Suppose that instead of breaking away at that fateful meeting at the George Hotel, the northern rugby clubs had already won a majority and taken control of the running of the game. How would a united game have developed? Would it have challenged soccer as the country's number one sport if it had had a progressive leadership up to the start of the Second World War. This is a theme developed in a new historical novel called "Rugby Football: A United Game" written by Peter Lush and published by London League Publications (www.llpshop.co.uk)

Suppose that instead of breaking away at that fateful meeting at the George Hotel, the northern rugby clubs had already won a majority and taken control of the running of the game. How would a united game have developed? Would it have challenged soccer as the country's number one sport if it had had a progressive leadership up to the start of the Second World War. This is a theme developed in a new historical novel called "Rugby Football: A United Game" written by Peter Lush and published by London League Publications (www.llpshop.co.uk)

Sounds like a good read!

I think the divide would have still rumbled on to the detriment of the game. It wasn't just about broken time, it was the class gulf which made it inevitable. Up north the game was beginning to be played in front of loud and 'rowdy' crowds spurred on by local rivalry, whilst in the south rugby football was the preserve of rich men playing for social recreation, or at least that is what they tried to say whilst conjuring romantic talk of 'chivalry'.

Ultimately I think the game would have destroyed itself with infighting and participants would have turned to soccer. What does everyone else reckon?

If League didn't exist, Union would have reduced the teams to 13 a side by now. Any fool can see that 30 people on a pitch is too many, but they can't change it because of our existence. I like the fact that they're stuck with too many players because of us

I think you are getting a bit confused, the game in 1895 was far diferent to either code today, you only have to look at the recently discovered films from around the 1900's, I saw a Northern union match but I could hardly follow what was happening. Both codes have developed in the last 118 years since the split. Both codes are totally different to the games I played in the 1950/60's. Why would union want to change despite what a lot of us league fans think the vast majority of their fans are happy with what they are watching (check the crowds this weekend) What I do think is that if the Northern clubs had got their way & the code stayed together the FA would have had a bttle on its hands for supremecy who knows who would have won.

I think there's a fundamental misjudgement behind this whole theory. Look at what happened in soccer at that time - the southern toffs continued to run the game (and still control the FA today) but allowed the northern clubs to play the game properly and pay their players.
For whatever reason the toffs who ran Rugby couldn't come to that accommodation and so forced the breakaway. They then turned a blind eye to the payment of players in the other mining areas of Wales and the South West and kept their players in their game.

Quote ="nkpom"I think there's a fundamental misjudgement behind this whole theory. Look at what happened in soccer at that time - the southern toffs continued to run the game (and still control the FA today) but allowed the northern clubs to play the game properly and pay their players. For whatever reason the toffs who ran Rugby couldn't come to that accommodation and so forced the breakaway. They then turned a blind eye to the payment of players in the other mining areas of Wales and the South West and kept their players in their game.'" Am I right in saying that Wales was one vote away from joining the breakaway? That would have been interesting indeed. This short programme by Clare Balding is great listening, just a shame it isn't a bit longer. www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01bwfyd

Quote ="nkpom"I think there's a fundamental misjudgement behind this whole theory. Look at what happened in soccer at that time - the southern toffs continued to run the game (and still control the FA today) but allowed the northern clubs to play the game properly and pay their players. For whatever reason the toffs who ran Rugby couldn't come to that accommodation and so forced the breakaway. They then turned a blind eye to the payment of players in the other mining areas of Wales and the South West and kept their players in their game.'" Am I right in saying that Wales was one vote away from joining the breakaway? That would have been interesting indeed. This short programme by Clare Balding is great listening, just a shame it isn't a bit longer. www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01bwfyd

League has developed and changed oft out of necessity, I don't think we would have anything like what we have now if it had just been the one code.
The whole dynamic of the sport would be massively different, they'd have been far fewer teams with staunch 'community' following where RL has been a massive part for small towns across the North.

Soccer started off entirely as a northern and midlands league and took a while to add other southern clubs slowly, Woolwich Arsenal were ostracised for a while by the other southern clubs. They actually fast tracked clubs in West Yorkshire, Hull and the South to expand the league in the early days.

The Northern Union very nearly set up a professional Western League in Devon and Cornwall in the years just before WW1 but there weren't quite enough teams committed. The sad thing is that only a couple of years before there'd been 6 professional Welsh teams that had collapsed under pressure of travelling north, but would have thrived in a Western League. (Ebbw Vale very nearly survived long enough to join the Western League but wasn't enough). These were the years when Coventry had a team as well

They should have set up regional comps from the very beginning.