zylya

I'm excited to see how this additional profile translates in the next couple of years - as someone involved in a community club outside of the heartlands, I'm also hoping that the extra attention and availability (BBC, streaming etc) of top flight Rugby League will also help generate interest in people playing the sport across the country, both kids and adults. A rising tide lifting all boats scenario.

No we didn't. We had a semi professional league 1 with a variety of expansion teams created to join it. That's not a pathway because there's no ongoing process. What I'm saying is remove the arbitrary barrier between League 1 and the two Conference Leagues and let clubs build how they want, with a promotion & relegation structure (that could include minimum standards if necessary). e.g. League 1 bottom team gets relegated (suspended for a few years til League 1 gets to the right size) and the winner of the SCL and NCL Grand Finals play off for the spot. You could even have a playoff game between the bottom team and the winner of the NCL/SCL final. That way, if Skolars ever attracted the investment they were looking for, they could re-earn League 1 status over time. At the moment, it's a huge slog for League 1 clubs to find the funding to operate (limited number of home games, limited central funding etc). Likewise if a group ever invested into a lower down Rugby League club, they could in theory work their way up to Super League without any outside interference, e.g. when Manchester Rangers were denied entry because "too many other teams nearby." If you're good enough, and build your business well enough, you can find promotion. Clubs that don't want to push towards promotion don't have to, but clubs with ambition have a viable pathway to get their club up the pyramid. Additionally, Hemel and Skolars are now both rebuilding in Southern Conference - so you already have the relegation part of it available for clubs. But at the moment, when a club drops out from League 1, it's a traumatic process, whereas a natural promotion/relegation would allow for a smoother transition of teams. Wests and Hammersmith both beat NCL Premier teams in the challenge cup so the gap in playing ability has clearly been closed.

This is what I was trying to say as well - get rid of the whole “this is the semi pro league and this is the amateur league” and have a pathway through for clubs to hit their own aspirations if they choose to dedicate the resources to it.

Obviously the neatest short term solution is a 12/11 split, but I think it’s time for the RFL to start looking at a national pyramid like they’ve introduced in the women’s game. League 1 to sit above NCL/SCL with a promotion playoff between the two regions (with NCL renamed Northern Conference). Of course, they would have to make promotion to League 1 be an attractive proposition, which I’m not sure it is at the moment. That said, there have been some teams wanted to join League 1 in the past - a national pyramid would remove the “block” on new clubs (E.g. Manchester) but they’d have to prove their stripes before they could get there. Obviously you’d have to change things around so there’s not a clear pro/amateur split which has a lot of historical context so wouldn’t necessarily be a simple process.

Whether growth of Rugby League as a sport is their stated purpose or not, everyone here seems to agree that NRL wants to make money off the back of this. It might only be small numbers, but now you've got a group of Rugby League enthusiasts who are ###### off and won't go to the game. It's probably not the end of the world, but the NRL would probably do well to send some free kit to these guys with an apology and even better if they can get a player to visit as well. The video on the article also clearly shows the kids rucking over after a carry, so Leniu's not even delivering a Rugby League session. He called a high school rugby union team "the pinnacle of Rugby League" in the area. It's not that this is the biggest mistake they've ever made, or that it's not salvageable at this stage, but running things like coaching clinics is part of a strategy to get supporters interested in the product. Creating life time fans rather than just plugging a few events in Vegas. If the NRL stars runs a coaching clinic and the 4 youth clubs in Utah all get an extra 10-20% membership and that catalyst helps them grow to more clubs etc then you've got a ready-made group of people who are going to want to come and watch the NRL when it comes back the next year. Going to a rugby union high school and coaching rugby union is pretty one-and-done in terms of getting fans through the door. The marketer in me also thinks that this is actually an opportunity for the NRL - because you could send them a load of free NRL stash, make an apology and offer some time from your marketing/design department to create some cool graphics and website for the Utah clubs to help them get seen. And offer a coaching session when you next can.

The changes I were referring to with my post were the tag/touch til U10 - so a few years of playing before they get to contact work - promoting evasion and catch-pass skills. My hope would be that smaller players will still be able to find success on pitch once they then graduate to contact, by using some of those evasion/catch-pass skills that they've spent a few years developing. I also think that a kid who plays for 2-3 years will be less likely to have a single negative contact experience that makes them want to leave the sport. Obviously some players will come to realise that contact rugby isn't for them, however they may remain involved in the game in non-contact environments if they've had positive experiences.

I am not a lawyer

IANAL, but given that the game already carries an element of risk, I imagine that any good-faith effort to reduce the likelihood of head injuries would not count against the RFL, especially if the research done post-change highlighted this and they reverted. The current lawsuit alleges that Rugby League (via its governing bodies) didn't take action to protect players from concussion and repeated concussive events. If they can point to the research they've carried out and the changes they've made because of it and then, if they're wrong, revert the change in good time then I don't believe that they would be specifically liable in that instance.

I work in rugby environments of both codes, ranging all the way from U12 (and very occasionally primary school) all the way through to Open Age, and I can honestly say that one of my biggest challenges with young players is lack of catch-pass. The majority of youth rugby that I see, up to around U14/U15, is determined by which team has either the oldest kids (i.e. relative age effect) and/or most early onset puberty kids. I've seen games at U13 & U14 level decided by a team that gave the ball to their biggest player over and over again and that player does 80%+ of the work. That doesn't make for great learning outcomes for the other 12 players! Especially because give it to the big lad as a strategy only works for so long - loads of opportunity to learn how to read the game/play tactically/develop the majority of your players missed. My experience as a player and subsequently as a coach, as well as anecdotally from others, is that the players who have that initial physical dominance tend to either drop out when everyone else catches up in terms of physical maturation or find themselves unequipped in skill terms to hold their own any more. There is an effect where smaller players who matured later do find themselves with excellent skillsets (no doubt from trying to avoid getting tackled by the aforementioned physically dominant players) however, I wonder how many kids got stream-rolled at 8/9/10 years old and decided "rugby isn't for me." I think there's a bigger element at play than just the future professionals of the game - we need loads of kids playing and being involved in the game because they're our future supporters, volunteers and coaches as well as players, even if most of them will never progress beyond community rugby. More skilful players, and longer development time on those core skills of evasion and catch-pass will have positive outcomes in the longer term. I don't believe it will have a long term detrimental impact on the game - in fact, by having players start to learn the complex multi-faceted movement patterns involved in tackling later on in life, they're likely going to be better at tackling in the long run.

Ah didn't see this before I posted it on the International Forum. But to repeat myself, have been really impressed with what they're doing in the Netherlands at the moment. Lots of good stuff, working hard to grow the game.

https://rugbyleague.nl/u19s-squad-named-for-inaugural-tour/ Two matches against community sides and visits to professional clubs. Have been really impressed with the Netherlands recently - lots of good stuff in both men's and women's and now pushing their youth as well.

This is an excellent post and mirrors a lot of my own experience as someone who was born in a non-RL area and only took up the game for the first time at uni and am now involved in running Rugby League activity (club and some schools stuff). There was no "effort" to expand into my home town, I set it up by getting in touch with people and making it happen. The idea that the RFL is ploughing tons of cash into expansion areas is demonstrably false - even at the pro level, look at the fates of West Wales & Skolars over the last couple of years. There's a skeleton staff at the RFL dealing with "The South" (i.e. everything that's not the heartlands, even though that covers way more than just South of England) and they've always been really helpful, but it's a drop in the ocean. To suggest that there's money wasted on expansion projects is crazy when there's only one full time staff member for the largest part of the country. Despite that, small pockets of progress are happening - I took a local school to the London & SE Champion Schools festival the other day (U14) and there were 7 schools there all playing 13-a-side rugby league. The more that can be made of these things, the more likely it continues. The problem for the traditionalists is that there's practically zero money to divert from the expansion areas to the heartlands - since as FI has pointed out here, most of it is coming from enthusiastic amateurs. Because as someone who's never lived up North and only took up the sport at university, I'm not going to be sending any money to places over 5 hours away from me. I'll either invest my time and energy into building something in my local community or I'll simply spend that same time and energy in other pursuits. This heartlands vs expansion debate is trite and irrelevant since there's no real funding or time/energy invested into non-heartland areas at a NGB level.

Got it, you don't have any examples at all. Even in the post pointing out your own hyperbole you still suggested that World Cups have been built around the very minor nations, but it's good to know that you can't actually point to a single time this was the case and are therefore talking out of your ###### about it.

Take it that's a no on pointing to any World Cup that was designed for the tiny countries as you've claimed a few times? As I mentioned earlier in this topic, I don't even have a problem with the IRL deciding that the World Cup should be smaller and acting accordingly. But why, as the global governing body, have they not created anything to help these developing nations as well as their top nations? Looking at the "international calendar" it's mostly about what's happening with England and Australia, aside from a brief mention of a potential World Series competition. I don't see how you can legitimately try and claim that the IRL has shown any real interest in anything OTHER than the very top nations. And I don't see how anyone can justify a global governing body being so lackadaisical with a large segment of their membership.

I wouldn't 100% be against a 4-3-3 group system as long as it's drawn like this: Pot 1 (top 4 ranked teams) - 2 into Group 1, 1 into G2/3 Pot 2 (teams ranked 5-7) - 1 into each group Pot 3 (teams ranked 8-10) - 1 into each group So that there's still an element of fairness in the groupings. 2 teams would qualify from the group of 4, 1 from the 2 groups of 3. Creates some good jeopardy - still likely that the top 4 teams would end up in the semi finals, but a single upset in a group of 3 would be enough to get a different team in. Also means a marquee game in Group 1. Would be happy for the hosts (Australia or New Zealand depending on where it ends up held) to be in Group 1 and their game against the other Pot 1 team to be the tournament opener - less random, but gives a decent opening game. Would make the draw easier to explain as well. Super Group can get in the bin though.

Ok, but that's not really what's happening here. Brazil Men played in an IRL initiated qualifier (at their own expense) and after winning, they've been told that now there's actually no chance for them to qualify. Brazil Women earned a spot in the 2025 RLWC after participating in the 2021 RLWC. This has now been rescinded also. And in return, they get... nothing! A tournament that has no structure announced, no dates, no hosts, no funding model. It'd be interesting to hear how anyone could justify all the goalpost shifting here... especially with full membership of the IRL being such a joke in terms of teams with hardly any domestic activity holding on to their full membership status. You say that you can't build a RLWC around the needs of minor nations and that we've done so before, but I can't see any example of a RLWC which has been built for anyone other than Australia, England and New Zealand. All of the previous 10/14 team tournaments were specifically designed to get those three into the semi finals (e.g. 3 qualifying from a group of 4). To suggest that somehow the IRL board, which is disproportionately represented by officials from Eng, Aus, NZ, has been creating World Cups that benefit tiny nations over the established ones is just completely incorrect. Please point to one World Cup where it's been built disproportionately around the needs of the smallest nations.

A governing body that just exists to serve countries that already have functioning systems is hardly a governing body at all. As a membership organisation, its role should be to support and develop the entire game. That means that projects like the RLWC will ALREADY receive most of the IRL revenues, but that doesn't mean that they don't also have a responsibility to their other members to grow and develop the game there.

You keep talking about money, but I haven't mentioned it. The initial complaint was whether Brazil and their contribution was valued by the IRL. An announcement that included some details on a South American regional tournament and how the nations there can grow their national teams and domestic scenes over the next 10 years would have been a demonstration that they have value to the IRL. As an example, in their own news article, they included quotes from the NRL and RFL but nothing from their two regional bodies (Europe and Asia-Pacific). While money is definitely needed to grow the game entire, the fact is that it's just one of the steps needed. But the IRL can't even be bothered to do any of the steps that don't require money either, so I don't see what point you're trying to make here.

-double post-

It's not just inclusion in the World Cup though is it? What, in the IRL announcement, do you see that will support a country like Brazil, aside from a vague mention of Regional Tournaments and a World Series idea? There's nothing concrete for a developing nation to actually plan around and build growth from.

Completely agree - if they'd announced some details on this World Series - where it is, how often, how they see it developing teams long-term then there would likely be less dismay from developing nations. They don't actually say how many teams will be in the 2030 World Cup - whether it reverts to 16 or stays at 10. FIFA, by contrast, announced the expansion to 48 teams for 2026 in 2017, so 9 years for associations to prepare. If an ambitious, smaller nation wanted, they could have invested in a 9-year programme to develop their national team to qualify when the tournament expanded. IRL have given teams 2 years notice, if we count the date as 2025, or if we're generous, they've given teams 3 years notice that if you're outside that "top" group then forget about any plans you made. All the hard work Greece or Jamaica did to get themselves to the World Cup last year and the progress they each made has essentially been for nothing. If they'd announced two cycles in advance that it'd be reduced, at least nations have time to prepare for it - either by increasing investment or managing their expectations accordingly.

I think the point is more that they've already done a load of work - including funding their own way to IRL tournaments with the eventual goal of getting to a World Cup, just to have this pulled out from under them by the IRL moving the goal posts. Which wouldn't be as much of a problem if they were investing into these countries and supporting International teams to take part in their regional tournaments. But I didn't see anything announced about a tournament to support the growth of South America or any development plans to ensure that the good work that has started in Brazil doesn't just die out. Even if these are the correct decisions for the whole game, the timeframe is ridiculous. There's no stability in the intl game, just lurching from one extreme to the other. How can Brazil, or any other developing country for that matter, shoot for long-term growth when the IRL is incapable of staying the course on anything? I'm sure someone will say "regional tournaments/World Series" as part of the announcement. Let's assume I'm running Brazil Rugby League, I can hardly launch a strategy for growth of the back of an alleged Regional Tournament which has just as much chance of happening as not. There are no details (which regions, how often, funding arrangements, progression opportunity for some easy starters) and it's essentially just an idea at this stage.

RugBees is an RFL led promotion that most of the foundations are doing to some extent. It's an excellent idea and will hopefully engage a lot of young girls into Rugby League. More info at: https://www.rugby-league.com/competitions/community-leagues/women-girls-rugby-league/rugbees

Some interesting thoughts in this thread. Going to throw a few of my own. First starts with purpose - what role does the Challenge Cup play in the life of the Rugby League season? For me (and this is obviously just personal) but as someone living well outside the heartlands, my biggest interest in a game was Wests Warriors vs Widnes (and if it hadn't been switched to Widnes I would have made the 2-2.5 hour journey to watch it). I also kept an eye on all the other Southern teams in the competition and how they did. If we accept the position that the CC needs to have its own USP for the league, then I believe this is it - it's a wider celebration of the game which leads to a pinnacle that is the final. With that in mind, there's a few things I would be looking to do: Enter Super League clubs earlier in the competition with an open draw (no seedings) - this will give a better chance for lower league clubs to get through to later rounds and therefore more chance of games that we haven't seen before. Although "the magic of the cup" in football is the idea that any club could knock anyone else out, this is way less likely in RL but the magic comes from seeing a lower league club take on a bigger club and the experience that provides for players and fans (tying back into that celebration of the sport) Until a certain stage (Quarter-Finals?) all games will be reversed to the home ground of the lower league club (all community leagues counted as equal for the purposes). Allow these opportunities for bumper gates for lower league clubs which will help support them financially if they go on a good run. Same league teams hosted as drawn. Redefine the 1895 Cup and add a 1895 Vase/Bowl/Plate (whatever you want to call it). When you get knocked out of the Challenge Cup before a certain round (before SL clubs come in), you get into the 1895 Cup. When you get knocked out of the 1895 Cup before a certain round, you get into the 1895 Vase. These cups progress on their own tracks until their own finals. The intent would be that 1895 Cup final would be two Championship teams and the 1895 Vase final would be two League 1 teams (or extremely lucky/skilful community clubs). Sort of like how teams can drop out of the Champions League into Europa League and/or Conference League. Would require some thought on how this interacts with IMG points (so a Championship team that goes on an insane CC run doesn't get penalised for not being able to win the 1895). 1895 Vase final doesn't need to be at Wembley but would be good to use a decent SL ground for a nice environment for clubs' supporters. Possibly the same for 1895 Cup. Get as many games streamed on OurLeague as possible - essentially any game that's not picked up by any of the broadcast partners. Market the hell out of the streams and on social. Give every club that qualifies for the Challenge Cup their moment in the sun. Make the profile boost so attractive that every community club wants to qualify and be part of it. Final still at Wembley as a way of promoting the sport to loads of people outside the traditional supporter base. Schools/Dev work in London should be referencing the early rounds of the Challenge Cup while teams like Broncos, Skolars and the community clubs are in it. Make a massive event of it and market it to get (local) neutrals interested. Use the fact that it's on the BBC to get more eyes on the sport and make sure that there's PPC & social marketing set up so that anyone watching on the BBC and subsequently searches on google/social media is directed to landing pages that allows them to sign up to find out about more RL stuff like: How to support the two clubs in the final (since casual observers may take a fancy to one team) - links to website, social etc How to get involved in playing Rugby League (postcode search etc) or volunteering Mailing List signup for future marketing - Challenge Cup tickets, Internationals etc Set up Fanzone events at various locations around the country for people who can't afford the travel to watch the game. Especially in the towns/cities of the clubs in the final but also in key strategic locations (e.g. outside Wembley...). Have promotional material (banners/posters, bunting etc) available for clubs to set up their own watch parties at their clubhouses/local pubs etc. Get it sent out free of charge and encourage all community clubs to host an event. Let clubs use it as a way of generating their own revenue (if they have a clubhouse) and celebrate the sport. To summarise, at the moment there's no real positioning of the Challenge Cup to RL consumers. For me, positioning the Super League Grand Final as the two best teams in the sport as compared to the Challenge Cup Final as being a celebration of the best OF the sport.

I don't think the intent for the qualifiers is to attract an audience per se, more to celebrate the W&G game. There's coaching workshops, the venue has multiple pitches so that people watching can wander around, there are invitational teams who will get a high quality playing opportunity as well as letting them come into contact with some of the top teams. Overall, I can imagine that young female players who attend will get loads of chances to meet some of the best players, get autographs/selfies etc. It feels as though it fulfils a different purpose than being a regular spectator event. The finals day is at AJ Bell which will have more of a "top flight" feel to it. The qualifiers is almost more of a community day for W&G RL.