Like i said one team for NSW in the Super 14 getting 33,000 thats nothing to brag about.....

That was a one off.

Before that the Waratahs got one crowd under 20,000 and one just over.

I've played at three different Union clubs in Yorkshire in age groups from under nines to open age - I can't say I've played with more than two or three people in that time who were at public school. Go figure.

what hes getting at is 1 union team in nsw averaging 24,000

vs 9 sydney clubs averaging 15,000.

RIP RU.

i went to a private school.

99% of the players are from there here.

trying to argue union isnt an elitist sport is a lot like arguing union is good to watch

Its a similar story for union in the celtic league, attendances are pretty rubbish for having 3 countires in one league. I mean 3000 for a game against the current champions how woeful.

Where im from theres not really a class divide mainly because no one around here actually plays rugby league. Though there is still a very bitter attitude towards league from people who do play rugby.

It is elitist generally but here in the North there are lots of clubs made up with kid from public schools, I played with Leigh, Newton and Orrell and only played with 3-4 lads from private schools in all that time.

There are plenty of reasons why league has failed to develop internationally, one is elitism. The hostile reception that Celtic recieved when joining SL sums up 100 years of RL's geographic develoment.

they do it all the time the union mob

les cats copped a lot of grief from USAP.

and thats not forgetting getting RL banned before that,

union has trouble competing on the field so resorts to cheating

Union is a game to be played not watched - it internationals are major corporate and social events watched by people who are often there for the occasion rather than interest in the game as such - cricket is much the same - corporate spend at these two events dwarfs even soccer in spend per head.

Union has a vibrant international scene because of 6 nations in Europe and 3 in the southern hemisphere - RL has basically 4 nations of which two are totally dominant.

League will never compete internationally with union it needs work on its strengths which is the club game.

and you actually think that the majority of those fans come from anywhere near Manchester??? Some dont even come from within the UK!!!! Its an area greater than a 4m population that feeds the Man Utd crowd.....

Which teams would they be?...

compare for example the crowds the wigan warriors get to their population to that of the leeds rhinos and the population of their city.

the rhinos are winning SL and still cant get better crowds than a Division 3 club

Why even make that point when it has nothing to do with the topic?

The point I was making was that the RU guy seemed pretty pleased that 33k had gone to see a game of union in an 83k capacity stadium when 74k turned up to sydney games over the same weekend.

Also look at the city of Leeds. A few weeks ago 17k turned up at Headingley and around 20k at ER. We live in a city of 800k. Man Utd are known the world around and are the best team in the best known sporting league in the world. It's a silly comparison IMO.

Wrong.

Not only has rugby league competed with union internationally, it is extremely easy to argue that (for example) rugby league's international scene during the 1950s was equivalent to union in the same period.

Rugby league teams from Australia, Wales, England, France and New Zealand were all very capable in that period.

With proper support, there is no reason why that can't occur again.