Dunbar

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.

I was in the middle of a massive post on players staying down after high contact and late contact and how hard it is to differentiate between legitimate foul play and play acting... then I remembered the name of the thread is 'RL dark arts'. That's what they do.

Aren't your 4th and 5th points in your list in the same category as players staying down after contact though, all 3 are about players feigning injury or foul play to gain an advantage?

The article quoted is clearly nonsense, comparing Rugby League to one of the biggest sports leagues in the biggest sports market on the planet makes no sense. But it has led to an interesting discussion on how our game is played and I have some sympathy with both sides of the discussion. I can see why some people see that the modern game has become more formulaic. While the ball is in play longer, there is a lot more structure to the modern game with a lot more set plays being run... every team does the same shift plays and it is the team that executes best that excels, but not necessarily the most innovative. There was less structure and more innovation in previous era's... even the spectacular tries today often come from structured plays. But that is not to say we don't have great individual players today and there is off the cuff play... I am talking about the aggregate. But, on the other hand, when you watch older games (full matches), you see that it is not as innovative and exciting as our memories suggest. I recently watched the full matches from the 1982 and 1986 Kangaroo tours and it was amazing how many errors there were, the benefit of memories is that we only remember what the greats did and not how many balls they dropped. There was so many errors in one game that I almost stopped watching and then I remembered these were some of the best players we have ever seen. Maybe a prece of all that is the game is different, but still the best sport on the planet by an absolute mile.

The crowd that day was 13,226. I'm sure Saints would be hugely disappointed if they got that for a Wigan game these days.

And I haven't brought it up before. But it was definitely a voluntary tackle.

Ok, seeing as though there have been a couple of posts. Twice in the last 28 days: Pool = 19,700 Snooker = 19,300 Ever in the last year, yes or no: Pool = 3,535,400 Snooker = 1,035,600

Because of the post above where there may be a significant difference between irregular and regular participation, I thought in the sense of fairness I would look at the darts and Rugby League data (seeing as though that is the focus of the discussion). I posted earlier that using the 'at least twice in the last 28 days' definition of participation, the results were: Darts = 11,300 Rugby League = 55,800 But when we query the much more broad 'yes or no by activity in the last year', we get: Darts = 1,963,800 Rugby League = 120,300 So Rugby League is a much more regular sport and darts much higher as an irregular or casual activity. Pretty much like most of us would have expected I guess. As the Sports England Active Lives survey defaults to the 28 days description as its definition of participation, I guess the discussion on whether darts or Rugby League is more popular as a participation sport is still debatable, but darts certainly has more people playing it per year. As I say, it all boils down to definitions.

It all boils down to the definition of participation. The 'at least twice in the last 28 days' is the important variable here I think as that implies something more than an irregular participation. My guess is that pool is much higher when you look at single instance or less regular activities. The query builders are on the Sport England website so you can have a look if you want... as this is a Rugby League site, I am not going to bother comparing pool and snooker.

I do feel obliged to point out that 19,700 is higher than 19,300.

Participation data shows that snooker = 19,300 (darts was 11,300 and RL 55,800) Pool is at 19,700. This is adults (aged 16+) who have taken part in the activity at least twice in the last 28 days.

If anyone is interested, I have checked the Active Lives survey data and there is no participation data for Gavin and Stacey.

I see the holiday spirit has drained away!

Merry Christmas to all, I hope you and yours have a wonderful day.

It is. I don't watch a full darts match often - maybe the world's final - but I have watched that 'perfect' leg, where Michael Van Gerwen misses D12 for a nine-darter, and then Michael Smith hits his own 9 darter, quite a few times when it pops up on social media. Rugby League tries, spectacular finishes and bit hits should fit the same criteria though.

One area where darts has a clear advantage over Rugby League is social media reach. Across 4 of the main social channels (YouTube, Instagram, Twitter/X and Facebook), the Super League has 770,000 followers (RFL and Super League combined 1.124 million). PDC Darts has over 3 million followers across these 4 platforms. Obviously there will be a layer underneath this for individual Rugby League clubs and players but the same will be true for darts players as well.

It is realistic in the context of this discussion though because what is at the heart of the discussion is how popular the two sports are and so you have to compare the various elements. You can say to someone 'name a Rugby League player' and that can be compared to 'name a darts player' but so can 'name a Rugby League team' as it will also show awareness of the sport. When you ask a Rugby League fan who they support, how many would name a player in response to that question?

The funny thing is that when I started to read this thread, I went to the survey to get some data because I also thought that darts would have a higher participation rate than Rugby League and I wanted to post some facts to back up people's perceptions. The fact it came in considerably lower did surprise me but that is the point about facts, you are supposed to change your perceptions when presented with evidence, not change (or ignore) the evidence to preserve your perceptions.

Sorry, what are we agreeing to disagree on, are you saying the Active Lives survey doesn't say what I am saying it does?

Why would I say Rugby League is bigger than walking or fishing? I am saying, according to the major uk survey on these things, that Rugby League has a higher participation rate than darts... a survey that includes pastimes as well as organised sports. I didn't expect darts to have fewer participants, but it does.