AUSTRALIA - 2008 Rugby League World Cup Venues

[spud]

the rugby league world cup is being hosted by australia in october & november 2008..

the schedule was finalized this week..

TOWNSVILLE - DAIRY FARMERS STADIUM - capacity,25,000
http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_pictures/oceania/australia/queensland/townsville_dairy_farmers2.jpg

ROCKHAMTON -BROWNE PARK - capacity , 10,000
http://www.comets.com.au/images/1172802834_browne_park.jpg

BRISBANE - SUNCORP - capacity 52,000
http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_pictures/oceania/australia/queensland/brisbane_suncorp2.jpg

GOLD COAST - ROBINA - capacity 25,000
http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_menu/past_future/pictures/future_stadiums/gold_coast_robina.jpg

GOSFORD - BLUETONGUE STADIUM - capacity 20,000
http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_pictures/oceania/australia/new_south_wales/gosford_central_coast.jpg

SYDNEY - SYDNEY FOOTBALL STADIUM - capacity 46,000
http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_pictures/oceania/australia/new_south_wales/sydney_aussie1.jpg

SYDNEY - SYDNEY CRICKET GROUND - capacity 44,000
http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_pictures/oceania/australia/new_south_wales/sydney_cricket1.jpg

SYDNEY - PARRAMATTA STADIUM - capacity 20,000
http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_pictures/oceania/australia/new_south_wales/sydney_parramatta1.jpg

SYDNEY - PENRITH (cua) STADIUM - capacity 21,000
http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_pictures/oceania/australia/new_south_wales/sydney_penrith.jpg

WOLLONGONG - WIN STADIUM - capacity 18,500
http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_pictures/oceania/australia/new_south_wales/wollongong_win.jpg

NEWCASTLE - ENERGY AUSTRALIA STADIUM -capacity 26,000
http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_pictures/oceania/australia/new_south_wales/newcastle_energy1.jpg

CANBERRA - CANBERRA STADIUM - capacity 25,000
http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_pictures/oceania/australia/capital/canberra_bruce1.jpg

MELBOURNE - TELSTRA DOME - capacity 56,000 (though likely to be in rectangle mode cutting the capacity to mid 40's)
http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_pictures/oceania/australia/victoria/melbourne_telstra2.jpg

[HoldenV8]

Telstra Dome has an official capacity of 56,437. In rectangle mode when 4 sections of the bottom tier are moved forward by up to 18m for a more rectangle like pitch, it has a capacity of about 53,500.

I'm not sure but I think that its been confirmed that the dome will be in rectangle mode for all RLWC games in 2008.

[matherto]

No Telstra Stadium?

[Mo Rush]

sydney football stadium is such a beauty

[Benjuk]

Nice spread around Australia there... The whole of the East coast - and a little jump to Melbourne via Canberra. Nothing in the west due to the complete lack of interest in the game. Pity FIFA won't let us get away with that for 2018/2022/2026

[spud]

No Telstra Stadium?

nope...and just to let you know,and don't tell anyone else cos it might look abit dodgy but colin love, the guy organising the world cup, was until a couple of weeks ago on the board of the sydney cricket ground trust which runs the SCG & SFS......but sshhhh don't tell anyone :lol:

[NavyBlue]

nope...and just to let you know,and don't tell anyone else cos it might look abit dodgy but colin love, the guy organising the world cup, was until a couple of weeks ago on the board of the sydney cricket ground trust which runs the SCG & SFS......but sshhhh don't tell anyone :lol:
TS is too big for rugby league . . . in recent times the most they could muster for internationals in sydney were crowds of up to 30k for the tri-nations, which is why the WC final is being played in the more receptive Brisbane.


...but why are they using the SCG?
a . . . it's under construction with limited capacity
b . . . it's the wrong shape for league
c . . . SFS is right next door, literally

[HoldenV8]

Simple answer for you there NavyBlue, not taking into account the Colin Love thing.....

Rugby League in Australia was founded in 1908 and the NSWRL Grand Final was played at the SCG between 1911 and 1987. The game has a long & proud history at the ground. It once held the Australian record for a rugby league crowd when 78,056 showed up for the 1965 NSWRL Grand Final between St. George & South Sydney. This is also the record crowd for any event at the venue. Reports actually put the crowd that day as high as 90,000 but that's never in official figures. It also holds Australia's record Rugby League Test match crowd when 70,204 showed up on June 6, 1932 to see England beat Australia 8-6. Between the 20's and 1970's crowds of between 40-70,000 were regularly seen for tests between Australia & England/Great Britain, Australia v New Zealand & Australia v France. Grand Finals also attracted such crowds and the NSWRL "Game of the Week" was also played there during the premiership season which could attract crowds upwards of 40,000.

There would be a fairly good reason for playing some RLWC games at the famous Sydney Cricket Ground.

[spud]

i'm glad they are use the SCG...it's the spiritual home of aussie RL..

[Walbanger]

Nothing in the west due to the complete lack of interest in the game.

Not entirely true. Melbourne's presence is purely because of the size of the market. If it were about on field performances Western Australia would and should host games but the ARL only care about the east coast.

Out of the Affiliated states, WA is by far the most successful, 2 years ago beating Victoria by over 100 points and in last years championship s in Adelaide, they beat victoria 30 to 12 and again claimed the Championship beating the Australian Police.

WA is in funny territory were they are not good enough for Queensland and New South Wales but are stronger in both rugby league and union against the other states.

[BobDaBuilder]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^

That's down to all the ringers who have moved there for work.

[Joop20]

Funny that the number of stadiums used for this tournament is higher than the number of countries participating :nuts: Can Rugby League really fill a 50,000 stadium in Australia (considering it's such a small sport in the rest of the world, except northern England and PNG perhaps)?

[spud]

Can Rugby League really fill a 50,000 stadium in Australia (considering it's such a small sport in the rest of the world, except northern England and PNG perhaps)?

what a daft comment.......go away and do some reading about rugby league in australia :ohno:

[Joop20]

what a daft comment.......go away and do some reading about rugby league in australia :ohno:

Didnt mean to offend anyone, I'm just surprised that apperantly Rugby League is so popular in Australia while it's such a small sport in the rest of the world (compared to Rugby Union for example)!

[Walbanger]

That's down to all the ringers who have moved there for work.

Load of crap and utterly baseless. WA has dominated the Victoria and South Australian for decades in league and union. As someone who's been involved with both I can proudly say that there has always been a strong home grown presense in the representative teams.

[Wezza]

Funny that the number of stadiums used for this tournament is higher than the number of countries participating :nuts: Can Rugby League really fill a 50,000 stadium in Australia (considering it's such a small sport in the rest of the world, except northern England and PNG perhaps)?
Brisbane Broncos regularly pull crowds of 50,000 during the NRL season. Test rugby league is generally less popular than club or state of origin matches. Though test matches have seen a bit of a resurgence over the past few years, particularly in Brisbane & to some extent, Melbourne as well.

[HoldenV8]

Rugby League is one of the big two in Australia during the autumn & winter months along with Australian Rules Football. In fact, the 2007 NRL season attracted some 3,024,040 fans through the gates over 192 games at an average of 15,750 per game. The NRL finals attracted 307,954 fans over 9 games at an average of 34,217 per game with the Grand Final attracting 81,392 to Telstra Stadium (97% capacity).

That season average may not seem much but when the average capacity of each venue used is 28,135 (Including the 83,500 seat Telstra Stadium, 52,500 seat Suncorp Stadium & 45,500 seat Sydney Football Stadium), then its not bad really.

During 2007, the highest NRL crowd was the above mentioned Grand Final. The highest home & away crowd was 50,416 at Brisbane's Suncorp Stadium to see the Brisbane Bronco s v North Queensland. The 3 game State of Origin attracted 181,891 fans (2 games at Suncorp, 1 at Telstra Stadium) while the mid-season ANZAC Test at Suncorp attracted 35,241 fans.

Don't doubt it people. The 2008 RLWC Final at Suncorp Stadium should attract a capacity crowd.

[Wezza]

Just out of interest, here are the top 5 NRL average attendances for 2007:
1. Brisbane Broncos - 34,008
2. Gold Coast Titans - 22,775
3. North Queensland Cowboys - 19,747
4. Wests Tigers - 17,098
5. Canterbury Bulldogs - 16,488

[SkyLerm]

Brisbane Suncorp :drool: I'll always be in love with it.

[bumdingo]

It's great the finals are being held in Australia, not so far for you to go home when we knock you out of the quarter finals like in the Rugby Union World Cup

[Wezza]

It's great the finals are being held in Australia, not so far for you to go home when we knock you out of the quarter finals like in the Rugby Union World Cup

You're a funny little man aren't you? Always with something very insightful to say.....

[bumdingo]

You're a funny little man aren't you? Always with something very insightful to say.....

What are New Zealanders doing to cut carbon emissions? Dropping the Australians off on the way home

[spud]

wrong rugby code mate....

[Wezza]

What are New Zealanders doing to cut carbon emissions? Dropping the Australians off on the way home

You should really try to find out what you're talking about before making a comment.

[Cheesie-the-Pirate]

...but why are they using the SCG?
a . . . it's under construction with limited capacity
b . . . it's the wrong shape for league
c . . . SFS is right next door, literally

They're not using the SCG is the answer. The press release referred to the "SCG precinct", but the two major Sydney fixtures (Opening Ceremony & Australia vs. New Zealand, Semi Final 2) will be held at the Sydney Football Stadium.

I'm a bit baffled at the choice of CUA Stadium, Penrith. I don't see what it offers to the tournament. Otherwise though I think they've got a nifty little tournament organised!

[Perth4life]

since when was there a RLWC?
bit dissapointing they arn't even going to have one game in Perth or Adelaide, shows how NRL is hardly a national game.

[Wezza]

since when was there a RLWC?
bit dissapointing they arn't even going to have one game in Perth or Adelaide, shows how NRL is hardly a national game.
If they're not going to draw much of a crowd in Perth, no point playing any games there really! Especially if Australia aren't featured in any of them.

[Cheesie-the-Pirate]

since when was there a RLWC?

Since 1954. Much older than the RUWC.

Last one was 2000 in Great Britain, the generally accepted failure of which led the hiatus the concept has been on. Then centenary of the game in Australia and the success of recent tri-nation tournaments has led to the RLWC's revival. Another tournament is expected in Britain/Europe in 2013.

[Benjuk]

I'm not usually one for negative posts - but I can't get excited about a world cup in any sport where pretty much any nation that plays the game gets to go to the finals... I think the real beauty and attraction of the 'soccer' world cup is that only 32 of over 200 nations qualify, and there are always at least a couple of 'top' nations that fail to make the cut which makes it special just to be there.

Rugby world cups, cricket world cups, etc... Does anyone really care? Is it not demonstrated how interested the world truly is in these competitions that they should chose to host games in stadia with capacity as low as 10000 seats (and not expect to sell those out either!)

[bumdingo]

I'm not usually one for negative posts - but I can't get excited about a world cup in any sport where pretty much any nation that plays the game gets to go to the finals... I think the real beauty and attraction of the 'soccer' world cup is that only 32 of over 200 nations qualify, and there are always at least a couple of 'top' nations that fail to make the cut which makes it special just to be there.

Rugby world cups, cricket world cups, etc... Does anyone really care? Is it not demonstrated how interested the world truly is in these competitions that they should chose to host games in stadia with capacity as low as 10000 seats (and not expect to sell those out either!)

Great idea, get rid of all those sports in the Olympics to where only a handful of people turn up. Get rid of the events which are dominated by a couple of countries. Alternately get rid of Benjuk

[Wezza]

I'm not usually one for negative posts - but I can't get excited about a world cup in any sport where pretty much any nation that plays the game gets to go to the finals... I think the real beauty and attraction of the 'soccer' world cup is that only 32 of over 200 nations qualify, and there are always at least a couple of 'top' nations that fail to make the cut which makes it special just to be there.

Rugby world cups, cricket world cups, etc... Does anyone really care? Is it not demonstrated how interested the world truly is in these competitions that they should chose to host games in stadia with capacity as low as 10000 seats (and not expect to sell those out either!)
Rugby World Cup is one of the biggest sporting events on the planet!! I'd say the 4th biggest? Cricket would be up there as well. Fair enough, there may not be 32 teams, but it is still a big deal to competing countries.
Alternately get rid of Benjuk
How about we get rid of you? You have nothing useful to offer.

[Benjuk]

Great idea, get rid of all those sports in the Olympics to where only a handful of people turn up. Get rid of the events which are dominated by a couple of countries. Alternately get rid of Benjuk

I got no problem with your solution... On the other hand, I've got no problem with a World Cup of Rugby or cricket or whatever, so long as only the best teams get to compete at the finals. Take the best 8 rugby playing nations and put them in one competition - it's exciting, throw in all the others it gets dull. Same for cricket - Ireland vs Kenya... World Class?

As for the Olympics - was the sporting world improved by watching Eddie Edwards just about stay on his feet in the ski jump, or Eddie the Eel almost drowning in Sydney? Elite sportsmen? Joke, more like. It belittles the experience for those who qualify as the best in their chosen field.

[Benjuk]

Rugby World Cup is one of the biggest sporting events on the planet!! I'd say the 4th biggest? Cricket would be up there as well. Fair enough, there may not be 32 teams, but it is still a big deal to competing countries.

There's the FIFA world cup, then the Olympics, then there's a BIG drop off before the next biggest competitions. I'm not slagging rugby off, just saying that the presence at the finals of 'minnow' nations did little to make it an elite event. Was anyone interested up until the 1/4 finals?

[Wezza]

There are a few countries who aren't really world class. But i guess their inclusion in the RWC only helps to improve the game in their country? Look at the rise of Argentina for example.

Sorry, i guess we're goin off topic here.

[bumdingo]

But the "minnows" want the chance to play against the bigger nations, it becomes their cup final

[Benjuk]

But the "minnows" want the chance to play against the bigger nations, it becomes their cup final

Then they should earn it through qualifiers... Should we expand the FIFA World Cup finals to include 128 sides so that minnows like Vanuatu can take part and have their 'cup final'?

[Wezza]

^^
They do have to qualify for the RWC.

[NavyBlue]

Then they should earn it through qualifiers... Should we expand the FIFA World Cup finals to include 128 sides so that minnows like Vanuatu can take part and have their 'cup final'?
Fact is, only the football world cup has the capacity to filter out weaker teams for their WC and it's brought on because of necessity. It's due to the world wide popularity of the round ball code that it needs to be done.

For me, the fact that the top 8 or so countries in Cricket or Union playing against each other in the same tournament only once every four years far out weighs the fact that there may be some minnows making up the numbers.

[EADGBE]

Yes it is NSW/QLD-centric and yes it is partially down to the popular powerbase of the NRL in Australia. However, this is not the only reason WA/SA don't feature.

To me, it would seem not just commercially risky to spread to Perth & Adelaide, but also unnecessarily expensive to add too many interstate flights to a tournament that will have some financial scrutiny after the over-ambition of the last RLWC. Much as I'd love to see this 'proper' code of rugby flourish like soccer, I'd have to concede that it has to live within its means. In and around Sydney and Brisbane, it will at least enjoy as much devotion as it is ever likely to receive anywhere in the world - and sadly, I include Northern England in that statement.

I wish the tournament well. I hope it gets the success the sport deserves.

[EADGBE]

In October, the 13th Rugby League World Cup will take place in Australia. Here's a run-down of the 12 venues:

http://www.bluescopesteel.com.au/images/original/6/46D29CE5-008C-33FD-82857F75C310E907.jpg

http://www.projectservices.qld.gov.au/expertise/imgs/Sports%20&%20Recreation.jpg

SunCorp Stadium, Brisbane, QLD (52,500)


http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3126/2535602693_7f6a696823_o.jpg

http://www.league.net.au/images/skilled-park.JPG

Skilled Park, Gold Coast, QLD (25,000)


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8a/DairyFarmersStadium.JPG

Dairy Farmers Stadium, Townsville, QLD (25,000)


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/5d/CUA_Stadium.JPG/800px-CUA_Stadium.JPG

Credit Union Australia (CUA) Stadium, Penrith, NSW (21,000)


http://www.ozrugbyleague.com/images/players/stadium_eels.jpg

Parramatta Stadium, Parramatta, NSW (20,000)


http://www.austadiums.com/stadiums/photos/browne2.jpg

http://www.austadiums.com/stadiums/photos/browne1.jpg

Browne Park, Rockhampton, QLD (8,000)


http://www.cox.com.au/umbraco/ImageGen.aspx?width=510&image=/media/2985/sfs2.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1d/Aussie_Stadium.jpg/800px-Aussie_Stadium.jpg

Sydney Football Stadium, Sydney, NSW (45,500)


http://melbourneinphotos.com/Telstra%20Dome%20900px.jpg

http://www.einejord.no/Australia%20vs%20New%20Zealand;%20Rugby%20Leage/slides/og%20slik%20ser%20Telstra%20Dome%20ut.jpg

Telstra Dome, Melbourne, VIC (56,347)


http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3263/2603570134_123ca4f761.jpg?v=0

http://www.austadiums.com/stadiums/photos/energyaustralia.jpg

EnergyAustralia Stadium, Newcastle, NSW (26,126)


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/21/BruceStadium19032005.JPG/800px-BruceStadium19032005.JPG

Canberra Stadium, Canberra, ACT (25,011)


http://www.austadiums.com/stadiums/photos/win1.jpg

WIN Stadium, Wollongong, NSW (20,000)


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b0/Bluetongue_CC_Stadium.jpg

Bluetongue Stadium, Gosford, NSW (20,119)

[theespecialone]

anz isn't being used?

[spud]

nope

[HoldenV8]

You missed out the Sydney Cricket Ground.

[theespecialone]

why not?

[HoldenV8]

ANZ isn't being used because in recent times Sydney crowds for test rugby league have been smaller than they have been & ANZ is simply too big. Crowds are small enough for games to move back to the Sydney Football Stadium and/or Sydney Cricket Ground. Or other stadiums around Oz. Strange though, the Kangaroo's have never played a test in Canberra & Canberra has a beautiful 25,000 seat rectangle stadium.

Having 30,000 people turn up to a RL Test in an 83,500 seat stadium doesn't look good for the code, or the promoters etc and its not all that inspiring for the players either. Having 30,000 turn up and making the stadium mostly full is a better commercial choice and gets the players fired up and that usually means better football.

[EADGBE]

Holden V8, I have to agree. Much as I would love to see a full ANZ, the simple truth is that international rugby doesn't sell as well in Australia as, say the State of Origin series. Maybe that's a commentary on the superiority of the 'Roos or maybe it hints at the insularity of the average Aussie fan. I'm not really able to say.

It's becoming quite an old-fashioned notion to hold the view that any international sport is inherently 'better' than its domestic equivalent. By the same token, sadly, it's also difficult to make the case that even an Ashes series exhibits a higher standard of play than the Origin series - or even the NRL.

BTW, I didn't see the SCG on the WC website. Are you sure it's a venue? Isn't it next door to Aussie Stadium?

[rockin'.baltimorean]

sydney's retractable roof stadium looks really nice!!! it's great!!!:okay:

[EADGBE]

Which one? in Melbourne?

[bing222]

The final will be at Suncorp Stadium and the Sydney Cricket Ground is not being used

[Benjuk]

sydney's retractable roof stadium looks really nice!!! it's great!!!:okay:

That's in Melbourne... I'm looking out of my office at it right now (half of it anyway, some b'stard built a new apartment block between here and there and blocked half the view!).

[HoldenV8]

I thought that the SCG was being used as its the 100th year of rugby league here in Australia. Ok, I stand corrected *shrugs*

And don't get me wrong, international league in Australia does have a good following, its just that for some reason in recent years (since the mid 90's) crowds for tests in Sydney have been rather poor compared to Brisbane, thus Brisbane was awarded the final.

I understand that the final was originally to have been in Sydney but the poor turnout to the 2006 Tri-Nations Final at the was the last straw for organisers. With this years World Cup coinciding with the 100 year anniversary of league here, it was felt that Brisbane people had voted enough with bums on seats to be awarded the biggest game ahead of Sydney. The people of Sydney only have themselves to blame there. Regardless of how much Australia has dominated international league since the mid-late 1970's, they should still be supporting the Kangaroos. Long gone are the days when 60-70,000 regularly turned up to the Sydney Cricket Ground to see Australia play Great Britain, New Zealand or France in a test. More's the pity really.

[EADGBE]

Regardless of how much Australia has dominated international league since the mid-late 1970's, they should still be supporting the Kangaroos. Long gone are the days when 60-70,000 regularly turned up to the Sydney Cricket Ground to see Australia play Great Britain, New Zealand or France in a test. More's the pity really.

I quite agree. As I said, sadly the Origin and even the NRL appear to be a greater draw. Maybe an England win in November would shake the NSW fans out of their test-level lethargy.

Like you say, it shouldn't make a difference to the support they give, but apparently, it does.

If only I felt anything other than an Australia win was faintly possible...:ohno:

[Iain1974]

Regardless of how much Australia has dominated international league since the mid-late 1970's, they should still be supporting the Kangaroos. Long gone are the days when 60-70,000 regularly turned up to the Sydney Cricket Ground to see Australia play Great Britain, New Zealand or France in a test. More's the pity really.

It's kind of hard to sell tickets for a game when the only question beforehand is 'how many'

I can't think of another international team sport where one county has dominated so comprehensively for so long.

[Carrerra]

Which is more popular worldwide, Rugby League WC or Rugby WC? And Wikipedia says that Rugby World Cup is the premier international rugby union competition, but why is the word Union missing in Rugby WC? Maybe people think rugby union is more representative of rugby football than rugby league?

[CharlieP]

Rugby World Cup (i.e. the rugby union competition) by a massive distance.

Rugby football is so-called because its origin is traced to Rugby School in England - the first governing body was called the Rugby Football Union as it was literally a union of rugby-playing clubs. In the 1890s a number of these clubs became unhappy with the total ban on paying players, so resigned from the RFU and formed their own Northern Union, which was later renamed the Rugby Football League. Although both groups still played the "rugby" kind of football, to save confusion the newspapers in English-speaking countries started referring to "Rugby Union football" and "Rugby League football", after the governing bodies, and the convention stuck. However, outside the UK and Australasia rugby union was and still is the dominant code, and since it's administered by organisations such as "Fédération Française de Rugby", "USA Rugby", "Deutscher Rugby-Verband" and controlled by the "International Rugby Board", the "rugby union" nomenclature isn't universally recognised.

Rugby is used to mean rugby union specifically far more often than it is to mean rugby league (usually only in the North of England - in Australia rugby league fans will refer to it as "football" or "league" and rugby union as "rugby").

[Carrerra]

The birth of rugby league is attributed to the ban on paying players by the governing body of rugby union :lol: That's funny. Your explanations are always awesome, CharlieP :okay:

[krudmonk]

Are those seats in Telstra Dome drawn out? The AFL playing surface is much bigger than that and it looks as if some seats are pulled in front of others.

[EADGBE]

Rugby World Cup (i.e. the rugby union competition) by a massive distance.

Rugby football is so-called because its origin is traced to Rugby School in England - the first governing body was called the Rugby Football Union as it was literally a union of rugby-playing clubs. In the 1890s a number of these clubs became unhappy with the total ban on paying players, so resigned from the RFU and formed their own Northern Union, which was later renamed the Rugby Football League. Although both groups still played the "rugby" kind of football, to save confusion the newspapers in English-speaking countries started referring to "Rugby Union football" and "Rugby League football", after the governing bodies, and the convention stuck. However, outside the UK and Australasia rugby union was and still is the dominant code, and since it's administered by organisations such as "Fédération Française de Rugby", "USA Rugby", "Deutscher Rugby-Verband" and controlled by the "International Rugby Board", the "rugby union" nomenclature isn't universally recognised.

Rugby is used to mean rugby union specifically far more often than it is to mean rugby league (usually only in the North of England - in Australia rugby league fans will refer to it as "football" or "league" and rugby union as "rugby").

I've always disliked the arrogance with which Union refers to itself as 'Rugby' as if it owns the term exclusively. I know that League was essentially a break-away (following the agreement at the George Hotel in Huddersfield i 1895), based on the "broken time" payments to the early professionals. Consequently, you can argue that historically speaking, the sense of 'ownership' remains with the 15-a-side code but it still doesn't sit well with me - but then I am from staunch league territory here.

CharlieP, as a Wakefieldian, I suspect your allegieance to Union is often at odds with the local predominantly League culture. Do you often make your way to Belle Vue?

Carrera, a full explanation of the code, the rules and its development can be found here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rugby_league

[trmather]

It must be said, Rugby League is a much, much, much better watch than Rugby Union.

And that has nothing to do with where I'm from, because I'm not especially fond of Saints or Rugby itself.

[kichigai]

Are those seats in Telstra Dome drawn out? The AFL playing surface is much bigger than that and it looks as if some seats are pulled in front of others.

Telstra Dome has retractable seating although it is rarely used due to cost and the damage it can cause the surface.

[theespecialone]

rugby league started when rugby players couldn't get paid to play or compensated for their injuries. rugby remained amateur until 1992 (or thereabouts)

[Iain1974]

Rugby League is only played in a few remote places on earth. Queensland/New South Wales in Australia and Yorkshire/Lancashire in England. That's about it.

Apparently Stalin was a fan of League

Rugby Union is probably second only to football in its widespread appeal. And even football hasn't had WC winners from 3 continents yet. The concentration of power in the traditional countries (England/Wales/Scotland/France/Ireland/Australia/SouthAfrica/NewZealand) amounts to almost complete domination both financially and politically within the sport.

Apparently Hitler was a fan of Union.

Sometimes, when league vs union rows starts up, the ferocity of each codes supporters defy belief.

[CharlieP]

The birth of rugby league is attributed to the ban on paying players by the governing body of rugby union

Well, that's a pretty basic answer - there's far more to it than I could ever explain, but here's a taster:

Although traditional games of "football" have been played in English villages on "holy days" since the Middle Ages, it was generally banned the rest of the year, so the game (in its many different forms) only really took off in the country's public (i.e. private!) schools and was spread to universities and then clubs by public school Old Boys (there are still plenty of rugby clubs with "Old" at the start of the name). Working men in the Industrial North also enthusiastically took up the game, but in the 19th Century the working week was Monday to Saturday with only Sunday off, so players had to forgo a day's wages. Northern clubs asked the RFU for permission to compensate their players for this lost pay, but were denied by the Union, which, being founded by ex-public school "gentlemen", wanted to keep the game fully amateur. The resulting split was therefore very much along class lines, and for years there has been a perceived class gap between the two codes, even though rugby union has always had a huge working-class following in areas such as South Wales, the West Country and New Zealand.

[CharlieP]

I've always disliked the arrogance with which Union refers to itself as 'Rugby' as if it owns the term exclusively.

Well, Rugby Football is football that originated at Rugby School (although in truth the code was an amalgam of handling games in existence around the country), and it seems a bit unfair that the use of that name should be proscribed due to the actions of a rebel group.

To use an analogy, softball was originally called "indoor baseball", but it was never sanctioned by the baseball authorities and grew into a separate sport. Had it kept the "baseball" tag, would followers of the original game be considered arrogant for referring to it as "Baseball" not "Indoor Baseball"...?

If the pioneers of rugby league had changed the name when they changed the rules - we wouldn't have had years of conflict and acrimony. "Do you like rugby?" "Not really - I prefer to watch huddersfield". :D

What I think is worse is soccer fans ignorant of history who insist that their game is the only "true" version of football, and no others should be entitled to use that name.