Nobody has made any claims about union being morally superior and I don't see what moral superiority has anything to do with this anyway.
I also don't see why you or anybody else would have a problem with the simple fact that union named their sport "rugby" before we did, thus they do have first claim to "rugby" being used as the name for a sport.
What does the Ellis story have to do with anything?
You don't understand or you're being intentionally obtuse.
I'll try to make this easy for you:
Once upon a time there was a worm called Rugby
One day in 1895 a fat cat factory owner carelessly chopped poor Rugby in half
What happened next was remarkable as instead of dying both halves of Rugby continued to live
One half went to live up North while the other lived down South
Years later Southern Rugby tried to pinch the name 'Rugby' all for himself
Some ignorant buffoons even tried to claim that Southern Rugby had more right to the name
However, Northern Rugby protested that he too was part of the original Rugby and had just as strong a claim to the name.
And they all lived unhappily ever after