Quote: rubber duckie "They have every right to call it rugby. That is the game. It was the first game.
In Australia and new zealand the term rugby is only for union. It's is completely excepted, that is what it is.
League is altered breakaway version of this. It's not rugby, it's rugby league.
Rugby as a term only creates confusion over areas that rugby league isn't established. That isn't the fault of naming. It's the fault of 2nd best promotion.
25 years ago union was on its knees. League has the opportunity to take the mantel. Union bosses acted to take the sport of rugby global. League sat in its pool of UK Aus comfort zone.
Anyways back to the point. Rugby league isn't rugby.'"
Whilst I don't disagree over the RFL's historical marketing weakness, the World Cup mistake is an example of that very thing. You also misinterpret the birth of 'Rugby' as an organised sport. The game 'created' by William Webb Ellis is Rugby, but the codified Rugby Football Union was formed in 1871. The format of the game changed repeatedly over the following 20 years even before the split. The 1895 split added the Northern Rugby Union, which changed its name to Rugby Football League 30 odd years later, and encompassed further changes to the format. RL has every right to describe itself as Rugby. Union has one format (code) of Rugby, League has a different code of Rugby. Whatever happens down under is the equivalent of folks in many countries (including this one) calling Association Football 'soccer'. Both RFL here and NRL down under continue to use the word 'Rugby'. If I discuss the sport with fellow Northerners they'll talk about 'going to the Rugby,' simple-as. No need to add 'League'.
Of course,
NtW is also correct that both codes of Rugby are also forms of the wider sport category of 'Football'.