This answer depends on your definition of fitness. If you include speed, agility, power, endurance, strength, etc. as measures of fitness then truly a Rugby player would be the fitter.
Most soccer players are agile, fast, and have good endurance but they usually lack power and strength. The average soccer player is 170lbs while the average rugby player is 190lbs. Given that both have relatively low percentages of body fat, the rugby player would have more lean muscle than the soccer player.
Well in long run rugby players are always running around and never stay in the same place but in football they can stand in one place so therefore rugby is a fitter sport
Soccer players are paid vastly more at the professional levels than rugby players
It's hard to say, generally soccer players all need to be very quick, but in rugby some players do little running. Brian Habanna is probably the quickest rugby player in the world and may be quicker than Cristiano Ronaldo when running, however a 20st forward would be slower. The quickest rugby and soccer players may be similar, but the slowest soccer player would be quicker than than slowest rugby player.
Yes, they would all be sports where players do get injuries.
In comparison to American football players and soccer players they certainly are not over paid but for the top players its considered that they may be under paid
because is isn't rugby
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.
Australia has the most Rugby players.
No. Rugby Union = 15 players Rugby League = 13 players
I have seen two, whether or not they are accepted, I honestly do not know. A Ruck of Rugby Players A Scrum of Rugby Players Another might be: a maul of rugby players. But usually it's a "team" of rugby players.
Wayne Rooney and Ryan giggs