A fundamental question is now at the centre of the Super League’s civil war: is bigger actually better? A growing number of clubs are challenging the core premise of the Rugby Football League’s (RFL) expansion plan, arguing that in the current financial climate, a smaller, stronger, and more stable league may be preferable to a larger, weaker one.
The RFL’s entire strategy is built on the assumption that bigger is better. A 14-team league, in this view, has a larger national footprint, creates more fixtures, and has the potential to engage more fans. This is the traditional logic of expansion that underpins the growth of many sports leagues around the world.
However, the dissenting clubs are turning this logic on its head. They are arguing that quality is better than quantity. A 12-team league where all clubs are financially healthy, professional, and competitive would, they contend, be a more valuable and marketable product than a 14-team league where some clubs are struggling, part-time, and uncompetitive.
Their argument is rooted in the financial reality of the sport. With a finite amount of broadcast revenue, they believe that concentrating that wealth among 12 clubs will produce a higher standard of rugby league than diluting it among 14. They fear expansion will lead to a decline in quality, which will ultimately make the league less attractive to broadcasters, sponsors, and fans.
This has turned the debate from a procedural argument into a deep, philosophical one about the future shape and nature of the sport. The clubs are forcing the RFL to defend the most basic assumption of its plan. They are no longer just asking “how” the expansion will be paid for; they are now asking “why” it is being done at all, challenging the very idea that bigger is always better.