Participating levels in League is falling, in Union it is increasing.
The skill level in League is falling, in union it is increasing.
The profile and stature of League is falling, in Union it is ever increasing.
Marketing and funding in League is falling, in Union it is ever increasing.
Player quality and salary weight in League is falling, in Union is increasing.

League fans are very insular, protective and pessimistic for the future.
Union fans see it as a social sport and get involved pre and post game.

This is the kind of reply I was hoping for, as I said, when I was at school we HAD to play Union, we didn't get a choice.
If our game had been given a chance to be played in schools, perhaps things would be different now.

Perhaps the op needs to read a couple of the League history books.
Following the split in 1895, it was only clubs in the north of England that broke away.
At the time, it appeared that clubs in the Midlands and South Wales would follow. However, the Union hierarchy, realising that their game was in jeopardy made some changes, which were designed to prevent their sport being over run and controlled by rough northerners.
The measures taken were successful and therefore it becamne impossible to grow the sport in other areas.
If they (the RFU) had allowed broken time payments in the first place, there would never have been a split and our sport wouldnt exist.
Therefore, of course Union is at a higher level in many parts of the UK.
However, League remains more popular in terms of player numbers and spectator numbers in Yorkshire and Lancashire.
Union of course, has the pull of the six nations and has a much more developed international program and the domestic game rides on the back of this.
There are only 2 top flight Union clubs in the North of England, Newcastle, who average around 6,000 fans for their home games and Sale, who average around 6,400, neither of which compete with the top of SL.
At the other end of the scale are Leicester with an average of 21,500, which is excellent.
Bearing in mind that they have national coverage, full and total support of the national media and a far better international program, their domestic attendances are not so far ahead of League.
We should be very proud of our sport and grateful to those players in the late 19th Century, who dared to fight the establishment and gave us a faster, more attacking and far more exciting sport to watch.
It will always be an uphill struggle to expand the game in the UK but, that shouldn't stop us trying.

What on earth are you babbling on about? What point of mine are you trying to address? That rugby league isn't more skilful or that the game is going backwards at an alarming rate whilst rugby goes from strength to strength?

Regards

King James

Agree,as you say 20 years ago RL was definately on the up.
What happened ?

Not saying you are wrong but I would love to see some stats to back up your claim about participation numbers in Lancashire and Yorkshire given that in Lancashire for example, the rugby league clubs are centred around heartland towns like Wigan, St. Helens etc yet pretty much every town or village in Lancashire has a rugby union team, with a first, second and third team,with a youth set up. I would go out on a limb and say that there are more union players in Lancashire than league, by a huge margin

Regards

King James

I am afraid its you and others like you with your blinked views that are the reason all expansion clubs fail.
If you dont understand the real issues facing growing a sport in new area's then you will always be doomed to fail.

He's not addressing any point , he's just pointing out you're a Let's leave the childish insults to the playground please. Karen.

One thing that has recently come to the fore is Unions current war on high tackles and concussion , if RL doesn't address these same issues we will see less youngsters playing and ultimately a fall in standards

As much as we see the ' Biff ' and ' big hits ' as part of the game these things will turn off parents from letting their kids play the game

RL is THE toughest team sport you can play , however in our H and S concious world we must remove some of the less attractive parts of the game

I think perhaps folk living in the heartlands underestimate the extent of ignorance of league in most of the country. When people find out I'm a league fan, they almost inevitably start banging on about Bath or the 6N. Even people who regard themselves as sports fans often don't understand that they are two different sports. I firmly believe that the lack of league on free to air TV has a lot to do with that. You can see cricket heading the same way. When I was a kid, Ashes Tests were massive events the whole country talked about. Nobody talks about them now (relatively speaking).
As mentioned upthread,, crowds at most RU club matches are unexceptional, to say the least. But RU has marketed itself well to attract the attention (and money) of casual fans, most of whom know little of the laws of the game. And it's undeniable that being the Establishment game has got a lot to do with it. That, and the lack of international fixtures. It doesn't matter too much if England RU get tanked by the All Blacks, cos fans can see them beating plenty of other nations. Especially the Welsh, cos wins against them always go down well with the Little Englanders.

I am aware of the origins of RL, I suppose what I want to know is why Local Authority Schools during the 60s and 70s didn't allow League to be played in the heartland of the game ( northwest in my case ).

By unexceptional do you mean an average attendance in the U.K. That is greater than super league by 35%?

Regards

King James

Yes that's what he meant , unexceptional , given all the advantages they historically have their attendances are unexceptional