Dunbar

Yes, I edited my post to say this as well.

It is a little frustrating. The vast majority of the data shows no significant change which, as they explain, indicates whether changes observed across survey years are likely to be ‘true’ changes in the population, rather than just observed by chance. It does somewhat negate the value of the survey for a lot of the activities.

It says no change on the column labelled significance. That is different to a statistical change. You can have a statistical change while still labelling that change no significance. Columns P, Q & R show the rate % of population and then the 95% lower and upper confidence level. Comparing these values to the 2022/23 data shows a clear statistical change. The change is 0.12% to 0.16% of population. Edit to the above: the significance label is not a commentary but a description of trust in whether the change in the data is real or potentially down to chance. So while there has been a change, we cannot be sure that this change is reflective of the actual population. The whole thing is frustrating, but that is how statistics work I suppose.

Sorry, where does it say 'no statistical change'?

16+

Have to say, I was amazed when I saw the numbers. But it is independent and Sport England so a professional and well respected organisation. And, critically, one that uses this type of data to decide where strategic sports investment should come. So I am taking it on face value. Edit to add. The RU and Football numbers bounced back last year and RL didn't - maybe we had a longer recovery from the Covid impact - or the fact we are summer based meant the numbers were more reflective this year (although 12 months, the timing of recovery from the Covid drop would have an impact).

I bet for some on here (naming no names), it's probably still Young's fault when the Roosters concede a try even though he has gone back to the Knights.

Not bad.... got out early on a good behaviour bond! (joke just in case in case TotalRL has lost as much nuance as the rest of the world in the last 6 months!)

Thanks. And of course I now have to look at the Brits in the NRL thread!

My view on that is the numbers for Rugby League are small and so the % of population value doesn't change enough for it to be statistically significant - despite being quite a decent absolute increase.

I have been sharing the Sport England participation data for the last few years so I thought I would pop up from my Elba Island Napoleon style exile to post this year’s data. The survey is the best picture we have of participation rates for adults in various sports and is released every year (starting in 2015-16). It shows the participation rates for the previous 12 months and participation is defined as any person aged 16+ who took part in a sporting activity at least twice in any 28 day period. Background and context There is data for individual sports and other leisure activities but I think for Rugby League, the overall team sports is the relevant benchmark. For the 12 months to November 2024, participation in team sports overall increased by 5% with male participation increasing by 2% and women by 14%. Rugby League For the 12 months to November 2024, participation in Rugby League for men grew by 51% (61,300 from 40,600) while participation for women increased by just 26% (15,400 from 12,200). Overall this means a 38% increase and a participant number of 76,800 compared to 55,800 last year. Comparative sports Rugby Union is probably the most relevant comparison and men’s participation in Union increased by 14% (from 183,700 to 210,100) but fell for women for the second year in a row – a 14% fall 34,500 to 29,700. This meant an overall increase in participation of 7%. Some other comparisons but less detail Football – overall +4% Hockey – overall -3% Netball – women +21% Cricket – overall +5% Thoughts Unlike last year where the Rugby League numbers were very disappointing, these levels of growth are very good news. An overall participation growth of 38% is really excellent. Link to the data for anyone interested in looking at it: https://www.sportengland.org/research-and-data/data/active-lives/active-lives-data-tables#november-2023-24-38806

I commented on the article, not you personally. I am not interested in belonging to a site where insults are endorsed.

I responded to this politely yesterday but I would like to check with your fellow moderators if this type of insult is within the guidelines of civil dialogue set out for this site? I have followed these guidelines for 10 years and over 19,000 posts, it would be nice if that effort was reciprocated.

Indeed I would like our players to be rewarded more for their efforts. But within the appropriate commercial framework in which the sport operates... we have seen what wage inflation has done to other sports who try to live beyond their means. There are comparatives to be made, but I am not sure that a $765 million contract is a sensible one, although I am aware that sometimes you need to use figures that grab the attention.

I try not to be, I hope I come across as open minded and respectful on here. But comparing Rugby League to Baseball is nonsense, there is literally no point. Anyway, a Happy New Year to you.