A number of claims made here are clear exaggerations. Firstly, the claim “Women’s rugby is just as strong and professional as men’s rugby” is obviously not true. Men’s rugby employs a huge number of players and backroom staff from multiple disciplines and the men themselves are hugely strong and fit athletes. The women simply lack the infrastructure at the professional end and the grassroots popularity at the amateur end to compete with their male counterparts. Secondly, to claim that a rugby player of any level could break their back and simply be concerned about missing the rest of the game is an obvious nonsense, let alone that the claim is made based upon anecdotal evidence. Any Rugby fan will have seen their stars in pain, and it does not demean them to note that major injury is enough to make them change facial expression! As an example, Danny Cipriani’s recent ankle injury in the 07/08 premiership, as well as Brian O’Driscoll’s shoulder injury with the 2005 lions, are two examples of true world class players in terrible and obvious pain.
However, most importantly, this argument fails to compare like with like. Rugby is a full collision sport where a team can legally gain advantage through contact. This is in contrast to Football, which is classed as a contact sport where a team cannot legally gain advantage physically (though of course contact is allowed as long as the challenge is legal). Both definitions come from the American Academy of Paediatrics. Obviously then Rugby will value as an attribute those players who are more capable of withstanding the physical challenge of a sport. This physical aspect though does not make Rugby ‘better’. It simply makes it different. It will be ‘better’ for a spectator/player that values that aspect; not so for the player/spectator that doesn’t find much satisfaction from a ‘big hit’ tackle. It is a matter of personal preference, as opposed to a matter of absolute fact and given that the proposition is to change the national sport this argument is only valid if the majority of people prefer what rugby offers. As they clearly don’t then the national sport must remain Football.

As outlined above what makes one sport superior to another is a matter of personal preference. Some people like a sport that will have big collisions. Others will prefer watching a world-class footballer seemingly dance the ball around the opposition. Neither sport can match these aspects in the other. Certainly then, different people find each sport suitable to them depending upon what they are looking for. To claim that Football is "boring" and "all the same" or that teams such as Brazil lack "persona on the pitch" reflects more upon the watcher than upon the sport.
After all, the true beauty of the beautiful game is that of complexity in simplicity. For all that Rugby is a great game, it is a complex game and anyone sitting watching it with the local Rugby team, say, will be in for a series of long discussion on the rules. Football can be understood by the very new initiate but the true depth of tactics take years (or more!) to get to grips with. It truly has ‘something for everyone’ which must in no small part be a factor in its world conquering popularity.

Firstly, this is an outdated point. The problem of Football hooliganism is on the decline worldwide. English Football hooliganism is a phantom of what it once was, for example. Further, if it were truly the case that countries agree to host Football matches with “trepidation” it would be surprising if competition to host the World Cup were as intense as they are.
Secondly, the implicit assumption here is that it is somehow an attribute of Football that makes spectators violent, whereas Rugby would not have this issue. This is obviously not the case. Certain groups of people are using Football as a way to instigate gang violence. Were Rugby the national sport these same groups of people would have as easy a ready-made excuse. It is after all the people not the abstract embodiment of a sport that is violent; switch violent people’s spectacle and violent people still remain.
Thirdly, this argument isn’t an argument in favour of making rugby the national sport (which is the proposition). It is an argument against the behaviour of Football supporters. There is no problem associated with lawn bowls supporters hooliganism, yet the proposition has been rather silent about making this the national sport.