Article by the outstanding transatlantic journalist Huw Richards. www.nytimes.com/2013/11/30/sport ... il0=y&_r=0 Excellent piece by the Welsh wizard. Perhaps hundreds of thousands of highly educated Americans will read this article. What a pity that, thanks to Nigel Wood's failing to ensure that the match was telecast in the USA, nobody in the USA (apart from a few diehard RL fans, mostly expats, who know about Premier Sports player) will be able to see the game.

Article by the outstanding transatlantic journalist Huw Richards. www.nytimes.com/2013/11/30/sport ... il0=y&_r=0 Excellent piece by the Welsh wizard. Perhaps hundreds of thousands of highly educated Americans will read this article. What a pity that, thanks to Nigel Wood's failing to ensure that the match was telecast in the USA, nobody in the USA (apart from a few diehard RL fans, mostly expats, who know about Premier Sports player) will be able to see the game.

Will you shut up about viewing right in usa (and italy), broken record.

Will you try to read carefully and comprehend the article? That way, you [imight[/i understand why it is relevant to point out [iagain[/i the failure of the IMG contract.

You've mentioned it a billion times. I read your post. You used a random article to again have a moan about the viewing rights, something which you've mentioned again and again over the last month even when it wasn't specifically part of the topic.

We get it.

Moaning again and again about it won't change anything.

Yep, Jean, I agree a great article. Shame the other poster clearly could not be ar$ed to read it but instead turned to the typical RL FANS FORUM response of a cheap put down.

Good for you Jean digging it up for the masses. Enjoy tomorrow's match.

It is not a "random article." The New York Times is the most influential newspaper in the USA. The President of the United States of America, Barak Obama, or the Vice President Joseph Biden, might read this article. Many rich entrepreneurs, who could have been the future bankrollers of the game in the USA, might read this article and ask themselves: "now where can I watch this game?. Let me check ESPN...not there...let me check Fox Sports... no, not there...let me check NBC and CBS... no, not there either...oh well. What a pity."

I now intend to moan directly to the rugby league powers that be in Britain and Australia, in order to make sure that this scandalous incompetence never happens again.

Yeah, we know, you've made those points multiple times on here already.

Yes, good, moan to the powers that be. That will at least be constructive, as opposed to moaning about it on here, again and again.

Or a depressing dose of reality?

[i''That the teams are the same as in the last two finals, in 2000 and 2008, shows a weakness in the 13-a-side game, which struggles both to widen competition or to schedule regular tournaments.'' [/i

Besides, this article is in print on the 30th, the same day as the final. It kicks off at 14:30PM GMT which is circa 10:30AM EST. So they would need to read the article pretty early ,and not have made any plans for the day (not very likely for rich entrepreneurs, and errr the president).

Stopped reading the OP at "highly educated Americans".

Decent article that sums things up for Americans nicely, but I don't agree with the last sentence. The US needs a single governing body, but not a single comp. In fact, by next world cup it would be good if they have 60 odd teams in 5 or 6 comps - a Florida comp, at least 2 New England comps, a south west comp and a north west comp and an Hawaiian comp.

They need regional divisions rather than separate competitions, but yeah.

I don't understand this thinking that having dominant teams is a weakness. I mean, I do actually get it and I agree with it, but why is it never applied to other sports?

Would journalists say that a great weakness of the premier league is that only a few teams are a chance? Brazil and Germany have featured in just about every FIFA World Cup final there has been but that's never cited as a weakness in the sport. Ditto for football and tons of other sports.

It's a positive article but you can tell it was wrote by some yawnion type based on the opening propaganda.

Huw Richards reports on rugby union as well as rugby league, for the Financial Times as well as the New York Times. But he has always been appreciative of rugby league and the skills of rugby league players. A few years ago he wrote a marvellous account of the final game of one of the Kangaroo Test series against England for the FT. It was a match that featured one of Darren Lockyer's most brilliant international performances. I gave a copy to Wayne Bennett (who I think must have been the Kangaroos coach at the time) and asked him to pass it on to Darren. It was trophy room stuff.

I just noticed that this article will be published in the International New York Times (formerly known as the International Herald Tribune), not in the print edition of The New York Times proper, which is published only in the USA and Canada. This makes it less likely that President Obama and Vice President Biden will read it. However it guarantees that it will be appearing on the streets of Europe, Asia, Africa, and the Middle East in a timely manner. The big money men of Europe, Asia and the Middle East should be advised on how and where to watch the game.

really is no pleasing some people

Gold!

Not the kind of people you particularly care for?

Im sure one or two slipped through the net but "hundreds of thousands" is an exaggeration of the highest order.