Welcome to my first rugby league maths lesson!

The debate about international attendances on another thread got me thinking about what kind of attendances we should be having and so I have worked it out.

Now what I have done is worked out the population that the Super League, Aviva Premiership and Premier League would reach. I have used metropolitan area figures which makes populations a lot larger because it encompasses satellite towns; this is good for Super League seen as the teams are based close together, eg. the West Yorkshire met. area includes Leeds, Bradford, Huddersfield, Wakefield, Castleford and many lower division teams as well. I used Manchester for Salford and Wigan and Liverpool for the other Lancashire teams. Using these figures also allows for fans that might travel from outside the base towns and cities (I travel to Hull from a satellite town). I have done the same for the leagues I am comparing to as well.

So, the total population in the rugby league heartland and Perpignon (didn't forget it ) is 7,618,000, the Unionball league is 15,204,758 (much of that being London) and the foolsball league is 22,341,779 (this figure won't be as accurate because of the amount of foreign support and premier league tourism).

Next step: Unionball has a population potential 1.995 times larger that the Super League, with an international attendance of approx. 80,000
Foolsball has a population potential 2.932 times larger with an international attendance of approx. 90,000
Rugby League's international attendance potential is about 30,000 I reckon, given recent double headers that get about 40,000 and this test series which will get attendances of 25,000 and probs about 40,000 at Olympic as well. Some attendances are below these and some above so I think 30,000 is fair.

So what we do is divide the international attendances of the comparison leagues by the difference in population: Unionball is 80,000 divided by 1.995 and Foolsball is 90,000 divided by 2.932. The figures we get from this gives tells us how large those figures would be if their population areas were the same as Super League and thus how many people would likely go to an international: Unionball gives us a figure of 40,082 and Foolsball a figure of 30,687.

In my opinion the figures show that international rugby league is not that far away from other sports. If we could get up to an average of 35,000 then we would be bang in the middle of the range of other sports. This could easily have been achieved with this test series if the RFL had just been a little more ambitious and had the tests in say, St James' Park, Elland Road and Olympic. Say fill Elland Road and get about 40,000 at the other two would give us an average of about 39-40,000!! Listen to the fans RFL!!!!

Next lesson we will be looking at stadium occupancy, class dismissed

Does Union have any clubs left in London? Does RL have any in Liverpool?

I suppose Harlequins? Although probably should restrict population to the borough rather than the conurbation?

There are 2 union clubs in London, harlequins and Saracens.

You've got me thinking now though lol cos if you compare potential population to fans that go then actually union is the worst supported of the leagues, if anyone would care to work that out. Divide total attendance over a season figures by the population figures above, the higher number is the least attended.

Problem is the football and union international attendances are limited by the size of the stadia.

Didn't take long did it. Jesus Christ

There is a problem with your reasoning, in particular with RU, that they have many people who support the national sides (international game) but don't follow any club side.

e.g. Club RU in Wales is slowly dying, but they can easily get >50K at the Millenium Stadium for the 6 Nations and Autumn Internationals.

There is a larger issue with the reasoning, that being that the size of our footprint isn't an excuse or mitigation, it is part of the problem .

We shouldn't be wanting to celebrate a mediocre attendance because we have a small footprint, we should be expanding that footprint and getting good attendances. We don't need the equivocation that our attendances are 'good for RL' we are a big boy with big boy pants on.

I think people have missed the underlying point of what I was saying, basically this: Why do people get so hung up on attendances? Why should it matter how many people go down there each week, how many people turn out to see the national team? Why is it better if there is more people there? If you enjoy rugby league then it doesn't matter which team you go watch. I sometimes go down the local semi-pro team and there is maybe 100 people there on a good day. Really enjoyable rugby and I have a good time, my experience would not necessarily be bettered if there was 79,900 more people stood around me.

Attendances do not matter, we all go down rugby league cos we love it and that is all, the amount of other people there. Does. Not. Matter.

I imagine the argument that will be put forward here is that bigger attendances and occasions get more media attention and promotes the sport, gives it a better image which is brilliant, don't get me wrong I want that but we, the die-hard fans know it is the best sport in the world, if other people don't that's their problem, essentially the reason more exposure is better is to get people to come watch which is great if it happens but what I'm getting at is it doesn't matter if it doesn't. Take the example of British basketball league, they get a few hundred people and less that no exposure but I'm sure their fans aren't angling for NBA style league, they enjoy their sport, they go to their sport and don't complain.

why is it better that more people are watching rugby league? The amount of people there does matter, it matters quite a lot, it is the basis for everything that comes after.

Its not just that bigger attendances get more media attention (which is a good thing) or that it promotes the sport and gives a better image (which again is a good thing, its that it also means more tv money, more sponsorship money, more attendance money, it introduces more kids to the game which means more players, which means better players, and that tv money and sponsorship money and attendance money means better players, investment in youth development and facilities, it means fewer clubs going pop, fewer players left struggling for money, fewer players leaving the game, more coming in, better stadiums, better sports science.

Otherwise we will be like the BBL, poorly paid players playing a low standard in poor facilities in front of poor crowds,

Of whom only Harlequins have done a decent job of building a regular fan base.

For the record, of the 7 RU clubs in London that went professional in 1995:
2 went bust (Richmond and London Scottish),
3 have left London, (London Irish 40 miles away, London Welsh 50 miles away, Wasps 70 miles away),
1 spent 15 years outside London (Saracens),
1, and only 1, stayed in London the whole time (Harlequins).

Don't be fooled by the attendances at Twickenham, London is not a Rugby Union city.