• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Could a professional Rugby union league be successful in the US?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Was talking to a friend about rugby and how its popularity is kind of rising in the US, a couple of my ex co workers were really big into rugby and actively participate in some type of city league. They both also said that rugby is getting bigger and bigger in the US. This got me thinking if Rugby could become the next "MLS" or "UFC" and become a major sport here.

A major professional sport leagues in the US is understood as the NFL, NBA, MLB, NHL, and some people say the MLS as well. There are other smaller professional leagues as well, such as WNBA, AFL, NASCAR, smaller hockey and baseball leagues, and so forth. According to wiki, out of the major sports, the average NBA game had the lowest average attendance with 17,274 per game and the MLS had the lowest annual revenue at $300 million.

The NFL is partnering up with the English Premier Rugby League with the intent of creating a professional rugby union competition in the US. There will be an exhibition game at Gillete stadium in Boston on August 10th between the London Irish and "US Barbarians" which will be a mix of International talent. The game will be televised on the NFL network.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonbelzer/2013/05/17/nfl-plays-offensive-with-move-into-rugby/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2013/may/11/nfl-rugby-union-rugbylaw-barbarians-irish

Some problems I see is in trying to get Rugby mainstream are:

- Most people in the US still don't know much about rugby. Your day to day average Joe will not know the rules. I have done some researched, watched some games in the last WC, and I still have no idea how it all works. I know what a try is, but not sure when exactly they can kick the "extra point/field goal", or what a "ruck" or a "scrum" really is. So there will be some educating that will need to be done to educate young viewers and your average joe
- It's not a sanctioned sport by the NCAA and it's unlikely that it will ever be due to the need for parity for scholarships between male and female athletes and football being a male only sport. The schools can still compete against each other at the college level, but without the NCAA sanction, this could be a pretty huge deal and ultimately stop the ascension of rugby in the country
- AFAIK, there's rugby union, rugby league, and rugby sevens and they are all different things with different rules. I know sevens is seven people on each side and it'll be in the '16 olympics, but other than that I have no idea what the difference is or which one they plan on trying to build here in the US. This goes together with educating your average consumer
- There are a couple of rugby leagues in the US, but I don't think anyone has ever heard of them, I know I hadn't prior to doing some research
- I believe people were more familiar with soccer before the MLS than they are with Rugby. I went to Dick's Sporting goods this past week and there was no rugby equipment there, you could only get it online. Getting rugby to catch up here will be harder than it was for soccer

However, I also see some upsides:

- It is a violent sport, it is an exciting, non stop, action filled game and it could quench the thirst for folks that are pining for Football season to start during the spring season. Often times I hear people complaining that they can't wait for football season to start. Hell i'm hearing it now. This could, theoretically, give those fanatics a second, similar sport to watch during the spring and summer
- Utilize those top of the line, world class football stadiums during the NFL offseason and generate more revenue. If the NFL is being part of it, then I would assume the same stadiums would be used and some of the owners would create a rugby team for this new league. But then again, that might be wishful thinking and we can't expect rugby to fill up 80k+ seats, at least not yet
- Rugby is now an olympic sport, and while that doesn't guarantee american interest in the sport at a professional (volleyball, water polo), or even college/high school level (table tennis, team handball), it doesn't hurt
- The Rugby WC was televised in the US during late night hours and IIRC it did decent numbers
- I think it just recently got introduced in some HS at the varsity levels and there's youth programs out there now as well

Comparing it to soccer and how it is succeeding in the US, the MLS started with 10 games in '96 and is now at 19, with NY coming in in 2015, making it 20. They are now one of the Top 10 soccer leagues in the world and apparently looking to become Top 5 and expand further, back to having franchises in Florida, GA, and other markets. MLS - and futbol - are more popular in the US now than ever, IMO.

I think an American Rugby League could start the same way, I say start with 8-10 teams and expand from there based on popularity. Again, assuming NFL franchises are on board with this, and if I could pick any of them to start with, I would pick Giants/Jets, Cowboys, Dolphins, Falcons, Patriots, Bears, Broncos, Chargers, Steelers, Raiders with a season running from February until August.

My question is, could a rugby professional championship league in the US generate those type of numbers, at least $300 million in revenue, 20k average attendance, in 10 years? 20 years? I think it has every chance of succeeding and being profitable. Hell, even the WNBA is profitable and the WNBA sucks. It even has a chance of reaching major sport league status in the US, but then again, I think handball could be a relatively big sport in the US, as big as lacrosse or volleyball, due to it being a physical, non stop, high scoring game, but most americans thing of a kid's game when you mention handball, so you never really know.

tl;dr Do you think that a professional National Rugby League/Union could become a big, sustainable thing in the USA?
 

thefro

Member
Assuming the NFL backed it, absolutely.

I think the points in the articles you linked about there being a lot of really good American football players that aren't quite good enough to play in the NFL who could cross over. Some college players who had experience in option-based systems (i.e. Tim Tebow) would be beasts at Rugby but aren't really cut out for the NFL.
 
D

Deleted member 1235

Unconfirmed Member
I would wish for that. US backing rugby would really raise its profile, but it's about as likely as them getting into football in a big way.
 

Ethranes

Member
It is a violent sport, it is an exciting, non stop, action filled game

It's not really. It can be, but that's not rugbys defining characteristic, its a lot more slow paced and methodical a lot of the time, with outbursts of speed and excitement when the opportunity comes up. But yeah, if you're comparing it to American football, it is a lot faster.
 

GDGF

Soothsayer
I'd watch Rugby. Always looked interesting.

(can't shake the feeling that dumb people are going to dub this Hipster Football, though)
 
I don't really understand your NCAA comment - if there needs to be parity between genders for scholarships, what balances out football?

But going down that line of logic, there was an unofficial girls rugby team at my high school which travelled to play other unofficial teams at other schools.
 

Camp Lo

Banned
I'd watch Rugby. Always looked interesting.

(can't shake the feeling that dumb people are going to dub this Hipster Football, though)

Really? If anything, people might call it the purest version of it since they don't have pads I believe. Sounds like a throwback to me. But then again, people always attach labels that seldom fit.
 
Assuming the NFL backed it, absolutely.

I think the points in the articles you linked about there being a lot of really good American football players that aren't quite good enough to play in the NFL who could cross over. Some college players who had experience in option-based systems (i.e. Tim Tebow) would be beasts at Rugby but aren't really cut out for the NFL.

They are not talking about people like Tebow though as Tebow is obviously good enough to make it to the NFL and he would obviously choose that over rugby as the NFL is a lot more profitable and would pay a lot more.

I would wish for that. US backing rugby would really raise its profile, but it's about as likely as them getting into football in a big way.

MLS of today is a lot more popular than 10 years ago. While Donovan and Dempsey are just average players by EU and LA standards, they are significantly better than what we had in '94 with Lalas and Wynalda. The level of play in soccer has been raised in the US, whether that continues to grow remains to be seen.

I don't really understand your NCAA comment - if there needs to be parity between genders for scholarships, what balances out football?

But going down that line of logic, there was an unofficial girls rugby team at my high school which travelled to play other unofficial teams at other schools.

A lot of programs have volleyball or soccer exclusively as a woman's sport. The best school in the nation, the Gators are an example of that. Also, field Hockey is exclusively a woman's sport at the NCAA's varsity level.

Also, there are club teams at both the college and HS level, but if they are not in the varsity program, there's not much room for growth as that means people won't be interested in them due to them not really having a future in the sport or being ineligible for a scholarship.
 

thefro

Member
I don't really understand your NCAA comment - if there needs to be parity between genders for scholarships, what balances out football?

The school I went to gives scholarships for Women's volleyball, water polo, field hockey, and rowing. There's no program for those sports on the men's side. Those extra scholarships offset Football (and wrestling). Also some of the more minor men's sports (i.e. golf) only give out partial scholarships to fill out some of their team to make the numbers work.

This is all due to Title IX in the US (basically no federal education funding to schools that don't give out athletic scholarships in proportion), which is a good thing but would make it really hard for colleges to give out scholarships for Rugby.
 

Rockandrollclown

lookwhatyou'vedone
I could see it being successful, given low enough expectations. Maybe something to watch on ESPN 8, the ocho, along with some arena football.
 
Isn't something like only 5% of people who play American football at college actually play in the NFL or something like that, the amount of athletes that after college don't have a sport to go to means there is a massive pool of athletic young people who would make for a really good league in my option.

I love it if this happens, I think its got so much going for it, its be a shame if it didn't.
 

GRW810

Member
NHL destroys MLS in ratings and revenue and it's not even close
In terms of stadium attendance I believe it is more than hockey, about the same as basketball and pushing baseball. I saw a graph somewhere once but my memory of exact data is murky.

Not that my point in any way challenges yours, just thought I'd add to the conversation.

As for rugby, it has no chance. Too similar to NFL for Americans to bother taking a widespread interest.

Now, as an Englishman, let me raise the subject of cricket...
 
As a spectator sport, with the NFL's backing and offered as an off-season alternative to football, it would probably do MLS levels well. Without the NFL, it'd probably do about WNBA/MLL levels of survivability. If it tried to go up against the NFL timewise, it's dead in the water.

The problem is going to be player pool. It's going to be a lot of international players and US players who transitioned to rugby late (college football players who didn't get drafted and the like.) With the risks of football rising, parents are becoming reluctant to let their kids play. That's going to limit the quality of play. However, I wonder if the NFL isn't thinking of rugby as kind of a Plan B. Some players and commentators are on record lately as saying they don't expect football or football as it is today to exist in 20 years. Every player suicide is another step closer to congressional hearings. It's not like it hasn't happened before, Theodore Roosevelt threatened to abolish the game a hundred years ago. If the NFL controls the national rugby competition, they could oversee the transition from American football to Rugby football while keeping their cash cow going.

US backing rugby would really raise its profile, but it's about as likely as them getting into football in a big way.
Huh? America is into football in a big way.
 

krpiper

Member
I'd be down, I love watching the rubgy WC.

Has anything be announced about what cities get franchises or anything like that
 

FDC1

Member
...

- It is a violent sport, it is an exciting, non stop, action filled game

...

You got your answer. You're not going to have major TV support if you can't show commercials every 10mn. WIthout TV support, the sport can't become popular.
 
Doubtful. American football is just Rugby with padding. It would just seem like more of the same thing.


Successful? Well, sure. Soccer's successful here. I'd be more inclined to see Rugby than Soccer.

No it's not. Majority don't give a shit about it unless it's during the olympics.

As a spectator sport, with the NFL's backing and offered as an off-season alternative to football, it would probably do MLS levels well. Without the NFL, it'd probably do about WNBA/MLL levels of survivability. If it tried to go up against the NFL timewise, it's dead in the water.

The problem is going to be player pool. It's going to be a lot of international players and US players who transitioned to rugby late (college football players who didn't get drafted and the like.) With the risks of football rising, parents are becoming reluctant to let their kids play. That's going to limit the quality of play. However, I wonder if the NFL isn't thinking of rugby as kind of a Plan B. Some players and commentators are on record lately as saying they don't expect football or football as it is today to exist in 20 years. Every player suicide is another step closer to congressional hearings. It's not like it hasn't happened before, Theodore Roosevelt threatened to abolish the game a hundred years ago. If the NFL controls the national rugby competition, they could oversee the transition from American football to Rugby football while keeping their cash cow going.


Huh? America is into football in a big way.

He means Soccer.
 

Camp Lo

Banned
No it's not. Majority don't give a shit about it unless it's during the olympics.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...ually-take-athletes-away-from-other-us-sports

Youth soccer is often held up as the best evidence of soccer's potential in the U.S. While youth baseball's numbers continue to decline, youth soccer's numbers continue to rise. Only basketball has more youth players than soccer. Soccer participation in high school has more than doubled.

The fuck are you talking about?

Oh and that Olympics jab..

This strategy is paying dividends as MLS added nine teams and 12 soccer-specific stadiums since its 2001 contraction. The 2006 and 2010 World Cup finals drew larger T.V. audiences than Major League Baseball's World Series from the same year.
 

Icefire1424

Member
Man, I would love for Rugby to catch on in the States. Fox Sports and BBC America do show some matches on occasion, and they did actually have some coverage of the Sevens this past season. Would absolutely love to catch a live game sometime.
 

Camp Lo

Banned
Little league is your claim?

Also name one major network that airs anything soccer related that isn't during the olympics.

Citing baseballs lowering revenue isn't a praise for soccer.

You said soccer isn't successful yet it trumped the World Series, an all american pastime in it's greatest moment. What else is there to say? Americans care even if television stations don't. The popularity of the youth shows that soccer's only getting stronger in the States, not diminishing. Not sure what you're looking for here. Soccer is successful in America.

Apparently major networks DO air soccer here in America.

Bleacher Report said:
Not only have American fans been able to watch more soccer than ever this season with weekly matches on ESPN2, FoxSoccer Channel, FoxSoccer Plus, GOL TV, NBC Sports Network, ESPN Deportes and mobile apps like WatchESPN and FoxSoccer2Go, but soccer coverage has been expanding to more traditional non-sports platforms under those umbrellas as well.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...ers-we-dont-need-you-anymore-a-thank-you-note
 

Atlagev

Member
Little league is your claim?

Also name one major network that airs anything soccer related that isn't during the olympics.

FOX network is airing the UEFA Champions League Final this year, and has done so the past couple of years, if I recall correctly.

EDIT: Also, the World Cup itself, obviously. ABC has shown the Final, US games, etc. on network TV.
 

Chris R

Member
The only problem I have with Rugby now is that there seems to be a bunch of different versions and I never know which rule set I'm watching :( I bet that would be fixed if they just picked one and only showed matches from that style but that isn't how coverage works here just yet.

NBC constantly shows USA 7s and Fox Soccer would show Springbok and All Black matches along with regional league competitions from Australia and New Zealand.

One thing I'm wondering about though is why the NFL hasn't sold the rights to paint ads on the grass in every stadium yet like they do with rugby pitches. Crazy money to be made there.
 

Subitai

Member
Maybe, but not in a major league sense with big statiums unless one of the big 4 falls goes down significanly more. Most of the cities in this country and Canada have as many pro franchises as they can support.

It also has a lot farther to go than soccer because at least soccer had varsity teams for a long time in addition to learning from the failures of past attempts at a league and it still took 20 years for the league to be where it is today. Rugby's starting position here is more similar to lacrosse's. The only difference is that it is now an Olympic sport.
 

Subitai

Member
Same reason they haven't sold ads on uniforms, it serves an actual game purpose and tradition.
There is also the problem of endorsements that powerful individual players have.

Like Peyton Manning is a Papa John's promoter and owner would not be able to wear a Pizza Hut Bronco's Jersey.
 
Rugby League should really look at the US. There is no reason why Rugby Union could be popular there and not League.

League doesn't have the players, money, fanbase or platform (mainly RWC and Olympics Sevens) to help grow the sport when compared to Union. You may as well suggest Aussie Rules expand to the US.

Anyway, people have been talking about rugby expanding into the US in a major way for a couple of decades now and I'm not sure if anything will ever come of it. The NFL would be a huge backer though and probably the only ones that could actually make it work.

The one thing I'm worried about is what would happen to rugby if it did get that kind of huge cash injection. Most current domestic leagues (pretty much all of them except France and Japan) would probably be picked clean of talent in a lot of places, killing them in the process.
 

Randdalf

Member
Rugby is actually a spin-off from football interestingly. When they were deciding the rules of association football, some people didn't like where it was going (specifically there were two rules involving carrying the ball and hacking that were removed from consideration) so they branched out and created rugby football instead.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom