Totally agree, but we can`t blame Fat Nigel for that faux pas.

What's wrong with Rugby League world cup?

On its own, nothing. However, the other game does not call its comp, the Rugby Union World Cup. They registered the simpler name, and their freedom to use it compounds the impression that there is only one rugby. I've lost count of the number of people, especially non-Brits, who, when I explain the sport that I follow, say 'I didn't realise their were two types of rugby'. Alternatively, I'll tell them I'm going to the World Cup this year in Australia and they say 'I thought that was in Japan?'

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.

Actually, it's all football

This is true.

I think there are several episodes that have occurred over the last 20 years that have allowed RU to progress to where it has. Firstly,turning professional stopped the talent drain to League more or less overnight & meant we needed another strategy to recruit players. Secondly, at the top level, RU is associated with the top business brains in the country & is marketed accordingly, so can attract sponsorship from worldwide brands which is much more impressive than a mobile phone number on a placard offering to remove rubbish & tidy your garden.Our game needs marketing effectively ,which i am surprised not to be seeing much evidence of from our flat capped pigeon fanciers in charge. Our biggest business deal of the last 20 years has been to sell our soul to sky as a ratings slot filler. Thirdly, RU has actually improved its on field game a lot in recent years, especially at club level ,so much so that their game resembles the exciting game that RL used to be until our powers that be messed about with the rules so much that "game management" has turned out to be our version of kick to touch & line out every couple of minutes.

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'.

The whole William Webb-Ellis thing is FAKE NEWS and a myth.