The decline of player participation is the massive problem that needs addressing by the RFL.

I looked at some data from Sport England for 2016 - RL is ranked 27th for participation. It's down 39% over 10 years, and down 9% vs 2015.

Here are the sports that are ahead of us for participation (some I'd regard as pastimes, but the point still stands):

Sailing, Shooting, Gymnastics, Rowing, Weightlifting, Hockey, Skiing, Angling, Table tennis, Mountaineering, Basketball, Cricket, Boxing, Netball, Rugby Union, Squash, Bowls, Equestrian, Tennis, Badminton, Exercise movement & dance, Golf, Football, Cycling, Athletics, Swimming.

The next 5 sports behind us on the list are all growing in participation. We're sliding backwards and it's not going to stop anytime soon.

This is particularly pertinent when considering some of the other threads at the moment discussing the quality of Superleague, and the perceived overall drop in the quality.

Most things in the list are linked in a symbiotic relationship.

Watching a sport and being inspired to play it (see the Olympics) is a massive part of getting people to play at grass roots. The more people that play a sport, the more funding available, the greater the talent pool, the better the overall quality of the players in the professional tiers (over time), etc etc...

Sports die when people stop playing them.

Actually, it's all football

This is true.

I think there are several episodes that have occurred over the last 20 years that have allowed RU to progress to where it has. Firstly,turning professional stopped the talent drain to League more or less overnight & meant we needed another strategy to recruit players. Secondly, at the top level, RU is associated with the top business brains in the country & is marketed accordingly, so can attract sponsorship from worldwide brands which is much more impressive than a mobile phone number on a placard offering to remove rubbish & tidy your garden.Our game needs marketing effectively ,which i am surprised not to be seeing much evidence of from our flat capped pigeon fanciers in charge. Our biggest business deal of the last 20 years has been to sell our soul to sky as a ratings slot filler. Thirdly, RU has actually improved its on field game a lot in recent years, especially at club level ,so much so that their game resembles the exciting game that RL used to be until our powers that be messed about with the rules so much that "game management" has turned out to be our version of kick to touch & line out every couple of minutes.

Whilst I don't disagree over the RFL's historical marketing weakness, the World Cup mistake is an example of that very thing. You also misinterpret the birth of 'Rugby' as an organised sport. The game 'created' by William Webb Ellis is Rugby, but the codified Rugby Football Union was formed in 1871. The format of the game changed repeatedly over the following 20 years even before the split. The 1895 split added the Northern Rugby Union, which changed its name to Rugby Football League 30 odd years later, and encompassed further changes to the format. RL has every right to describe itself as Rugby. Union has one format (code) of Rugby, League has a different code of Rugby. Whatever happens down under is the equivalent of folks in many countries (including this one) calling Association Football 'soccer'. Both RFL here and NRL down under continue to use the word 'Rugby'. If I discuss the sport with fellow Northerners they'll talk about 'going to the Rugby,' simple-as. No need to add 'League'.

Of course, NtW is also correct that both codes of Rugby are also forms of the wider sport category of 'Football'.

The whole William Webb-Ellis thing is FAKE NEWS and a myth.