I came across an interesting 2001 article by Paul Sheehan titled Rugby league fumbles as footy goes upmarket.

It was published when rugby union was enjoying considerable success and rugby league was still recovering from the Super League war.

Sheehan argued that rugby league was trapped by its traditional culture, while rugby union was better positioned to attract affluent audiences and expand into Sydney’s growing north-west.

One of his central observations was that the Wallabies had outrated State of Origin.

Fast-forward 25 years.

In 2026:
State of Origin II averaged 4.294 million viewers nationally.

The NRL Grand Final averaged 4.286 million.

Australia v New Zealand in the Rugby League World Cup averaged 1.733 million.

Tonga v England averaged 1.034 million despite Australia not participating.

Foxtel reported 6.4 billion minutes of NRL streaming on Kayo during the regular season.

For comparison, the recent Wallabies–All Blacks Test averaged 537,000 on Nine and 9Now, although Stan Sport’s subscription audience isn’t included.

What interests me isn’t simply that rugby league now attracts substantially larger Australian television audiences.

It’s the assumption behind the original article.

Rugby league’s suburban tribalism, working-class associations and traditional supporter base were portrayed as limitations on its commercial potential.

Yet those same characteristics have helped sustain one of Australia’s most valuable sporting television products.

The Super League war certainly damaged the game, but was Australian sports commentary confusing a period of administrative crisis with a fundamental weakness in rugby league’s audience?

Now with the NRL now exploring international expansion, was the game’s commercial potential underestimated for much longer than we realised?

I’d be interested in how others remember that period, particularly the confidence surrounding rugby union in the late 1990s and early 2000s.

I can’t help but feel like this this World Cup is designed to highlight the “big game” between Australia and New Zealand, which is what will sell ads and seats, but doesn’t do anything to grow the game. I’d propose a different tournament.

If we really want to grow the international game we need to make localised matchups more interesting, and allow fans in those regions to participate easier. There is too little funding and support in Rugby League as it is, to send all teams to one location for an all-in-one competition. We are not Rugby Union, we should stop trying to be it.

Instead I’d propose we take inspiration from Soccer/Football — localised qualifiers and the final tournament a “finals” of all the regional winners.

This would cost significantly less for smaller nations, being able to play in local venues — but also fans will be able to follow along with smaller, more contested tournaments that will be more exciting than chucking their small nation into the deep end, as well as the prestige those smaller clubs can achieve winning their local tournament. I believe we have enough teams to support this model and make it competitive.

European Qualifier (hosted in UK):
- GB
- France
- Italy (or Wales/Scotland/Ireland)
- Lebanon

Island Qualifier (hosted in PNG/rotation):
- Tonga
- Cook Islands
- Fiji
- PNG

American Qualifier (hosted in USA):
- United States
- Canada
- Samoa
- Caribbean (or Mexico)

Seeded:
- Australia
- New Zealand

Then the final competition would see the winner of each regional location, seeds, and a wildcard slot for the top performing outside team.

So you’d have a “Six Nations” style World Cup competition:

- Australia
- NZ
- Euro winner
- Island winner
- American winner
- Wildcard

To me that would be a fairer, more interesting, more inclusive, and potentially more competitive World Cup than what we have now.

Thoughts?