Jump to content

RUGBY LEAGUE IN THE OLYMPICS


Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, DC77 said:

In the unlikely event of there being RU sevens and a RL nines in an Olympics how much exactly would RL get? 

What has been the benefits to RU? Games played to sparse crowds in small stadiums and covered by their own hotbeds. It ain’t spreading the game. 

It is massively spreading the game.

Developing nations, which previously would have ignored union at governmental level are now funding "Rugby" as it is an Olympic sport. So... Union federations are now benefitting from funding, support, access to facilities etc etc that they would never have had otherwise. The level of play among development nations of 7-a-side union has improved dramatically since the sport was officially included in the Olympics. The improvement in the women's game has been even more marked than the men's version. 

As I said already, to many countries worldwide, the Olympics IS sport. If you are not in the Olympics, then to many governments, you are irrelevant. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 138
  • Created
  • Last Reply

For anyone who says that it's not worth aiming towards, "Rugby 7s" has received massive exposure on the beeb, just before the opening ceremony Norton + AN Other were interviewed, and a VT on Fiji RU + other stuff has been commonplace. 

Ultimately the hardest thing for RL are the athlete numbers. The olympics have adopted a strict one in one out rule in terms of total athlete numbers, and 9s requires ~3 more athletes per nation than 7s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, emesssea said:

How is playing nines going to lead to the establishing of league? Theyre two different sports, and I doubt most people even realize theyre related. Like I said soccer didn't get big in a country like US because of beach soccer or indoor soccer or any other version other than the true 11 per side game.

I just dont see how watching a 9 per side game that last 18 minutes translates to watching a 13 per side 80 minute game. 

Someone who can`t recognise the difference between the League and Union rucks will automatically think there is one game called Rugby. Currently at least 99% of the world`s population falls into that category. Because Union is by far the bigger game, this effectively means RL doesn`t exist.

If only Union 7s is included at the Olympics, it means the world only sees players releasing the ball on the ground after a tackle. Hence the Olympics confirms, by default, that RL does not exist.

The RL PTB is as integral to 9s as it is to 13s. If global TV viewers were able to see both Union 7s and League 9s at the Olympics, it would help to establish the separate fundamentals of the two games in the popular mind. And thus more people would realise that RL exists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, DC77 said:

The IOC are desperate to drum up interest by shoving anything in there but it ain’t going to work. The Olympics is not going to die, but it isn't and won’t be what it was.

I don`t know what the TV ratings are here in the UK, but in Australia the Olympics are currently attracting big numbers, out-rating AFL and NRL. Many people are watching sports that they normally wouldn`t. Some will be inspired to keep watching or start participating. The latter was definitely true for Aussie women`s RU 7s after the Rio event in 2016.

Whatever their contemporary shortcomings, the games still represent a huge dose of free publicity for any sport included.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In all honesty the NRL clubs wont want any of their players playing at any Olympics. They are that insular especially as most Olympics take place when the NRL season is in full swing. So that takes Australia and Kiwis out of the equation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RL has 0 chance of being in the Olympics. There's not enough countries playing the sport and most of these are union players in their off season or Aussie heritage teams anyway. Are the IOC going to be swayed by "Italy" turning up in Aussie accents? 

There's too many sports in the Olympics now and it's getting crowded. Even then, they show the same sports all the time anyway Athletics, Swimming, Gymnastics, Martial arts, Cycling. The team sports like handball, football, basketball etc tend to get ignored and zero coverage. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, The Frying Scotsman said:

As I said already, to many countries worldwide, the Olympics IS sport. If you are not in the Olympics, then to many governments, you are irrelevant. 

Lionel Messi, won the Copa America two weeks ago, widely reported as the first thing he won with Argentina.

Messi won the Olympics with Argentina in 2008.

You are seriously overblowing the importance of the Olympics. Perhaps a few decades back when it was much much bigger than it is now, there is an argument (albeit a weak one) that having sports in it that already have their own, much bigger, events, could benefit from being in it. Baring some income from being an IOC member sport (an amount which you have yet to mention) there isn’t any significant benefit.

Andy Murray won an Olympic gold in tennis. I only remembered that as it was brought up this week. Justin Rose won an Olympic gold in golf, that too was brought up this week. These are footnotes in their careers. As it is for Messi, as it is for whoever won the RU sevens in front of sparse crowds in tiny stadiums broadcast to RU hotbeds. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for the “improvement of women” being bigger than that of men. That’s a given as the women’s game is starting from scratch, the men’s game has been prominent for well over a century. 

When you start from nothing your gains will dwarf those who are already established.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Chamey said:

For anyone who says that it's not worth aiming towards, "Rugby 7s" has received massive exposure on the beeb, just before the opening ceremony Norton + AN Other were interviewed, and a VT on Fiji RU + other stuff has been commonplace. 

Ultimately the hardest thing for RL are the athlete numbers. The olympics have adopted a strict one in one out rule in terms of total athlete numbers, and 9s requires ~3 more athletes per nation than 7s.

Rugby 7s broadcast on? The BBC...that’s the BRITISH broadcasting corporation, the home of the sport. And despite that it’s still far down the list of priorities here. The focus is on the main events.

These niche sports do not get shown (bar very brief footage/mention in some cases) outside their own hotbeds. The core sports get shown globally, then the next batch are region based. Coverage is significant if a nation is particularly strong at it (cycling/rowing in the UK). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 24/07/2021 at 16:05, emesssea said:

How is playing nines going to lead to the establishing of league? Theyre two different sports, and I doubt most people even realize theyre related. Like I said soccer didn't get big in a country like US because of beach soccer or indoor soccer or any other version other than the true 11 per side game.

I just dont see how watching a 9 per side game that last 18 minutes translates to watching a 13 per side 80 minute game. 

It means RL governing bodies would be recognised by governments and insurance providers, so they can hire fields/stadiums and develop the sport in schools. 
 

Where have you been over the last decade+ ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The biggest importance of getting in the Olympics is the funding streams it opens up in countries, particularly in developing RL nations that struggle for money and even recognition. That is before you get to countries that don't even play RL that may devote money to it in the hope of getting a medal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DC77 said:

Lionel Messi, won the Copa America two weeks ago, widely reported as the first thing he won with Argentina.

Messi won the Olympics with Argentina in 2008.

You are seriously overblowing the importance of the Olympics. Perhaps a few decades back when it was much much bigger than it is now, there is an argument (albeit a weak one) that having sports in it that already have their own, much bigger, events, could benefit from being in it. Baring some income from being an IOC member sport (an amount which you have yet to mention) there isn’t any significant benefit.

Andy Murray won an Olympic gold in tennis. I only remembered that as it was brought up this week. Justin Rose won an Olympic gold in golf, that too was brought up this week. These are footnotes in their careers. As it is for Messi, as it is for whoever won the RU sevens in front of sparse crowds in tiny stadiums broadcast to RU hotbeds. 

 

SBW failed in his attempt to win a medal 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Damien said:

The biggest importance of etting in the Olympics is the funding streams it opens up in countries, particularly in developing RL nations that struggle for money and even recognition. That is before you get to countries that don't even play RL that may devote money to it in the hope of getting a medal.

That's true and you'd think RL would be "easier" to medal in as not much competition. The likes of the USA, Russia, South Africa, Canada could medal if they put some money and development into it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, DC77 said:

You are seriously overblowing the importance of the Olympics. Perhaps a few decades back when it was much much bigger than it is now, there is an argument (albeit a weak one) that having sports in it that already have their own, much bigger, events, could benefit from being in it. Baring some income from being an IOC member sport (an amount which you have yet to mention) there isn’t any significant benefit.

No, I am absolutely not overblowing it. I work in sport, and have seen first hand the changes Olympic involvement brings in a large number of countries. I don't care if sports like Golf, football,  tennis or Union don't rank high on the list of achievements for the competitors (although you are wrong on some of those as well). That wasn't my point. I clearly said it is "spreading the game" and the governing bodies are fully aware of this.... Which is why they are so desperate to be involved. 

All 4 of these sports already benefit from big broadcast coverage around the world, whereas Rugby League does not, so the boost for RL would be even bigger than these other sports.

There are a number of countries, where the government refuses to recognise Rugby League, literally refuse to acknowledge it exists. I can guarantee that would stop if the sport was included in any Olympic program. 

The Olympic effect had been felt right down the chain in Union (who's world body were literally desperate to be involved - it means TV eyeballs on the sport worldwide in scores of nations who would never normally broadcast that sport.) And one of union's drawcard is that it is a "stadium filler" so works well in an Olympic format where stadia can be relatively underused for a couple of days during the Olympics month.

 

You then state:

"These are footnotes in their careers. As it is for Messi, as it is for whoever won the RU sevens in front of sparse crowds in tiny stadiums"

Utter fantasy. The Rio union 7s was won by Fiji. It was the country's first ever Olympic medal in any sport. The event was marked by a nationwide public holiday, and the coach (an Englishman) was rewarded by being accorded village Chief status, and having his image appear on the country's banknotes. The players, who were contracted to the union on small salaries were mostly snapped up on pro deals by European Union clubs. This creates a further professional pathway for the next 4 year cycle for another group of young Fijians and is literally life changing for them and their families.

As I stated already, Union's involvement in the Olympics has a direct (and negative) impact on Rugby League. The example I gave was in Russia where the women's game was literally wiped out as the government decided the players would switch en masse to union 7s. Women's Rugby League has disappeared from Russia and never returned since.

37 minutes ago, londonrlfan said:

That's true and you'd think RL would be "easier" to medal in as not much competition. The likes of the USA, Russia, South Africa, Canada could medal if they put some money and development into it. 

So why are you "liking" DC77's post above then?? It is complete nonsense and contradicts totally what Damien says. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, The Frying Scotsman said:

So why are you "liking" DC77's post above then?? It is complete nonsense and contradicts totally what Damien says. 

It was about the coverage. Let's be honest if RL is in the Olympics, the only ones watching it would be the usual suspects. The same thing happened with the Sevens in Rio. Billions in China weren't glued to their screens just because it's in the Olympics. The only thing that would change is RL would get access to funding and the lack of competition, means some of the bigger nations might see a medal chance. 

Anyway it's a mute point, as RL will never be in the Olympics. If they're serious about it, then proper development needs to be put in place. A bunch of Aussies representing Italy and Lebanon isn't going to cut it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, londonrlfan said:

It was about the coverage. Let's be honest if RL is in the Olympics, the only ones watching it would be the usual suspects. The same thing happened with the Sevens in Rio. Billions in China weren't glued to their screens just because it's in the Olympics. The only thing that would change is RL would get access to funding and the lack of competition, means some of the bigger nations might see a medal chance. 

 

Well, here is USA Today's article on the Nielsen study carried out post Rio 2016. You can draw your own conclusions if the coverage is impacted or not, but I think it is pretty clear that your position is really uninformed.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/47192923

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, londonrlfan said:

Even then, they show the same sports all the time anyway Athletics, Swimming, Gymnastics, Martial arts, Cycling. The team sports like handball, football, basketball etc tend to get ignored and zero coverage. 

Is this on UK TV you mean?? 

Over here most of these sports get a lot of coverage. Sounds like a fairly myopic viewpoint you have. I was at a Zimbabwean barbecue in Germany yesterday, and they had South African TV. It had 4 or 5 channels just dedicated to the Olympics alone. 

There is a big world beyond the UK (and Sky TV) you know! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, The Frying Scotsman said:

Well, here is USA Today's article on the Nielsen study carried out post Rio 2016. You can draw your own conclusions if the coverage is impacted or not, but I think it is pretty clear that your position is really uninformed.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/47192923

"Attracting 30 million new fans globally" yeah right. Just like 4 billion people watch the World Cup. 

There is some truth to what he says though. Why do you think sports like Skateboarding, Surfing and Rock Climbing have been added? To attract young people, especially in a market as big as the USA, where those sports are popular. The Olympics need to stay relevant to younger audiences. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, londonrlfan said:

"Attracting 30 million new fans globally" yeah right. Just like 4 billion people watch the World Cup. 

There is some truth to what he says though. Why do you think sports like Skateboarding, Surfing and Rock Climbing have been added? 

I have no idea if the figures are correct or not. However you clearly stated that:

" the only ones watching it would be the usual suspects. The same thing happened with the Sevens in Rio."

I Was just making it clear that this is not the case at all, and the Nielsen study backs this up. 

I am well aware of why Skateboarding, Surfing etc have been added. You do not need to convince me of the benefits of inclusion ... I have seen it with my own eyes in the way the Olympic sports are treated in many countries compared to non Olympic sports. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, moorside roughyed said:

Would clubs release players to play in the Olympic games? 

National governments pour a lot of money into Olympic teams, including in the UK and Australia. The political pressure would be massive so yes they absolutely would. Even Gus Gould isn't stupid enough to take on the Australian Government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Whippet13 said:

National governments pour a lot of money into Olympic teams, including in the UK and Australia. The political pressure would be massive so yes they absolutely would. Even Gus Gould isn't stupid enough to take on the Australian Government.

I would go 1 stage further in fact.... For a few nations, the national 9s squad would be partly funded by the Olympic programme, so their contracts would be subsidised by the government ensuring they were available to go into camps, preparation tournaments etc. 

Of course this is fantasy stuff right now, as Rugby League is light years from having 9s as a developed/recognised version of the sport in the first place; but IF RL was in the Olympics, then there would be mechanisms in place to (at least partly) fund the players within the Olympic performance environment. It would help prevent players (and potentially coaches) leaving the sport. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 24/07/2021 at 15:41, DC77 said:

Basketball is an overwhelmingly niche sport outside the US, and inside it it is dominated by Africans which sees the viewership being disproportionately black. Its simply not competitive enough to have a viable World Cup, so the interest is negligible. The status of the Olympics *gave it a draw among the top players that it otherwise would not have had. 

I say gave as it no longer has that draw among top players. Big brands have also pulled out over the last two Olympics. This lessening draw applies to most sports at the Olympics as the event itself is not what it was. Drug use is one reason (sceptical about competitors), the influx of gimmicky events another (diluting the games with so many), but the main reason for me is we now have unlimited access to anything we want to view via our tablets, laptops, phones etc. An Olympics before all this would have stood out a mile. It was the talk of the town. Now it’s just another event swamped among all the other media and options we have at our disposal. Can anyone name me a British athlete? Maybe the female sprinter...anyone else? Contrast this with the days of Daley Thompson, Sally Gunnell, Colin Jackson, Linford Christie, Jonathan Edwards, John Regis, Roger Black, Steve Backley and on and on and on. The focus and spotlight just isn’t there anymore.

Taking all this into account, as well as RU getting negligible growth via a sevens event, I don’t see RL benefiting by being at the Olympics (bar the small amount of money received as an IOC member sport). Those who watched the RU sevens will overwhelmingly have come from the RU hotbeds. There are so many sports to cover that niche sports will only appeal to their own region. It’s a moot point anyway because RU sevens being in there there’s no chance a RL equivalent would also get in...although given how farcical the event has got nothing would be a surprise.

Almost everything you have said here about basketball is incorrect. Basketball is the second most popular sport in the world routinely being the second sport behind football. The NBA is in fact just as dominated by European players now, all the leading candidates for MVP this season were European players - Doncic, Antetokounmpo, Jokic and France just defeated the USA at the Olympics. If basketball is deemed not competitive enough to have a World Cup then Rugby League really shouldn't have a World Cup.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RL 9s would be perfect for the Commonwealth Games, why did they not continue pursuing that? Next year will be another CG, so will there be another event? If they want the Olympics, they need to start putting down groundwork and join regional games. There are a few sports in the Olympics that don't have a huge global footprint, however they are in regional events. 

I'm no expert on Sevens, but why were Korea in it and not France? Especially as France would've been a lot more competitive, given Korea were hammered. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.