I know from talking to some of the professional players who are in favour of a smaller Super League that they believe it would have a significant impact in improving the domestic game and therefore reducing the gap in quality between Super League and the NRL. With less professional places for players in the Super League competition would be increased for places and the top players playing against top players week in, week out.

Furthermore players dropping down would strengthen the Championship and it would filter down right to the amateur levels, improving the quality of the sport at all levels.

I understand where some are coming from with regards to the financial aspect of playing less games however a stronger international game is key to growing the sport and therefore increasing it's financial muscle. This would outweigh any lost incoming through playing slightly less Super League fixtures.

These players, are they the ones who would still be in SL after this ' reduction '? , or are they the ones who would become part time and have to do a real job before training every night, then play for winning money only?

You beat me to it.

The original question is 'what is the rationale?' Simply, the rationale is greed on the part of clubs who, by luck or design, find themselves in the current 'elite' - nothing more.

For the good of the sport, we have to play a longer game - instead of jettisoning those clubs who aren't currently up to the standard of the top 4-6, we should be looking at ways to give them the best opportunities to improve; it may well be that SL has become a rich mans plaything, given that the clubs who are successful tend to be those who are propped up by a wealthy benefactor, but it has to be recognised that that position is precarious - the future of the sport depends on widening participation, strengthening community involvement and providing player pathways, none of which would be achieved by this daft, short-sighted idea.

Like the Hull walkover of the Reds the day you wrote this clap trap

Give the game time for the young English players to come through.

Division 2 would be full time also.

And where would the money come from for 2 FT divisions?

That would require the remaining SL 1 clubs to still only have the same TV money as present, and SKY be willing to give the other 4 teams share to SL 2

Some would suggest that is unlikely

I think you are mistaking Hull for one of the better teams



The RFL get the money for selling the rights to the top tier, then they pass it on to the clubs and other projects, how they divide it should be up to them and they should do that for the good of the game as a whole.

Yes but with only a 10 team top tier SKY might not consider it being worth as much

And ultimatly it is the clubs that have the final say in the breakdown of the money

The RFL should make them. The remaining Sky money could be divvied out for 10 full-time teams in division 2 too.

As I keep saying, it'll never happen anyway, so it doesn't matter.

Isn't that french tv channel now financially backing catalan? if thats the case surely that would release another million+ that could be put towards increasing the number of fully pro clubs

Sky should calculate the worth of the product on a combination of hours of programming, number of viewers and advertising revenues - I see nothing in the ten team top tier structure that would decrease these, they should if anything increase. As with the clubs they should be convinced that the long term benefits far outweigh any short term concerns.

Ryan Hall scoring in the corner is the most exciting thing to ever happen at the New Wembley and one of the few occasions Rugby league registered on the national radar in the SL era. The future of the game needs England to win and regularly compete in tournaments and for the general public to see this, a well structured league system with a top tier where the players have to be at and give their best every time they take the field is the best chance we have of achieving this.