this is my last post on this as its off topic... I should hope you can quote more and I can quote books and chapters and paragraphs from umpteen other sources interpreting the influence in different ways... as with politics, in history there are very few times when there are absolute rights and absolute wrongs and they mostly involve body counts (thanks Jed Bartlett)... history is about interpretation history is not just about the retelling of facts, though that is, of course, interesting in itself that is more "story telling".
you talk about the FA and their attitude which is, to an extent, fair but the FA were not representative of "the English" which is what other people are talking about, a single Englishman doing something off their own back is an englishman helping to expand the game.David Argylle is an Australian helping expand the game but you couldn't say that the NRL is expanding the game.
As I have said there is right on both sides of the argument and there are degrees of right but you are being hugely (and almost embarrassingly) simplistic in your argument and interpretation.. You are quoting facts without looking at what leads up to it. a few examples:
There are arguments around the Wars (which also helped spread the game) and whether other games would be growing in a bigger and better way without them. Tony Collins also has a great podcast that talks about the strength of other sports around the Wars and how the war halted that growth and other games took over. The popularity of football, for example, was helped by the outbreak of war, football was a uniting past time something most people could play and something that didn't need huge resources to do so. It was something that brought together the different allies and antagonists as it was the only sport played by most, therefore, growth and the unifying state of football can be seen and can be spread amongst the workers more. other sports were damaged by this inability to play etc.
You quote the insular nature of the FA and the Hungarians beating them changing that.. thats an interpretation of the facts and one that is not necessarily fair. The facts are that England won most of their matches, they played the home internationals and a lot of friendlies year in year out and they won the majority of the games, if they lost it was not a hammering. Since WW2 (when everyone had a bit of insularity) off the top of my head they had played 57 times before the first of 2 beatings by the hungarians in 1953, of those they had won 37 and lost 8, playing the likes of Switzerland, Portugal (10- 0 win), Belgium, Denmark, Italy, Norway, France, Argentina etc in friendlies outside of the world cup. It wasnt insularity that Hungary broke it was a bit of invincibility.. before 1953 they had already played, and lost to the USA, in the world cup, they had been playing 3-4 international friendlies a season outside of the home nations championships and before the first world war they were doing it too. They had rejoined FIFA and taken part in the 1950 world cup any insularity that the FA had was already gone, hence actually playing Hungary in the first place.
People use the fact we were not in the first 2 world cups as insularity of the FA yet the reasons for missing the first world cup are complicated (though arrogance is a part). European teams were finding it difficult to travel logistically, and because players would need to be away from domestic leagues for 3 months during the season. By february 1929 no teams from Europe had entered and invites were re-sent and by November 1929 there were still no European teams down to participate. England were very much not alone in not wanting to go down from Europe to play, it was only the fact Jules Rimet put pressure on that got 4 teams to go, England were not part of FiFA at the time and pressure was difficult to apply. England were not insular, or at least no more so than anyone else in Europe, they were just practical (lets not forgot what was happening in Europe at this time and what had happened in the previous 10-15 years, socio economic considerations have to be thought of). 1934 we did not participate because it was a FIFA tournament and we were not members of FIFA. The FA also believed that the other nations were not strong enough for it to be a world cup so declined their special invitation (again superiority not insularity) they felt the home nations was more of a world cup (Rugby League Tri Nations vs World cup argument too). In the preceding years England had only ever lost to France in 1931 and Spain in 1929 outside of the home nations (and they were playing international friendlies at the time) so although hugely arrogant (not a rarity in English culture at the time) it was based on some truth. There is also an argument around the fact it was very much a propaganda tool for Mussolini and there is a debate around whether pressure was put on the FA (this has never been backed up by facts AFAIK but I believe it is the same debate as whether GB should have gone to the 1936 olympics and IMHO is more about 20:20 hindsight than anything else).
I don't believe the description of insular is fair, they felt superior. They still played the other nations they just beat them. To say they didn't help the international game is debatable, they certainly played a large number of internationals for the time and against more than just the home nations. To say the game against hungary made the English embrace the world outside the island is also missing the fact that the Second president of FIFA (the first was only there for 2 years) was an Englishman (Daniel Burley Woolfall) who helped organise the first major international tournament (the 1908 olympic tournament) and also drafted both the FIFA constitution and helped to push the "english laws" to be taken on around the world. He also brought in members from South America and the USA into the fold. The first world war interrupted the world of Woolfall who then died in office in 1918. Rimet arguably was simply continuing on the work started by the Englishman, leading (again arguably) inevitably towards a world cup. The FA made stands later about post WW1 central powers being in FIFA and then about Broken Time Payments but they embraced the game outside the island but they took stands too against what they did not like (rightly or wrongly)
I know this is a long post and i apologise but the point of it is to show that there are different interpretations of each event but more so that each event cannot be taken in isolation from other events around and a conclusion be drawn from other things must be taken into account and other previous events must be looked at to form a round picture... but it also highlights what i have said all along, which is that you are IMHO being too simplistic and an internet message board is not the place to debate this complicated subject, to a point you are right in what you say but to discount those with counter arguments is wrong because they are also right and the truth is, as always, somewhere in between.
lets move on as this is about Rugby League and its about how people view us, its not about who developed football around the world.. if you really want to learn i suggest you read more than simply Tony Collins (though his books are very good.. i recommend "blood, sweat and beers" its a great read, not about this though.) as it is a fascinating topic.