In 2007 it was 2,263,223 with a cumulutive world tv audience of 4.2 billion!

England, Australia, South Africa, New Zealand.

Sum total of winners in the Rah Rah's entire history of its world cup, with far more teams

RUWC 2015 winners will come from New Zealand, Australia or South Africa.

Hmmmm, three teams have a chance of winning. Bigger sport than us, you would expect others could win.

Union, the sport, has nothing to apologize for. Generations of media bigots do.

And at the same time being the best paid gas fitter in the country.

Well done, you have realised that rugby union is bigger than rugby league.

Do you want a prize?

I suspect you know little of which you speak.

Not this Australia team....so really NZ or SA.

Of course it was. For that to be the case, it would have to be bigger than the FIFA World Cup. Why isn't the sport massively popular in China, India, Brazil, USA, Indonesia, Nigeria, etc. if that many people were watching?

Indeed. Ask Steve Pilgrim and Steve Ford about Union's "flexible" rules on professionalism in the amateur era.

Fine for those who were top internationals and getting paid in brown envelopes in the dressing room, but heaven forbid you associate with professionals outside the sport.

' Boot money '

So given a World population of about 6.5 billion in 2007, and an estimated total of 1.4 billion tv sets in the world, we can safely assume that two thirds of the total mass of humanity watched the RUWC with each and every tv set in the world having on average three viewers.

Sounds plausible.

Wasn't that figure derived from numbers watching the news where a clip may have been shown or something like that?