Is it? In what way? How can having a strong national team be bad for rugby league?


Of course. But across the country not just across the M62. Why should people in the south choose to play RL instead of cricket, football, union, tennis etc especially when they're never exposed to it in it's elite form except for occasionally seeing a bit about the Cup Final and when England lose to Australia again.



Why?


Except it doesn't have popularity. It's popular in Hull, Leeds and Wigan and a few small towns. It exists, thats about all you can say for League.


In what way? I assume you know of untapped sources of funding for this marketing that you yearn for? The RFL do regular emails, mail shots, billboards and have even advertised on TV, something which, IIRC, no other major sporting governing body has done before.

if a flat earther had wrote that i would expect him to ripped to pieces by at least a dozen people who post on the board,you included.

While it is off topic, I cannot agree with the endorsement on the health of the Premier League

As with all markets, Association Football goes through periods of boom and recession – they have been in the former for the past decade or two. The problem they have is that some clubs (Man City, Chelsea etc) are immune to commercial pressures due to their financial backers and others are striving to keep up and racking up mountains of debt in the process (I am sure that nearly all of them would vote for a salary cap!)

The assumption that the Premier League is a commodity that will always be over consumed was put seriously in doubt over the last 7 days with thousands of seats empty at Anfield and many empty at Stamford Bridge (I won’t even start on the DW)

I believe that the next few years will see the commercial house of cards that is professional football in the UK come crashing down and several clubs (including Premiership ones) going to the wall

Why? Have I suggested it should stay that way? Is rugby league popular outside of those areas?

You may well be right, or will more wealthy backers simply come in and prop up those clubs. The Man City's & Chelsea's are only the same as Hull KR, Quins etc who rely on wealthy benefactors to prop up that club whilst running large losses. If they had to break even then the likes of KR, Quins etc would have to drastically reduce spending.

Either way, to compare Super League to the Premier League in the context of needing a strong national team was still a bit stupid.

because there are posters on here who will tell you the game is the fastest growing sport in wales,they will tell you its massive in the south east.they'll tell you its played in all the schools and uni's down south with a massive amateur scene.they'll also tell you super league europe wouldn't have a tv contract with sky but for the popularity of the game down south.
then all of a sudden [when it suits] it becomes an m62 game again.

Only if you misunderstand what they are saying, Nobody has said there wouldn't be a tv contract without a presence down south, they've said the contract would be smaller. I think that's pretty well established that without Quins the Sky TV contract would be smaller that it currently is. However, that doesn't mean the sport is popular down south. It quite obviously is dwarfed by football and union.

How is it a contradiction to say that the game is "popular" in Leeds, Wigan and Hull plus a few small towns but the sport is growing down south? Still small, but growing.

it mght be dwarfed by those two sports and it might still be a growing sport,but it must still be popular.
theres a 30 year old club with a SLE licence,theres a semi pro club, RL is in all the schools,1000s play at amateur level, the sky tv deal is dependent on it.
how can it not be popular?.