WHY IS RUGBY NOT POPULAR IN THE U.S.

[oVo]

I like The Sevens almost as much as American Football,
but the World identifies with soccer (futbol,footy, football).

[Lootifer]

Like DY says (in his fucked up roundabout way) it is because you already have AFootball. The sports are quite different in detailed sense; but they fill the same niche (audience is beer drinking* munters who love nothing better than watching big hard fuckers smash into each other - *nohomo* - like you and I, AoG).

Rugby is gaining a lot of the momentum in the US however; dunno why but i'd suggest it would be a case of "'merican patriotism" breaking down (you guys seem to finally becoming more "international friendly"), people burning out on Afootball (we have a similar thing here in reverse - So much rugby means people kinda get sick of it/desensitised to it and look for alternatives), and its only now really becoming accessable via internet/better cable services etc thus you can actually follow it.

[Lootifer]

I wonder how important the success of the national team in the world cup is to the popularity of the sport in the country.

Like, in soccer, both the men's and women's teams did well enough to garner attention (men's left the group stage in the WC, women's lost in the championship). The American rugby team is pretty shitty, so that might be why.

Any real sports fan knows international (country vs country) competition outside of olympics, and maybe davis cup, is dull as shit.

WC Soccer matches are conservative fuckfests (mmmm 0-0 after 90'; so much fun to watch...); same with rugby: penalties all day long.

The real competition is at the club/regional level: EPL, champions league and Super 15 spring to mind.

[Mr_Adams]

I wonder how important the success of the national team in the world cup is to the popularity of the sport in the country.

Since it's my favorite, I'll use fencing as a counter example to this concept. The US consistantly puts out excellent fencers. The US hasn't given any special attention. EG, '08 Lady's singles sabre.

Fencing is kind of a niche sport though. Apart from the fact that it requires individual coaching, rather than team coaching, the equipment isn't cheap. For the record, I like fencing too, but it takes a fair amount of time, effort and cost to train a fencer to a good standard. Plus, audiences aren't all that likely to appreciate a good fencer without a lot of experience with the sport. When I first started watching boxing, for example, it just looked like two guys swinging wildly at each other.

Yes, but this isn't a political debate, so I don't care to be logical. I just want my sport to be available on my basic cable when the olympics roll around!

[oVo]

Are you equating popularity with the money making ability of the sport?
I don't think there's a shortage of Rugby players in the USA, with some
decently skilled athletes coming out of the College ranks.

[Neoteny]

I think a contributing factor is that the US and Canada's best athletes go to the big four because they are where the money is. It's maybe unfair to call our rugby or Footy players "leftovers," but if Michael Jordan were raised on soccer, for example, our international weight may be higher. The most well-rounded athletes in the world play Footy. In North America they play hockey (or the various athletic positions from the big 4).

[Army of GOD]

I think a contributing factor is that the US and Canada's best athletes go to the big four because they are where the money is. It's maybe unfair to call our rugby or Footy players "leftovers," but if Michael Jordan were raised on soccer, for example, our international weight may be higher. The most well-rounded athletes in the world play Footy. In North America they play hockey (or the various athletic positions from the big 4).

first of all, it's called soccer.

Second of all, when you say "most well-rounded athletes in the world play [soccer]", it really depends on the country. I'm guessing (but I'm sure Lootifer would attest) that in New Zealand and probably Aussie as well, the most well-rounded athletes play rugby (mostly because they both have pretty lame international soccer teams compared to their rugby teams). Then you have countries like Germany that have historic soccer teams but shitty rugby teams which leads me to believe that the athletes in Germany play soccer, not rugby.

Then you have the countries that are just good at both like England or France in which I'd say the sports are equally distributed. Though, rugby players are by far more "well-rounded" than soccer players because of the strength necessary to play rugby. They have to have the conditioning of soccer players and the strength of football players.

[Neoteny]

I think a contributing factor is that the US and Canada's best athletes go to the big four because they are where the money is. It's maybe unfair to call our rugby or Footy players "leftovers," but if Michael Jordan were raised on soccer, for example, our international weight may be higher. The most well-rounded athletes in the world play Footy. In North America they play hockey (or the various athletic positions from the big 4).

first of all, it's called soccer.

Second of all, when you say "most well-rounded athletes in the world play [soccer]", it really depends on the country. I'm guessing (but I'm sure Lootifer would attest) that in New Zealand and probably Aussie as well, the most well-rounded athletes play rugby (mostly because they both have pretty lame international soccer teams compared to their rugby teams). Then you have countries like Germany that have historic soccer teams but shitty rugby teams which leads me to believe that the athletes in Germany play soccer, not rugby.

Then you have the countries that are just good at both like England or France in which I'd say the sports are equally distributed. Though, rugby players are by far more "well-rounded" than soccer players because of the strength necessary to play rugby. They have to have the conditioning of soccer players and the strength of football players.

First, you got the fucking point.

Second, you got the fucking point. I agree that the rugby players are usually more well rounded. The point was that the best athletes tend to go where the glory/money is. It's not a hard rule, but if a country flips their shit for rugby, it's best athletes will be raised on rugby, and probably very good at rugby.

[Lootifer]

oVo pretty much nailed it anyway.

The US is producing some pretty good rugby players and only seem to get better; its just common sense as well: Rugby and AFootball share a lot of their skill sets.

A solid win over the Russians; and two hearty attempts on Ireland and Italy, with their only drubbing at the hand of Aussie; slow and steady improvement over previous years... (apart from their amazing win over Fiji in 2003).

[kentington]

I think a contributing factor is that the US and Canada's best athletes go to the big four because they are where the money is. It's maybe unfair to call our rugby or Footy players "leftovers," but if Michael Jordan were raised on soccer, for example, our international weight may be higher. The most well-rounded athletes in the world play Footy. In North America they play hockey (or the various athletic positions from the big 4).

first of all, it's called soccer.

Second of all, when you say "most well-rounded athletes in the world play [soccer]", it really depends on the country. I'm guessing (but I'm sure Lootifer would attest) that in New Zealand and probably Aussie as well, the most well-rounded athletes play rugby (mostly because they both have pretty lame international soccer teams compared to their rugby teams). Then you have countries like Germany that have historic soccer teams but shitty rugby teams which leads me to believe that the athletes in Germany play soccer, not rugby.

Then you have the countries that are just good at both like England or France in which I'd say the sports are equally distributed. Though, rugby players are by far more "well-rounded" than soccer players because of the strength necessary to play rugby. They have to have the conditioning of soccer players and the strength of football players.

First, you got the fucking point.

Second, you got the fucking point. I agree that the rugby players are usually more well rounded. The point was that the best athletes tend to go where the glory/money is. It's not a hard rule, but if a country flips their shit for rugby, it's best athletes will be raised on rugby, and probably very good at rugby.

Money!
How much does the top player for the All Blacks make a year?
How much does the average American Football player make a year?

[Lootifer]

Depends on what income you're talking about.

Both sports probably actually pay similar match fees, which only account for a tiny amount of their earnings. All the money comes from promotional work, which you correctly assert (I assume) AFootballers make a lot more.

[Army of GOD]

Wow, so I just looked...Dan Carter on the All Blacks (arguably the best player in the world, right?) will make around 8 million US over 3 years.

Peyton Manning who just signed with the Broncos is guaranteed 18 MILLION FOR ONE YEAR. I mean, he is one of the greatest of all time at QB, but he's old(er) and a lot would argue that he's not even the best QB right now (Rodgers, Brady and Brees over him).

That's pretty ridiculous. And football contracts usually contain the least amount of overall money of the main 4 North American sports.


I think it would be awesome to field a rugby team of football players though. Linebackers can make up the forwards and running backs will make up the backs (with Tebow at fly, obviously).

[Neoteny]

I think a contributing factor is that the US and Canada's best athletes go to the big four because they are where the money is. It's maybe unfair to call our rugby or Footy players "leftovers," but if Michael Jordan were raised on soccer, for example, our international weight may be higher. The most well-rounded athletes in the world play Footy. In North America they play hockey (or the various athletic positions from the big 4).

first of all, it's called soccer.

Second of all, when you say "most well-rounded athletes in the world play [soccer]", it really depends on the country. I'm guessing (but I'm sure Lootifer would attest) that in New Zealand and probably Aussie as well, the most well-rounded athletes play rugby (mostly because they both have pretty lame international soccer teams compared to their rugby teams). Then you have countries like Germany that have historic soccer teams but shitty rugby teams which leads me to believe that the athletes in Germany play soccer, not rugby.

Then you have the countries that are just good at both like England or France in which I'd say the sports are equally distributed. Though, rugby players are by far more "well-rounded" than soccer players because of the strength necessary to play rugby. They have to have the conditioning of soccer players and the strength of football players.

First, you got the fucking point.

Second, you got the fucking point. I agree that the rugby players are usually more well rounded. The point was that the best athletes tend to go where the glory/money is. It's not a hard rule, but if a country flips their shit for rugby, it's best athletes will be raised on rugby, and probably very good at rugby.

Money!
How much does the top player for the All Blacks make a year?
How much does the average American Football player make a year?

If your point is that American athletes are overpaid, it's a fair one that is completely irrelevant to the discussion. If your point is that money is not a factor in one particular professional sport over another because one has experience more bloat than the other, then you are a fool. If your point is neither of those things, then you are an ineffective communicator.

[Army of GOD]

I think a contributing factor is that the US and Canada's best athletes go to the big four because they are where the money is. It's maybe unfair to call our rugby or Footy players "leftovers," but if Michael Jordan were raised on soccer, for example, our international weight may be higher. The most well-rounded athletes in the world play Footy. In North America they play hockey (or the various athletic positions from the big 4).

first of all, it's called soccer.

Second of all, when you say "most well-rounded athletes in the world play [soccer]", it really depends on the country. I'm guessing (but I'm sure Lootifer would attest) that in New Zealand and probably Aussie as well, the most well-rounded athletes play rugby (mostly because they both have pretty lame international soccer teams compared to their rugby teams). Then you have countries like Germany that have historic soccer teams but shitty rugby teams which leads me to believe that the athletes in Germany play soccer, not rugby.

Then you have the countries that are just good at both like England or France in which I'd say the sports are equally distributed. Though, rugby players are by far more "well-rounded" than soccer players because of the strength necessary to play rugby. They have to have the conditioning of soccer players and the strength of football players.

First, you got the fucking point.

Second, you got the fucking point. I agree that the rugby players are usually more well rounded. The point was that the best athletes tend to go where the glory/money is. It's not a hard rule, but if a country flips their shit for rugby, it's best athletes will be raised on rugby, and probably very good at rugby.

Money!
How much does the top player for the All Blacks make a year?
How much does the average American Football player make a year?

If your point is that American athletes are overpaid, it's a fair one that is completely irrelevant to the discussion. If your point is that money is not a factor in one particular professional sport over another because one has experience more bloat than the other, then you are a fool. If your point is neither of those things, then you are an ineffective communicator.

haha really? His point was pretty clear. Read my previous post.

[Army of GOD]

I'm pretty sure Alex Rodriguez is the highest paid player per year right now making around 30 mill US.

But he's a giant, steroid-taking douchebag.

[Lootifer]

That's pretty ridiculous. And football contracts usually contain the least amount of overall money of the main 4 North American sports.

Eh just comes down to viewers; AFootball has more. (and yes Dan is prolly the most well known "best" player; but he's the equiv of a quarterback; and is the quarterback always the best player on the field?)

I think it would be awesome to field a rugby team of football players though. Linebackers can make up the forwards and running backs will make up the backs (with Tebow at fly, obviously).

They would have strength and speed all over the rugger boys; skills prob about equal; and Rugby would win fitness hands down.

Id imagine the game would be like 25-10 to Afootballers at half time and then final score 25-50 to Rugby players.

[Army of GOD]

That's pretty ridiculous. And football contracts usually contain the least amount of overall money of the main 4 North American sports.

Eh just comes down to viewers; AFootball has more. (and yes Dan is prolly the most well known "best" player; but he's the equiv of a quarterback; and is the quarterback always the best player on the field?)

I think it would be awesome to field a rugby team of football players though. Linebackers can make up the forwards and running backs will make up the backs (with Tebow at fly, obviously).

They would have strength and speed all over the rugger boys; skills prob about equal; and Rugby would win fitness hands down.

Id imagine the game would be like 25-10 to Afootballers at half time and then final score 25-50 to Rugby players.

QBs are the most important position in North American sports and so they're held in a higher standard. A QB might not be the best player on a team compared to other players on his team respect to other players in the league, but he matters the most to that team no matter who is on it.