succesfull established models all over the world to emulate. The MLS doesn't have any focus on talent development to a degree where they can challenge on any stage, what makes you think what they do with rugby would be any more succesfull or have any more focus placed on development as opposed to circu style entertainment?

LordDowlais wrote:If the Americans ever take rugby union seriously then they would quickly become one of the best sides in the world, I have never understood why they have not done it yet though. The game is tailer made for the Americans, high scoring and physical, but I suppose they would want it played in quarters instead of two halves so they could fir more adverts in.

Simple. It's not one of "their" sports.

Well neither are their current big 4. They just took rugby, rounders, netball and hockey and re branded them with their own spin.

I'd love to see the US turn pro at rugby.

GeordieFalcon wrote:So it could eventually be like the NFL...with east coast groups, west, north south etc...and play a few finals...

I think USA could be very good at it if they took it seriously why not? Physically they'll be more than prepared...ability wise ...again with training why not...

Oh and Victor, i think you'll find Germany will start improving soon...thats one country in Europe that could really make a mark on the game...and ive expected it for some time.

Why Germania?

Can't really comment on the yanks but I was out in Canada for a tournament a couple of years ago so got to see the developing game there. Most of the bigger towns all seem to have clubs now but there has been for many years without a massive amount of progression in standards, participation etc.

Although there were quite a few folk talking about that a lot of the schools / colleges / unis etc were all adopting rugby, one or two were even saying that the changes were replacing American Football on the curriculum.

This surprised me at first but it makes sense from a funding perspective.... it costs $1, 000s per uniform for AF. It costs a plastic whistle and a bag of oranges for rugby.

Would be interested to see if anything evercomes of it. Suddenly you might find Canada churning out top players.

The Saint wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:So it could eventually be like the NFL...with east coast groups, west, north south etc...and play a few finals...

I think USA could be very good at it if they took it seriously why not? Physically they'll be more than prepared...ability wise ...again with training why not...

Oh and Victor, i think you'll find Germany will start improving soon...thats one country in Europe that could really make a mark on the game...and ive expected it for some time.

Why Germania?

They would be constantly thinking up new strategies and ideas.

You're right there Metal Tiger. Around cities in Alberta (such as Calgary and Edmonton) there are a lot of folk who love rugby and have played for many years. I also found there were a fair few UK expats over there too, all playing rugby with the Canadians.
Is it worth pointing out that Canada and USA play fairly well on the Sevens circuit? That could also be a good development tool for them.

thebluesmancometh wrote:

So basically your half expecting the Japanese t become world leaders in the next few years?

My point is if theres no appetite for the sport then there is no league, before the junior systems, academies and infrastructure can be brought in (as it's a risk to think about it before there is an audience) a potential league will need big money, big signings and to ignite the masses into becoming an audience... the MLS is the exact same thing a rugby league would be, how many years has the MLS been going, based around semi pro europeans, students and south Americans? The MLS is now only worth the TV audience, with big name signings and still the Americans can't produce enough talent in a sport with such huge money, such massive research and science and with so many succesfull established models all over the world to emulate. The MLS doesn't have any focus on talent development to a degree where they can challenge on any stage, what makes you think what they do with rugby would be any more succesfull or have any more focus placed on development as opposed to circu style entertainment?

You'll find no mention of Japan in my earlier comments, blues. If you want to counter my points, use the points I made as reference, it'll prevent us going down needless channels. The topic of American rugby and it's potential has all the ingredients it needs within its own borders. Japan have their Top League since 2003 and are still just above America on the International front. So to re-emphasise, they (USA) ain't doing too badly without a proper professional League structure.
They do have far more registered players than most smaller European rugby unions, they do have far more clubs than most European Nations, they have more senior male players than the smaller European nations, they have more teen male players than Wales and not much less than Ireland and France.
You can debate quality of all those categories,and I'm sure you will...but if you carry on the averages of participation and join them to averages of a audience that might want to watch, then it's pretty clear to me that America could tap into a sustainable audience for any fledgling league. Certainly as big a audience as Scotland, Italy and Wales can call on at present.

It doesn't have to be the star attraction league in America to grow enough to threaten some comfortable mid-ranking top ten Rugby sides. A beginning is a beginning and they have the raw materials in participants, potential audience and potentially less limited funding streams than we might worry about in cash-strapped Europe.

Plus, rugby isn't as alien to the American male as 'fancy boy' football is. American males already have a major grounding in a similar physical sport - rather like GAA players having more of an aptitude for rugby as a follow on sport than football. Football is still trying to grow out of its soft 'soccer mom', girl's game image. No comparison is accurate in sizing up the potential of rugby in relation to football. No comparison is needed as they are two completely different sports, appealing to different sporting instincts.

The Saint wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:So it could eventually be like the NFL...with east coast groups, west, north south etc...and play a few finals...

I think USA could be very good at it if they took it seriously why not? Physically they'll be more than prepared...ability wise ...again with training why not...

Oh and Victor, i think you'll find Germany will start improving soon...thats one country in Europe that could really make a mark on the game...and ive expected it for some time.

Why Germania?

The Dutch could be pretty effective too, they have a similar gene bank to the South Africans and are huge they're also a very healthy nation, walking around the streets of dutch cities you see very few fat people. There's also a lot of enthusiasm amongst a minority, I thought I was about to be mugged by a huge Dutch man it turned out he was very excited by by Harlequins shirt and ended up spending rather a lot of time discussing their rugby with me.

Rugby is a fourth cousin twice removed from Footy and Hockey in Holland add Germany to that

So Henry Paul is setting up an American based Barbarians team, meanwhile weve had another thread running for the last couple of days discussing "Do the Barbarians have a place in modern rugby?"

Saint,

I think Germany, because they are efficient, have the physical attributes and they have the mental attitude of winners in pretty much every sport they take up. Very much like the Aussies they are just so competitive and have that drive to win.

As for the Dutch...they're officially the tallest race in the world...so god help the lineouts....

The game has been growing in the USA for years, they have 457,983 registered players, out of these 50,211 are adult males.

The problem like everything else is simply money, they don't have the infrastructure at the moment. In fact it's fair to say USA rugby has probably gone down hill in recent years. How many USA international players can anyone think of that are playing professionally?

There is interest in rugby in the USA because it's an olympic sport now, the Americans will take it seriously.

Shifty wrote:The game has been growing in the USA for years, they have 457,983 registered players, out of these 50,211 are adult males.

The problem like everything else is simply money, they don't have the infrastructure at the moment. In fact it's fair to say USA rugby has probably gone down hill in recent years. How many USA international players can anyone think of that are playing professionally?

There is interest in rugby in the USA because it's an olympic sport now, the Americans will take it seriously.

The players I can think of, off the top of my head are: Manoa, Ngwynya, Wyles, Chris Billar, Clever and LaValla. Also sounds like Isles is getting a contract in France.

I'm afraid the US have the same problem as most other lower tier nations (especially the likes of Fiji and Tonga) in that they can't get their best players playing for them regularly. If they could field the players listed there, regularly they would have a competitive team.

Hmm a bit of unnecessary pessimism here. You don't have to have a big player base or a pro league to be in the top 12. Look at Tonga, Samoa and Fiji.

It's about desire and raw talent, they have the latter in spades.

Postponed for a year.Would rather get it right than rush it.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2013/jun/05/us-professional-rugby-union-london-irish

i see that. Good call on their behalf. Interesting though is that they want a competitive league with teams on a par with top European clubs. That means getting in foreign players. My guess is they will look at foriegn players, league players and American/Canadian football players.

From their persepective it can be a very minor game in the US and still be able to attract the top players in the world. they already have the infrastructure. They have time (the NFL season is short) and opportunity (the NFL only has franchises in 20-30 cities). They have a player resource they can develop. Foreign players are relatively cheap (even Dan Carter is cheap by US standards) and Market is made up of very small commercial enterprises with tiny budgets (i.e. European clubs and SH provinces). It might amount to nothing.

Interesting to see if it takes off. One thing is sure it might force the IRB to actually set up a decent sustainable structure, including a global season.

Well, I think we know at least one American Football player who won't be playing Rugby:
http://tracking.si.com/2013/05/24/rams-sign-400-pound-lineman/?xid=ob_blogs

SecretFly wrote:

thebluesmancometh wrote:

So basically your half expecting the Japanese t become world leaders in the next few years?

My point is if theres no appetite for the sport then there is no league, before the junior systems, academies and infrastructure can be brought in (as it's a risk to think about it before there is an audience) a potential league will need big money, big signings and to ignite the masses into becoming an audience... the MLS is the exact same thing a rugby league would be, how many years has the MLS been going, based around semi pro europeans, students and south Americans? The MLS is now only worth the TV audience, with big name signings and still the Americans can't produce enough talent in a sport with such huge money, such massive research and science and with so many succesfull established models all over the world to emulate. The MLS doesn't have any focus on talent development to a degree where they can challenge on any stage, what makes you think what they do with rugby would be any more succesfull or have any more focus placed on development as opposed to circu style entertainment?

You'll find no mention of Japan in my earlier comments, blues. If you want to counter my points, use the points I made as reference, it'll prevent us going down needless channels. The topic of American rugby and it's potential has all the ingredients it needs within its own borders. Japan have their Top League since 2003 and are still just above America on the International front. So to re-emphasise, they (USA) ain't doing too badly without a proper professional League structure.
They do have far more registered players than most smaller European rugby unions, they do have far more clubs than most European Nations, they have more senior male players than the smaller European nations, they have more teen male players than Wales and not much less than Ireland and France.
You can debate quality of all those categories,and I'm sure you will...but if you carry on the averages of participation and join them to averages of a audience that might want to watch, then it's pretty clear to me that America could tap into a sustainable audience for any fledgling league. Certainly as big a audience as Scotland, Italy and Wales can call on at present.

It doesn't have to be the star attraction league in America to grow enough to threaten some comfortable mid-ranking top ten Rugby sides. A beginning is a beginning and they have the raw materials in participants, potential audience and potentially less limited funding streams than we might worry about in cash-strapped Europe.

Plus, rugby isn't as alien to the American male as 'fancy boy' football is. American males already have a major grounding in a similar physical sport - rather like GAA players having more of an aptitude for rugby as a follow on sport than football. Football is still trying to grow out of its soft 'soccer mom', girl's game image. No comparison is accurate in sizing up the potential of rugby in relation to football. No comparison is needed as they are two completely different sports, appealing to different sporting instincts.

I see your points, but we all know senior participation means nothing with regards to internation development! Potential audience you claim is sustainable for a pro leageu is so diverse and sparce that the travel to any pro teams would be astronomical. Majority of US rugby clubs are east coast ex pat's with the odd few American there for social reasons, that is hardly a platform for professional rugby!

With regards to soccer, of course there are comparibles, the MLS is the most recent attempt of a non major US sport to break into the market, and with it's success (not just the MLS but the inclusion of soccer in school sports, the amount of new soccer clubs and the participation numbers growing at a stupid rate) this model has to be emulated! Why risk bringing a product to market yourself when a succesfull model has already done the same thing in recent years?!

Creating a pro league is one thing, creating a succesfull pro league is another thing, and creating a pro league that effects the international standards is a whole different animal! Again taking the most recent non major US sport as an example, soccer is in schools, and kids play for numerous teams, however they get lost in an infrstructure designed to cream the best athletes for the big 3, no other nation has 3 established sports who rank far above rugby as competition. Then you look at social factors, southern US are pure unadulterated AF and Nascar nuts, every father wants to see his son play college football, there is nothing that will replace this, so half the country is essentially lost! The west coast has a whole different feel to it, Hollywood and the surrounding does not focus on athletics, and being the centre of the entertainment universe it never will (theres not even an NFL team there because popularity is deemed fleeting and won't be consistent) even the clippers and lakers are supported poorly, but by the very rich and famous!

The East coast as I said is the only area rugby could grow, meaning it only works in a small % of the country itself, and the amount of interest currently is ex pats. A pro league may well be established but for the next few decades while the US are fighting for any sort of % of the US market pie, they will have absolutely no infrastructure to develop junior talent (nothing they havn't got now) and when and if they do develop to a point where junior development is a primary issue it will take another generation to start producing.

Right now if the sport exploded in the US, took total dominance over other sports, and grew at a huge rate then we are a generation from the USA being compaetitive with the european teams, or getting into a tournament for the competition needed, and another generation before they could even think about winning things on the world stage! Thats a lot of optimistic if's don't you think?

My point regarding Japan is that they are already a decade ahead of the US, and are attracting top talent from all over, but they are struggling to make that step from attractive league to play in, to popular league in the country, to self sustainable clubs, to academy development, to international competitiveness. I think the Japanese model is a few bad decisions from implosion personally

I keep hearing this "If America took (insert sport) seriously, they would be awesome". How many worldwide sports do they actually dominate? Not to say they wont do well in rugby, but taking failed NFL players is not the way to develop talent. I can almost guarantee you that the majority of these blokes have never seen 80 minutes in their lives. Add to that the fact that they wont be able to get subbed every turn of possession, and I think these blokes are too far gone physiologically to play the game at a TV-worthy level.

No kingraf.... not "If America took (rugby) seriously, they would be awesome".

If they took it seriously, they'd learn. That's all they would be trying. To grow the game...bit by bit. Using a league system , however small, however weak in terms of Tri-Nations and European rugby. The point is not that an American league side would be competing with Clermont or the Cursaders within five years. The point is that the players would be learning from more frequency of competitive games for them, learning the requirements needed physically and mentally.

And - the idea is based NOT on American Footballers suddenly trying to learn a new game and trying to last 80 minutes. This involves the substantial amount of athletes that already play rugby and know all about 80 minutes. It's ludicrous to assume America needs to actually teach rugby to guys who have never played it before. Nope, all they have to do is begin the professionalisation process of players who already know all they need to know about the rudiments of the game.

The Americans (in the numbers I mentioned above - at a sustainable level) have more than enough interest in, players playing and readily available advertising money looking for a home, to start a league system. If that's a semi-professional small-change league to experiment on what might work and what mightn't, then that's a beginning.

But what I keep hearing is people suggesting they would be wasting their time even trying to take rugby seriously within their limited fringe slot in American sport. No, they wouldn't be wasting their time...a beginning is a beginning. This world isn't ending anytime soon, they haven't run out of time.

And I still say that even an initial league, full of weak sides in world terms but getting increasing interest from the Americans that already love their rugby, then yes, within a few years that would add substantially to the know-how of the American International side itself and assist them to even rise higher than their current 16th in IRB world rankings. They could easily slide up a few notches. Progress.

Olympic 7's will be the cheer leader for rugby union's developing markets worldwide; asia(china), americas(usa) plus.

Europe's deveopment must continue to progress; romania, georgia, russia, portugal, spain, poland & germany - as i've said on another thread europe needs to develop a european international tournemount every 4 years (2017, 2021, 2025 etc.) which will provide the lesser unions another spectacular focus outside of the worldcup.

What i would really like to see is the irb in concert with the leading unions sponsor and develop the US market(e.g ireland game and nz maori announced). There are big partners in the US and I believe the game of rugby union has the commercial nous to take the opportunity. There are no quick fixes, very much brick by brick, but i think it is certain real progress will be made, though I imagine we will have to wait for 2016 before any expodential developments.

Fly

I may owe you an apology, after reading your last post I think I had you pegged as saying USA could be world leaders if they take it seriously, but clearly you are talking small progresssions rather than a big leap to the top of the pile.

In that case I agree fully, the league being set up will, if nothing else create more interest amongst the people, offer an outlet to the massive numbers of NFL hopefulls who have some transfreable skills, and would definately be a step in the right direction for the sport.

Just look at the Vegas 7's, turning into a pretty high profile event

Happy Friday boys and girls.

I would like to correct a number of misconceptions about Rugby is the US which I see reading this string. These observations come from living off and on in America and knowing a number of people across the country involved with Rugby.

Rugby appears to have three main bases in the US, though played everywhere: Northeast, California, and Colorado (home of USA Rugby). Rugby in the Northeast (loosely Washington D.C. through to Maine) used to be populated by Brit-Irish-South African expats. California used to be Kiwis and Aussies. Colorado, no emigrants so must be local. Most players in the US National team come from California where it is easy to play and practice all year. Chris Wyles and Samu Manoa were born and raised in California. Cripe, even Ronan O’Gara is California born (OK bad example).

Most old boys teams today might have up to one-third expats. My club’s old boys team can put out a starting set of backs which are English or Irish from 10 – 15. On the other hand, most current top men’s teams have maybe one or two expats, many have none. When I played for our Men’s second side at the end of season tournament, I was the only expat. This mirrors other clubs and shows the dynamic change in the last 20 years amongst the younger mens players. Appetite for a pro league would come from both groups, the local home grown players as well as the older expats. And many of these expats stay here and have kids.

The growth amongst the youth is at a terrific rate. The youth summer flag Rugby programme sponsored by my club here attracts over 1000 kids every simmer. That is from just one club! Though to be fair, I find this club here to be fairly exceptional. These kids are growing up and we are seeing the progression from youth to the Mens and Womens sides. The number of youth tackle sides playing 15s is also developing quickly. Ten years ago it was hard to find many U15s or U13s outside the select schools. Now, they are everywhere. 7s is more or less viewed as a summer sport, but is growing too. Importantly, I don’t see that much of a drop off in talent or skills when my kids play age group back home in England compared to here in America. This might be one of the biggest indicators about growth and quality.

American’s are not xenophobic about their sports. The whole misconception about looking down their noses at ‘foreign’ sport is insulting and wrong. Their sports developed when they were separated from Britain and Ireland by 3000 miles of water with barely any phone and no tv or internet. In a continent also 3000 miles wide, what would one expect? And now, expecting them to drop their sports and adopt others now that we are all connected in silly. And, as pointed out, they do play Rugby. American Football is a direct descendant of Rugby.

Soccer (to differentiate it from American Football) was originally played by Euro expats. One of the reasons Americans were reluctant to get involved with soccer was because of the reputation for violence and poor behavior amongst players and fans. Whatever one thinks of Americans, their standards as fans has historically been on a much higher plane. Another reason is what Americans see as crass commercialism on the uniforms and elsewhere. No major American sport team uniform is cluttered with adverts. Simple and clean, and usually only a small logo featuring the clothing manufacturer. Other than that, just the team name and/or city. They also don’t sell the names of their sports leagues. Simplicity: Just the NFL, Major League Baseball (MLB), NBA, NHL. No Barclay Premier League, Aviva Premiership, Rabo Direct Pro 12 Insurance blah, blah, blah.

As regards to a pro sports league here in America? I am still not sure the time is ripe yet. But if not now, then fairly soon.

One thing they do better than anyone is manage, market, and run pro sports. They have fantastic success, but also have had some failures, most of which were due to over extending. If anyone can make it work, they can. Is there an appetite for Rugby in America? Within the core fan base, absolutely. Amongst the casual fans, I suppose that is the glory of Marketing – telling people they are interested. Rugby does have some weird cache here, which I am not sure I understand. I think there is just enough of an awareness where a pro league could make a go of it, but would need substantial backing for quite a while. If it is really connected to the NFL in some manner, then we have one of the planet’s best run and best funded and most consistently profitable sports leagues behind it. That would go a long, long way to ensure success – Rugby as NFL Junior. Ironic as Rugby is American Football’s grandfather.

Finally about their athletes: Clearly some of their (American) Football players could never play Rugby. But I think the majority of non-linemen could convert. From what I have seen here it would take about a year, maybe a bit more, to retrain their bodies for Rugby. For young men 18-24, this would not be impossible at all. Besides Football ends after high school, except for the top 5% who go on to play at uni. And for those top athletes it is less than 2% who make it to the NFL. So, there are plenty of athletes ready to be retrained, want to stay active, and could do quite well. As with any sport, the question really comes down to learning Rugby. Football players do have transferable skills. That is a huge start. But Rugby is a mental game as well. How many could learn? Even if we get 5%, then Rugby could do quite well. Very well.

Great post DG

Id have thought that the US audience would be more receptive to rugby league than union. The scrum battle and complexities of the breakdown may put many off.

That's a good point. American Football came from League.

But to my knowledge there are almost no League clubs here, though I never looked. In my older son's U17 side, there is one kid whose parents are from Hull and are big fans of League. There is also an Aussie lad whose dad played League professionally in Aus. If League clubs were available, I am sure they would not have their kids playing Rugby Union.

League Ann football are probably too similar. What's the point? Union is different enough to worth building on