Rugby player but there are more minor injuries like ankle rolls, sprains, and pulls, but football players receive more serious injuries like breaks and season enders. Both sports receive their fair share of concussions and bruises. They are contact sports. Crap happens. When these things stop happening the sports are gonna disappear because people watch these sports for the contact and injury. So no football players do not get injured more than rugby players and vise versa. I play both sports and watch both sports. This is just an opinion, but I believe it is fairly accurate
Rugby players because they get more recognition
yes football players get more hurt than basketball players
All star cheerleaders get more hurt because they get tossed and football players don't really do anything.......
Rugby based on the stats as they are protected by very little armour
American Football is more violent than rugby because in American football you have 22 players crashing into each other while in rugby, except in a scrum, you only have people going after one player.
yes there is a hire possibility.
Football (soccer) started as a pro game much sooner and has been marketed world wide
Because Football pulls in alot more money than Rugby. More people pay to watch it on TV, they get higher attendances for matches, meaning bigger sponsorship deals, sell more merchandise and basically more people are interested in football & watch it.
Cheerleaders Football players all the way!!!!!!!!Football is harder because one you get trucked, and two cheerleaders are on the side line for a reason so they don't get hurt. Football players defiantly get hurt way more. I'm not talking feelings!
Both Rugby League and Rugby Union, gaelic football, croquet, hurling, ladies football, camogie
Rugby is a complete contact sport. A tackle in football is supposed to be contact free where in rugby, fully body contact is required, the players are expected to use their body as a battering ram (especially the forwards) - the rucking is done with the feet which means that there is high chance of injury. Rugby players don't wear protection like football players, therefore are much more vulnerable to injuries and concussions. Rugby is a much more continuous than football which has much more stoppages, altough some of the hits of football are quite hard, but everytime some one is tackled the game stops. Look at the rugby scrum, which is much more physical than a ruck.
Because it's a different sport
Offense Because they get hit the hardest and don't really hit the defense
i think that football makes more than basketball because the play much harder and get hurt more than basketball players
In South Africa Rugby Union Players are paid an average of four times that of Football players who in turn urn more or less the same as the Cricket Players before the IPL Cricket Tournament was formed.
zero, dancers get injured more.
Wynand Claassen has written: 'More than just rugby' -- subject(s): Biography, Rugby football players, Springboks (Rugby team)
There are no real meaningful stats for this as many consider it unnecessary. The game has a police of gender inclusion
Football is soccer. Unless you are talking about American football which is more like rugby but the players wear crash helmets and kevlar because they don't want to get hurt. Also they have 100 players per team - e.g. players who come on to take a place kick and then go off again. Very strange. And there is like both 11 men on the feild.
Soccer players are paid vastly more at the professional levels than rugby players
Pro rata its rugby
Much more then Australian Rugby League players
A Rugby Union players gets much more than Rugby League players. Rugby League players get between (in average) 80,000k-120,000k. The highest paid rugby league player earns 500,000k a year.