Why does rugby keep comparing itself to football?

Question

there seems to be a jealousy from rugby fans here,everytime the rugby team win a few games you get people slagging of football,.

overpaid prima donnas,well rugby boys are already ultra rich,i suspect its cos you dont like working class doing well for themselves,was the same c**p with the cricket a few years ago.

theyre real men? if thats what you like why dont you watch boxing or a martial art? being more macho dosent make the sport more of a spectacle.

they play with more passion? well considering the lack of skill its all they had,i mean fair play to the players,cant take aay from the way they battled but chrisy were they boring.

its a better sport? well i you all thought that why are the gates so low? most rugby gates would be poor for league one in the football league

if you genuinely love rugby then good luck to you but stop the comparing,its embaressing.

Answer 1

Exactly. Man I had a chortle the other day when I was arguing with someone I know over which sport required more skill. Rugby is a sport for meatheads and public schoolboys; most of the time an ugly combination of the two. Football needs players of vastly different builds; in rugby you'd be blind to say that even the wingers aren't built like brick sh*thouses and this is why it will never capture the imagination of the country. I know that probably sounds g*y but it's true; people want sports that the every man can at least give a good go. No one gets enthralled by goal or goalscoring opportunies in the same way as football, because they're so frequent; and the fragmented and monotonous nature of the game bores me to tears.

Class wise, again, because it's comprised mainly of public schoolboys and Tory MP lookalikes (Andy Gomarsall = David Cameron) most people can't relate to it. I didn't even watch the final in the end, I was in a pub for the semi-final and the atmostphere was stifling and saccharine; so I just stayed at home with my bedstricken girlfriend, and it ws much more interesting.

This constant comparison from the rugby fans can only lead me to believe they feel their sport is inferior (from which we can induce that they're astute, if bitter).

[/Rantover]

Answer 2

To the answer above she's talking about English Football (Soccer) not American Football.

And to the original question, Rugby players are not massively rich the average pro earns around £60, 000 a year. If you call that rich then god knows what Footbalers are.

Simply put Rugby is a better sport because it requires more fitness, strength, intelligence, passion and heart than football regardless of the fact that CLUB games get smaller crowds. Internationals don't get small crowds by the way.

With regards to American Football, if Rugby takes off in America they could be brilliant at the sport. The guys who don't quite make the grade in American Football could be very good Rugby players. Their pace and power would already be there, all they would have to work on is technique and being able to sustain all three of these aspects over a long period of time by increasing stamina and endurance.

Runing backs could be wingers or full backs, the slightly weaker wide receivers could be the same and the stronger WR's could be second rows or flankers and so on.

Answer 3

Agree!

Its just a class thing - hate rugby - and they say its a gentlemans game - love football (well kinda - world cup only).

Answer 4

I love rugby, and I TOTALLY AGREE with you on this.

I want to celebrate what England have done with rugby fans, why there is the need to turn a positive into an argument by comparing with football I don't know. It sounds smug and it is pointless.

So, although a rugby fan 100% I want to say well said to you!

Answer 5

"american football" or gridiron is not a sport.

the asker is contributing to this flame battle between rugby and football your rant wasn't necessary.

Answer 6

i think you are right. but it is not all that makes things the way they are. american football was designed to have vastly more violent colisions. that is why, when it was developed from english rugby in the usa (to have it's own national identity, probably, just as basketball was a knockoff from a wholly native american game played by the english colonist). american football would be carnage without the helmets and and pads. even the shoes are very special. it suits the american spirit but do not underestimate how it evolved due to crowd appeal. upstart nascar (as well as european formula racing) must have crashes. american football must have many big crashes every game. most people know nothing about the engineering etc. of the cars. they know about personalities (dale earnheart etc. - they need heros). it is the same in american football. totally different for american baseball and basketball. american football evolved to the professional teams, shot past college (conveyor belt load with powerful-fast jocks who are semi-professional and not really students) football and the money, complexity, scale, and violence cannot be compared. both have a ball and a field that is similar. that is where it ends.