Why doesn't America embrace rugby?

[lowandmighty]

Sure NFL is great but after seeing rugby I just feel like there's no comparison. Its so brutal, someone gets taken off injured every match. It flows much more freely than NFL.
I feel like America isn't really getting anywhere with NFL, there's the IFAF world championship but it doesn't seem to me to be as prestigious as the rugby world cup.
Lets face it nobody else really knows about the IFAF, USA if a far cry from winning the fifa world cup so why doesn't America put some serious work into getting a good rugby side going?

 

[harrythem]

Because it's a sport.

By that I mean rugby has no glitz, no glamour (have you seen the likes of Martin Johnson?) and no piz-az. I'm a fan, but there's not much they could try that'd work.

Hell, if they can't get American's interested in off-season football (urgh, hate calling it that) then rugby has no chance

 

[Megatron]

The main reason would be that it wasn't developed in America and America's best athletes play the sports here. All of the big 4 sports leagues began in North America which is why you see them embraced more than say soccer or rugby. Plus the most notable faces in todays game (Lebron, Peyton Manning, Kobe Bryant, etc.) play in an 'Americanized' sport.

The only time you'll see people display an interest in sports that began in foreign countries are when some sort of national team (a la US men's national soccer team) is involved. Otherwise the interest in those sports is slim to none nationally.

 

[TWJC: The Beginning]

Two reasons.

1) American's don't like flow. Hockey and Soccer aren't popular. Football has about 10 seconds of action, then 30 seconds to dissect it and predict the next play. Much better for gambling too.

2) American football was there first, so the market for the "brutal" sport is taken.

Other reasons are stated above. There isn't as much glamor in rugby, American's don't care about what other countries do with our sports or really about other country's sports. We don't like Cricket, we like baseball. We don't like rugby, we like football. We don't like soccer, we like basketball (the closest "flowing" sport we have that's popular, obviously scoring differences aside).

 

[Davi323]

I am an American, and I watch Rugby whenever it's on. Whether it's the World Cup Rugby championships or the NCAA, I try to watch. However, I can see why many Americans who grew up watching football wouldn't really care for it. In football, you watch the same team for 3+ hours. I know that the full 15 player version plays for 80 minutes, but if Rugby is on in the US, it's going to be Rugby Sevens, guaranteed. Those matches are significantly shorter. 7 minute halves (10 for finals)? That's it? An entire Rugby match takes the same length of game clock as one quarter in football. It's exciting to watch, but in such a short amount of time, it's harder to become emotionally invested. You just get into it, and then it's over, bring on two more teams.

I do have to take issue with both points TWJC brought up.

1. First, as someone who is a born and raised Michigander, try saying that America doesn't like hockey in Detroit. It's not as popular as football, (nothing is) but to say it's unpopular is flat out ignorant. Popular is a relative term. Hockey has it's markets. The Big House (Michigan Stadium, capacity 113,000) will be completely sold out next January for what will be the most attended game of hockey ever between the Wings and Leafs. Hockey may not own the entire nation's attention, but where hockey is big, hockey is BIG.

2. American football was here first? Are you mental? American football is a derivation of RUGBY. Rugby was here first. It was brought over by the British colonists, and they were playing rugby on college campuses competitively long before football. American football is the mutated offspring of Rugby. Football became king, but it was most certainly not here first.

Don't get me wrong...I am a fan of football, first and foremost. I am not one of those jerky Americans trying to be snobby by looking down on American sports to glorify whatever sports are popular in Europe. If I could only watch one sport for the rest of my life, forsaking all others, I would choose football. I absolutely love the sport. But, I have to give Rugby the credit it's due. It was here first.

 

[Diet Soda]

In addition to the points raised above, I think the Americans' interest in rugby hasn't taken off the ground because they are exposed to the union code, rather than league code.

Speaking of a fan of league, the game hinges more on the idea of possession and territory gained, rather than the rough free-for-all that is usually associated with union. In this sense, league is more akin to American Football (sorry, I'm English, I have to call it that). What irritates me about American Football is the lack of flow which has already been discussed, but I'd wager that has more to do with advertising deals in the televised broadcasts - if not, please inform me otherwise.

I'd like to see how this situation changes next with the beginning of the 2013 Rugby League World Cup, in which the USA have a team for the first time. Although the tournament is taking place in the UK (Yes!), I'm sure it will be broadcast on the other side of the pond.

 

[SuperKick36]

Everyone seems to have already said what would be my points...

I can't say that I'm a rugby "fan" but I do enjoy watching the occassional game.

Rugby is a sport that is considered a brutal version of soccer to most Americans. Even though Rugby is extremely fun to play, and exciting to watch (if you understand what's going on), people in the U.S. just don't watch it because it is not MARKETED correctly, just like MLS(Major League Soccer).

On top of this (as was previously said), athletes would rather play high-paying sports (Baseball, Basketball, Football, Hockey, and even Golf) rather than "non-american" sports.

I have friends that play Rugby (which is how I became familiar with the sport), but they play it as a HOBBY rather than a full-time sport. However, this is the start of the sport's growth.

Rugby also does not really get kids scholarships to school... this is probably a big reason as well.

 

[TWJC: The Beginning]

I am an American, and I watch Rugby whenever it's on. Whether it's the World Cup Rugby championships or the NCAA, I try to watch. However, I can see why many Americans who grew up watching football wouldn't really care for it. In football, you watch the same team for 3+ hours. I know that the full 15 player version plays for 80 minutes, but if Rugby is on in the US, it's going to be Rugby Sevens, guaranteed. Those matches are significantly shorter. 7 minute halves (10 for finals)? That's it? An entire Rugby match takes the same length of game clock as one quarter in football. It's exciting to watch, but in such a short amount of time, it's harder to become emotionally invested. You just get into it, and then it's over, bring on two more teams.

I do have to take issue with both points TWJC brought up.

1. First, as someone who is a born and raised Michigander, try saying that America doesn't like hockey in Detroit. It's not as popular as football, (nothing is) but to say it's unpopular is flat out ignorant. Popular is a relative term. Hockey has it's markets. The Big House (Michigan Stadium, capacity 113,000) will be completely sold out next January for what will be the most attended game of hockey ever between the Wings and Leafs. Hockey may not own the entire nation's attention, but where hockey is big, hockey is BIG.

2. American football was here first? Are you mental? American football is a derivation of RUGBY. Rugby was here first. It was brought over by the British colonists, and they were playing rugby on college campuses competitively long before football. American football is the mutated offspring of Rugby. Football became king, but it was most certainly not here first.

Don't get me wrong...I am a fan of football, first and foremost. I am not one of those jerky Americans trying to be snobby by looking down on American sports to glorify whatever sports are popular in Europe. If I could only watch one sport for the rest of my life, forsaking all others, I would choose football. I absolutely love the sport. But, I have to give Rugby the credit it's due. It was here first.

Saying that just because Hockey draws in Michigan, parts of New York, Parts of Illinois, and parts of Minnesota means that America likes hockey is incredibly egotystical. I personally love hockey, but it's not a popular sport, it's a niche sport.

Second, no, football was big here in America first. I was speaking of "here" as in "someone gives a shit about it".

I'm not discrediting hockey or rugby, just stating facts. Football was hugely popular before rugby, rugby has never been popular here. Hockey isn't popular here in states that don't have snowfall 5 months of the year.

 

[Larry]

Because it's a sport.

By that I mean rugby has no glitz, no glamour (have you seen the likes of Martin Johnson?) and no piz-az. I'm a fan, but there's not much they could try that'd work.

Hell, if they can't get American's interested in off-season football (urgh, hate calling it that) then rugby has no chance

Huh? Anti-American much????

It's not all glitz and glamour, not by a long shot, and just because the primary goal isn't to throw as much caution to the wind as possible like in rugby where they don't even have any kind of protective gear, doesn't make American Football any less tough. We just aren't stupid enough to do that, nor do our athletes suffer from masculinity complexes urging them to prove their grit in such a manner. We're at least smart enough to have these guys protected as much as possible in a full contact sport.

Don't get me wrong...I am a fan of football, first and foremost. I am not one of those jerky Americans trying to be snobby by looking down on American sports to glorify whatever sports are popular in Europe. If I could only watch one sport for the rest of my life, forsaking all others, I would choose football.

BINGO! Hit the nail right on the head. If people in this country were suffering from any worse of a case of xenocentrism, you'd have these people begging to be property of England again and it makes me fucking sick. Did it ever dawn on people that maybe we just find football to be more entertaining than rugby and that's why we developed it from rugby? We decided we could make the game better and did? Or is that too deep of a concept to grasp? Foreigners hate it because it's ours, but if most of them understood the degree of strategy and sophistication that goes into running an offense and a defense in American Football I think they'd come to enjoy it more than rugby possibly.


I'd just like to ask some of you folks from overseas who aren't very familiar with American Football, do you know the differences between or even what a spread offense, wildcat offense, smash mouth offense, pistol offense, wing t offense, any of that by chance?

You know the differences between or even what a 4-3 defense is, 3-4, 46, 3-3-5, 3-5-3, nickel package, dime package, Zone defense, you know what a coverage shell is, you know what man-to-man is?

Yeah, you don't do you? It would be best for a lot of you folks to know the first thing about American Football before you try to talk shit about it or act like it's somehow inferior to SOCCER or rugby. It's chess is comparison to your checkers.

 

[TWJC: The Beginning]

Huh? Anti-American much????

It's not all glitz and glamour, not by a long shot, and just because the primary goal isn't to throw as much caution to the wind as possible like in rugby where they don't even have any kind of protective gear, doesn't make American Football any less tough. We just aren't stupid enough to do that, nor do our athletes suffer from masculinity complexes urging them to prove their grit in such a manner. We're at least smart enough to have these guys protected as much as possible in a full contact sport.



BINGO! Hit the nail right on the head. If people in this country were suffering from any worse of a case of xenocentrism, you'd have these people begging to be property of England again and it makes me fucking sick. Did it ever dawn on people that maybe we just find football to be more entertaining than rugby and that's why we developed it from rugby? We decided we could make the game better and did? Or is that too deep of a concept to grasp? Foreigners hate it because it's ours, but if most of them understood the degree of strategy and sophistication that goes into running an offense and a defense in American Football I think they'd come to enjoy it more than rugby possibly.


I'd just like to ask some of you folks from overseas who aren't very familiar with American Football, do you know the differences between or even what a spread offense, wildcat offense, smash mouth offense, pistol offense, wing t offense, any of that by chance?

You know the differences between or even what a 4-3 defense is, 3-4, 46, 3-3-5, 3-5-3, nickel package, dime package, Zone defense, you know what a coverage shell is, you know what man-to-man is?

Yeah, you don't do you? It would be best for a lot of you folks to know the first thing about American Football before you try to talk shit about it or act like it's somehow inferior to SOCCER or rugby. It's chess is comparison to your checkers.

I agree with a lot of this. Even in the midwest, I see more and more wannabe Eurotrash.

I think Americans love strategy. We love to over analyse things. It makes us feel like we're more a part of the team. Soccer has some strategy, and it flows a lot, but doesn't have at all the same level of strategy involved as American Football. Rugby, and I'm not at all as educated, doesn't seem to either.

Soccer and rugby seem more like sports it's easy to get drunk watching and scream and yell at during the games. Football, you still drink to, but with fantasy football and all the stats, it's a lot more of a thinking game.

 

[harrythem]

Huh? Anti-American much????

It's not all glitz and glamour, not by a long shot, and just because the primary goal isn't to throw as much caution to the wind as possible like in rugby where they don't even have any kind of protective gear, doesn't make American Football any less tough. We just aren't stupid enough to do that, nor do our athletes suffer from masculinity complexes urging them to prove their grit in such a manner. We're at least smart enough to have these guys protected as much as possible in a full contact sport.

BINGO! Hit the nail right on the head. If people in this country were suffering from any worse of a case of xenocentrism, you'd have these people begging to be property of England again and it makes me fucking sick. Did it ever dawn on people that maybe we just find football to be more entertaining than rugby and that's why we developed it from rugby? We decided we could make the game better and did? Or is that too deep of a concept to grasp? Foreigners hate it because it's ours, but if most of them understood the degree of strategy and sophistication that goes into running an offense and a defense in American Football I think they'd come to enjoy it more than rugby possibly.


I'd just like to ask some of you folks from overseas who aren't very familiar with American Football, do you know the differences between or even what a spread offense, wildcat offense, smash mouth offense, pistol offense, wing t offense, any of that by chance?

You know the differences between or even what a 4-3 defense is, 3-4, 46, 3-3-5, 3-5-3, nickel package, dime package, Zone defense, you know what a coverage shell is, you know what man-to-man is?

Yeah, you don't do you? It would be best for a lot of you folks to know the first thing about American Football before you try to talk shit about it or act like it's somehow inferior to SOCCER or rugby. It's chess is comparison to your checkers.

Anti-American? No chance. American Football to Rugby is like American wrestling to English wrestling. Back in the day we had the smoky halls with big arse blokes wrestling. Then we saw the WWE. Once you've had the glitz and glamour offered, it sure as hell is hard to show any love for the less glamorous option (hence why the home-grown scene of wrestling has pretty much died over here).

I try to watch American football but, honestly, I get frustrated by all the breaks in the action. Yeah I get there's all strategy and the like but, bloody hell, it doesn't half take away a lot of my engagement with the game with the consistent breaks. So you say you made the game better. I'd say they've made it worse but, as you said though, it's swings and roundabouts for the whole situation. You like your American football, I prefer my football (and working out a fantasy team for the Premier League is, I'd think, just as hard as doing fantasy football with American Football) and, to an extent, rugby.

Can't be arsed with looking it up but I'd love to see if there have been any guys that've made it in both rugby and American football

 

[Larry]

Anti-American? No chance. American Football to Rugby is like American wrestling to English wrestling. Back in the day we had the smoky halls with big arse blokes wrestling. Then we saw the WWE. Once you've had the glitz and glamour offered, it sure as hell is hard to show any love for the less glamorous option (hence why the home-grown scene of wrestling has pretty much died over here).

You know what, thank you for your dignified response. I definitely gave you the opportunity to be snarky and brash and you chose the high ground. I thank you for that. I apologize if my estimation of your sentiments was wrong. Often times in cold text things don't come across as you mean them to so I apologize for throwing the Anti-American thing at you. Your example there with the WWE and the old smoky halls made it more clear as to what you meant and it turned on in my head like a light bulb. If you'd forgive me, as I noted, there is a lot of anti-Americanism that runs rampant now days that seems quite unfounded, even from our own people and as a proud American when that comes across as the case, I do take offense. I was out of line there however, and I feel like kind of a dick for giving you the 3rd degree on that one.

I try to watch American football but, honestly, I get frustrated by all the breaks in the action. Yeah I get there's all strategy and the like but, bloody hell, it doesn't half take away a lot of my engagement with the game with the consistent breaks.

Even as a major fan myself I sometimes get frustrated with it too. That's mostly in regards to when I'm watching it on television though because they take so many commercial breaks and show so many of them. Literally, they'll come back from a break, show you two or three plays that take all of 3 minutes, probably less, the it's "We'll return to more NFL action right after this add from our sponsors". The breaks in the game itself are kind of necessary. Someone has to call the play, it goes to the quarterback, the quarterback calls the play, and the rest of the players make the adjustment to run it correctly while the defense makes it's adjustment as well.

The moments before a play are kind of like the moments before a gunfight. Each side measures up the other before they both pull their weapons and take their shot, with only one of them being successful on any given play. Or think of it like a game of "Hot Hands/ Red Hands" where there's that moment of anticipation where one waits to strike and the other to dodge.

So you say you made the game better. I'd say they've made it worse but, as you said though, it's swings and roundabouts for the whole situation. You like your American football, I prefer my football (and working out a fantasy team for the Premier League is, I'd think, just as hard as doing fantasy football with American Football) and, to an extent, rugby.

Better in our eyes I should say. Probably more tactical and strategic though. Fantasy Football over here is kind of crazy. I don't even both playing it because it gets so intricate and I just can't both with the leagues. People get real serious about that stuff and I just don't think I could really have the commitment to it that it demands. I'd be happy just picking starters and back-ups and watching the stats as the year goes vs others stats, but it gets waaaay too in depth for me.

 

[Captain Morgan Freeman]

just because the primary goal isn't to throw as much caution to the wind as possible like in rugby where they don't even have any kind of protective gear, doesn't make American Football any less tough. We just aren't stupid enough to do that, nor do our athletes suffer from masculinity complexes urging them to prove their grit in such a manner. We're at least smart enough to have these guys protected as much as possible in a full contact sport.

Please refrain from making such ignorant comment in future. From reading your paragraph you seem to think that the international Rugby board are a bunch of sadists who make rugby players injure each other against their will or that Rugby players are so self concious of themselves that they would injure each other to prove how tough they are. Nonsense.

Firstly if players were getting injured regularly it would be made mandatory for players to wear protective gear. Alas players aren't injured every game and there are many rules in place to protect players such as a ban on spear tackles and strict rules for players to abide by during rucks, scrums and dropouts.

Also players don't wear protective gear in order to maintain the flow of the game. For example the main threat both teams have in scoring points are wingers. Traditionally wingers are fast and have good decision making which allows them to expose gaps in the opposition line and break free thus scoring a try. If you were to make them wear big heavy protective gear it would negate any threat the wingers would pose and turn Rugby into a simple kicking game for possession which would make it much less exciting.

To answer the OP's question as to why America doesn't embrace rugby in the present day it's because American football got to become hugely popular in America first. The reasons why could be down to American football being better suited to the tastes of the American population or due to American football being marketed better when both sports were in their infancy in USA but at the moment American football is the top dog and both are too similar to realistically thrive in America. The young kids who will be the future stars of tomorrow will grow up idolizing Peyton Manning, Reggie Bush and Tom Brady rather then Dan Carter, Brian O'Driscoll and Chris Ashton. Factor in that American colleges offer scholarships to the best young athlete's and Rugby has no chance of establishing itself in America while American football is around.

 

[Dilligaf]

Im not being Anti American, but I apologize if it seems so.

But ive always said I hate the fact that americans term our football as soccer, ive never liked the word soccer, not that ive ever watched american football either as ive always used the terms "American Rugby" when refering to American Football.

Ive never gotten rugby either, as ive been told many times what the difference between "Union" & "League" many times and still never been able to understand it.

But like us "Brits", americans love their sport as much as we do, and our football premier league has been classed as the greatest football league in the world, and its a shame the the US dont regard soccer (as you call it) rugby or cricket as "big" as your native football, baseball, basketball.

Its the same as F1, as IndyCar & Nascar over there is classed bigger that F1 is in england & europe.

But, to go back to the many injuries that many stars suffer in the US game than in the european & english game even with wearing those shoulderpads & helmets, no matter how much "protection" are worn injuries will still happen no matter what how much you wear.

Even though I would like to see American football players play rugby and see how different it is when not wearing their normal gear.

 

[lowandmighty]

I think this question has been answered but every response is a good one form a journalistic point of view.

Some of the responses have been pretty funny. Its not just Americans who call it soccer and its a word derived from the actual name of the sport which is association football. Every code seems to be called football but Rugby Union and League which I'll mention since its come up a couple of times don't use the word football in their names. There's 3 footballs I can think of which I'll mention in alphabetical order: American Football or Gridiron (cause the rules are slightly different in canada for some reason) Association football (soccer) and Australian rules football.
By the way I could explain the difference between Union and league too but Dilligaf doesn't look like he gives a fuck so I won't.

So great responses everyone question answered. Here's another one though: Try and follow a game of Australian rules football and see if you can work it out, and good luck if you can't tell the difference between union and league hahahahahahahahahaha!
I wonder if America could embrace Australian rules football.

 

[Dilligaf]

Here's another one though: Try and follow a game of Australian rules football and see if you can work it out, and good luck if you can't tell the difference between union and league hahahahahahahahahaha!
I wonder if America could embrace Australian rules football.

I was gonna say about Aussie Rules in my post.

I actually watched an aussie rules match once (cant remember who was playing who) and they actually look as if they wear no protective gear at all, just an armless shirt, shorts, socks & boots, nowt else.

From what I could make of that, they have to bounce the ball on the ground to pass & move forward, lol.

 

[Final Form Snyper.]

The act of sporting competition shouldn't just be about glitter and sparkles. It's about the athletic side as well, which should be viewed more importantly, after all, it's a sport not a circus. These players whether they play in Gridiron, Rugby League, Rugby Union, AFL, etc have given their lives to their sport of choice.

As for the question at hand, I believe that with little to no American participation in Union up until this point, it leaves American fans with an empty feeling, knowing they can't back their home teams. Humans are naturally patriotic and we love uniting to support our home. When America join the World Cup in 2013, I believe we notice a change with how the sport is viewed over in the States because it will allow for people to emotionally invest and actually take a solid interest in the sport. The premise of the sport is not in question. Rugby Union is a beautiful game, it has all of the trimmings from toughness, to grit, to precise strategy and even speed.

 

[The 1-2-3 Killam]

Soccer - or "real football" as I prefer to call it - is coming along in the United States. Our teams are getting better and the fans are starting to get more into it. In my experience it all starts with what the kids are into. Less teens are playing baseball and getting more into soccer; the parents will follow suit because watching kids play just isn't doing it for them. Happened with my parents; I played football and my dad got really into the NFL. All three of my younger siblings played soccer - two still do and have a shot at going pro one day if they stick with it - and my parents are now HUGE soccer fans.

I've just started seeing Rugby leagues pop up in junior high and high schools around the country. And what do kids like more than violence and competition? I don't think it could ever get to the point where the NFL is right now in American culture, but it certainly could get to where soccer was before the last World Cup.

The real problem it'll face is that we're just over-saturated with sports. The 90's kind of killed it for a lot of people I think. There was a small period of time where basketball, football, and baseball were all HUGE at the same time; everybody was watching something or other every night. Of course i could just be biased, because in the 90s, coming from Chicago, basketball was THE sport. Thank you Michael Jordan. Nowadays I think people are just tired. Baseball has fallen dramatically in popularity, and basketball is just now starting its upswing again. I don't know that people can handle another professional sport int he mainstream.

I wouldn't mind though, rugby is pretty awesome.

 

[Final Form Snyper.]

I wouldn't say either Rugby League or Rugby Union sell the game with violence but rather with feats of tough and gritty, yet skillful players of the sport. These players are some of the best athletes on offer. While due to the nature of these sports can cause such boilovers that result in exchanges of blows or violence but that's testosterone that plays the part, in contact sports things can happen that can start turning that game sour but afterwards you'll always see the players of each team shake hands as a sign of respect and friendship. The term what happens on the field stays on the field is still true to this day.