LEAGUE-UNION PROPOSAL.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 18189, 23 June 1927, Page 9

LEAGUE-UNION PROPOSAL.

To the Editor. Sir,—With your permission I will deal with “Rugby League’s” statements in order. He opens with the remark that I show “the usual bigotry," etc. To that I have no reply to make. His resources in a battle of abuse might be too much for me. “Because, in other parts, League players are paid for their services, there is no reason whatsoever for stigmatising as professionals the number of fine sports that play under that code in New Zealand,” says “Rugby League.” I didn’t. (Anyway, there is no stigma attached to professionalism, and New Zealand League players may still be fine sports.) What I said was that League is a professional sport, whether or not players in New' Zealand are paid for playing. The League game was founded in England by the northern unions, who broke away from the English Rugby Union because they w’anted to be paid for playing. The game got its first impetus in Australia and New Zealand by enticing members of the “Wallabies” and “All Blacks” to become professionals: in England and Australia players are paid, and New Zealand is affiliated to the Leagues of those countries. New Zealand players may become professionals without disqualification, and they arc allowed to play against professionals and to receive cash allowances. The fact that most New Zealand League players receive no payment does not affect the argument. If “Rugby League” can produce any rules which prohibit New Zealand League players from receiving any money other than bona fide expenses or from playing with or against professionals, I will modify my opinions. In the face of the facts I have set out, can he say that the Rugby Union is not justified in regarding its own game as amateur Rugby and League as professional Rugby? “Rugby League” deduces from the argument which he puts forward as mine that “all the boxers in New Zealand are professionals for the reason that there are a number of professionals in the world.” Which is absurd. Boxers are divided into two classes, professional and amateur (except in Army and Navy tournaments, which are granted exemption in some cases), in the same way that Rugby is divided into the amateur Union game and the professional League game. One might as ell say that all footballers are pro onals because some of t-hem pla> ague for money. I a... willing to give the League credit for “an attempt to co-operate in a most excellent cause,” but it might have made a better attempt than suggesting an impossibility. Also, when the Unemployment Committtee naturally considered the impossibility with a smile, the League might have found a better way to co-operation than by withdrawing from the committee permission to take up a collection and giving the permission to the Trades Hall people. My definition of co-opera-tion differs somewhat from “Rugby League’s.” “But, as he admits, his opinions are based upon those of ‘several ill-inform-ed League supporters/ ** continues “Rugby League.” I don’t admit. The only opinion in my letter which was based on such flimsy material was the opinion of several league supporters, whose opinion (not mine) was that the Rugby Union were afraid to play a League team. If “Rugby League” considers my opinions “ridiculous and impracticable,** and refers to my misinformation, he should endeavour to refute them and it, instead of setting up argument* of his own, calling them mine, and knocking them down. After dealing with all of “Rugby League’s” statements, I might as well point out that none of them have anything to do with my original statement, which was that the Canterbury League is a collection of humorless persons who take offence at a ridiculous proposition not being treated as anything but a joke. Whenever I have referred to “Rugby League’s’* statements I have used his own words. May I suggest that next time he refers to mine he will do similarly? It will lessen the strain on his imagination.—l am, etc.. RUGBY.