International Rugby League's Death Rattle

The Rugby League World Cup of last autumn brought with it ups and downs in terms of mass appeal. We secured record Government funding, all matches were shown on free-to-air TV in the UK and drew impressive viewing figures. Contrast that with some concerns about competitiveness, too many empty seats and eye-watering ticket prices which appeared tone-deaf to the record falling living standards.

Just like the 2013 World Cup, this one brought opportunity. In Newcastle, we saw locals turn out to watch England v Samoa in numbers that the Magic Weekend has never attracted. Whilst London's single men's match attracted a disappointing crowd, reports suggested locals made up a large part of it. Again, this is not something that the Challenge Cup Final manages. 

The World Cup also exposed a 12,000 mile chasm in competitiveness. As Tonga, Samoa and Fiji showed that they have stepped up and can compete with the traditional 'big 3', the rest of the world lags behind. And the gap is growing.

This presents the Northern Hemisphere with a problem. The NRL has a so-so attitude to internationals. On the one hand, it has provided funding and, at times, opportunity. On the other, it has taken away the mid-season international break in 2023.

Should Peter V'Landys wake from his bed tomorrow morning and decide international rugby league needs a boost, where would he look? Well, he would start on his doorstep. Why should Australia travel around the world to play England, when there are now four competitive neighbouring countries, with the vast majority of their players based in Australia? 

There is no reason. The sad truth is that the Anglo-Australian rivalry means far more to one side than the other. We have not beaten Australia in a test series since 1972. England are to Australia are what France are to England. An easy-beat opponent. That's probably why England haven't faced Australia since 2017 and who knows when they will again.

Internationals are our gateway to growth. Take this year for example. And watch how this summer's Ashes will have mass appeal and cricket's county championship will not. In the autumn, watch how the Rugby Union World Cup will engage the nation and dominate column inches in a way that the domestic competition will not.

By comparison, this week 15 players withdrew from the England squad to play France. The crowd looks set to be poor, with at least one empty terrace. If we cannot take our international sport seriously, then why should the expect the wider public to?

I do not blame the players who have pulled out. Players wages are paid by their clubs. If your club pressures you to pull out, then it's hard to push back against that. Arguably, you would be foolhardy to bite the hand that feeds you.

I do not blame the coaches. If your star player gets injured in this test match and your season collapses, you might find yourself in the dole queue before long. And coaching jobs are scarce in this sport. One perceived failure and you might not get another chance.

I do not blame the clubs. People cry self-interest. Well, of course. Many of our clubs are built on sand and their players are their assets. Salford chairman Paul King has written an article for The Tribune this week, which contains the startling phrase "the club has no money". Like with coaches, an injury to a key player and you risk missing out on revenue that is inextricably linked with on-field success.

I do blame the inherent weakness of our sport. In Rugby League, there is no safety net. That means self-interest will always be the kingmaker.

Yes, we could be smarter in some aspects but even with some more joined up thinking, you can't overcome logistics. The RFL can only do so much to find a competitive opponent for England in this hemisphere. The game is the players. And for as long as the clubs control the players, the international game will be fighting with both hands tied behind its back.