TheReaper

I was curious about this so I did some looking. I usually buy jerseys (every teams sells them so not relevant) t shirts, and golf/polo shirts for work. Leeds: 1 polo without a sponsor. 0 casual t-shirts (all "training" style). Found them, not under the heading of t-shirts though, 5 styles. Saints:10-12 polos no sponsors. 7 or 8 t-shirts. Wigan: 6 polos, no sponsors. No t-shirts. Castleford: 2 polos, not bad looking. Can't find any t-shirts. Salford: a few polos, no sponsors. 1 casual t-shirt. Wolves: 5 polos, no sponsors. All t-shirt are "training" style. Huddersfield: Shop has been removed due to covid... I don't really think that's a good reason not to show what will be on sale later... Catalans: 5 polos, no sponsors. All training t-shirts except maybe one kid one. Hull FC: 3 pages of polos, but some are NRL for some reason Plent withou sponsors. 9 t shirts. Hull KR: 10 polos, no sponsors. 7 t shirt. Wakefield: 9 polos, 2 with a sponsor. Only a NHS t-shirt. Toronto: No polos. 4 t shirts. Weirdly one of the worst ones. So yeah, sponsors aren't the norm. No lots of T shirt selections at some clubs though. ***manufacturer not counted as a sponsor, no matter how boldly portrayed.

Probably... but it's not quite the same comparison. NHL teams are the best hockey teams in the world. The best rugby teams in the world are nation teams - Could you "buy" a tier 1 national team for that? Maybe... not the best comparison but closer.

I think the options are out of order, rugby union is bigger than hockey. Hockey: 1 extremely rich league(nhl), 1 other top end league(khl), several smaller national league. A world championship without the best players that not many care about. Played in mostly richer northern countries. Popular Olympic tournament. Rugby: 1 extremely rich league (top14) one poorer but recognized as extremely talented league (super), two more very strong leagues (prem/pro14), and more pro leagues below these. Fairly large world cup taken very seriously by all nations. Regular and popular international game. Olympic inclusion with 7s. Popular to some extent in all regions of the world.

Really it's just that all the sports we call football were descended from various school games called football, regardless of the specific rules. And those games seems to be called football due to even more generic Mob football games, that probably was due to being peasants on foot be lords on horseback, but I don't think that's particularly relevant today. Since other did a ranking I'll include mine. 1. Rugby Union. Love playing, love watching. 2. CFL. Die hard Ticats fan, live in sight of the stadium. 3. Rugby League. 4. NFL. 5. Aussie / Gaelic

Generally had no interest after I quit playing in grade 9, didn't make the high school team and discovered rugby. Never watched any pro soccer. Last year Hamilton got a team in the CPL. My girlfriend played pretty high level high school soccer, and we live two blocks from the stadium, so we got season tickets. It was alright, the supporters group quickly got old singing the same copied-from-England songs all the time. The game itself is okay when they're playing, but I found myself increasingly frustrated at diving, seemingly unexplained calls from the ref, and stuff like not telling us how much extra time there was. She didn't renew her tickets, we figured we will go to the occasional bigger game. I never have, and don't have any plans, to watch world cup games on TV. Possibly in person when Canada hosts, but probably only if there's a deal on tickets or something. So I like it less than either rugby, football, baseball and hockey. More than basketball.

There isn't a guarantee there will be one. Do you get the impression that officials there are actually prepared to never allow crowds again, or that they are just saying that now for PR purposes and would reconsider at some point?

It's kind of funny that Norfolk County in Canada is closer to a rugby league team than Norfolk County in the UK.

Completely pointless. If you can get tackled dozens of times a scrum won't make a difference. The article seems of the sport I won't mention to be focused on professional clubs rushing a back a start. I hope whatever ridiculous changes they enact are temporary and confined to their competitions. I would rather wait until we can play normally than have those rules pushed down to my level.

Because when you spend a lot of time (ie most of the match) the risks increase as the likelihood of transmission increase. More opportunity for droplets from you cheering to make their way to someone in front of you. Most the localized outbreaks that aren't care homes are places like meat packing plants, postal sorting facilities, greenhouses with lots of workers etc. where people are in close quarters and for extended periods of time. So for that extended period of sitting in you seat, the additional space may be required to minimize that. But when you pass by someone - on the sidewalk, or heading to the pisser - the time exposure is very low, and that makes the risk very low. A strict, 100%-all-the-time 2m distance will not have an appreciably larger effect on reducing transmission than having a mask on and being quick. All that is my understanding of various articles and reports I've been reading. I could be wrong, they could be wrong, who knows. But it makes sense to me and I think they'll be able to manage some sort of solution with a partial-full stadium. Possibly with non or reduced concession stands, organized bathroom flows etc. Do a job you love and you'll never work a day in your life

double post

The risks of transmission while briefly crossing each other is very low, especially with masks and a little effort to face away from each other. Eventually the guidelines will start to get more nuanced based the actual risks, and not the broad blanket approaches that were necessary when very little was known about how it spreads. So we'll get to a stage where a stadium can be perhaps 1/4 full, with every other row empty and the remaining rows half-full. The majority of time spent in your seat, outdoors, will be very low risk, and the mechanics of passing by someone will be the same as it is the rest of the time outside the stadium, marginally higher but also very low risk.

Thought you meant the club that I play for. In either case, yes.

I forgot that Lamport was famously the only stadium in the world with beer and party zones....

I get really tired of this. Players are part of "the game". If the number of players has expanded, the game has expanded. Coaches are part of "the game". If the number of coaches has expanded, the game has expanded. Clubs are part of "the game". If the number of clubs has expanded, the game has expanded. Fans are part of "the game". If the number of fans has expanded, the game has expanded. It's you who needs to qualify that you only mean players when discussing "expansion".

For how proud the English are of P+R, I'd have assumed this was the default. If you're ditching most of the squad with each rise or drop is it really the same team? If it's the club one is cheering for and doesn't mind the squad turnover, then why any criticism of where players come from?