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.
Soccer players are paid vastly more at the professional levels than rugby players
because is isn't rugby
Both sports are very fast. It is a toss up as to which is faster.
Yes, they would all be sports where players do get injuries.
Wayne Rooney and Ryan giggs
Akinfenwa, i dont know why that guy doesnt play rugby.
Not at all there are a huge number of soccer players and rugby players with size 13 feet.
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
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