But there are further qualities of the sport, which, if taken into football would make things interesting to say the least. In my work with both Rugby League and Football, I'm often tempted to compare the two and think of the effects of following more of their examples.
Obviously, in a sport with less money, they are competing for, rather than fending off publicity. This alone tends to make Rugby is infinitely a nicer place to work. Players are approachable; and willing to talk... rather than feeling that they are somehow rewarding you with a few words from their millionaire mouths.
But this, I suppose, is inevitable, given the celebrity and financial status awarded to players of the nation's number one sport. But what would happen to the game itself, if the Football Association... or FIFA, were suddenly taken over by the RFL? What impact would their regulations have on us?
In this surreal world there would be no promotion and relegation from the Premiership, the winner of the league would not necessarily be the Champions and all clubs, no matter how 'big' would have a similar wage bill.
If you're anything like me, the idea of bringing the franchise sysyem into football is scary. I would hate to see a system where clubs from the Championship can't gain promotion, no matter how good their on-field performance.
To gain a place in Rugby's Super League, clubs apply for a 3-year licence, with success based on a number of factors including finances, facilities and their business plan.
The idea is to allow teams to build slowly rather than spend money they don't have simply to stay in the division. It is supposed to encourage investment in youth and make for more stable clubs that are less likely to suffer the yo-yo effect... or even go bust.
Sounds sensible....But under this system, Burnley's fairytale rise to the top table would simply not have been allowed, and neither would Newcastle demise. And whilst many Geordies would, in their current situation, jump at the chance to have had their Premiership status guaranteed, can you imagine a season with no relegation fight and no promotion celebrations? A world where fans find out their fate from a suited member of the sports governing body stood at a lectern, rather than the sight of a ball hitting the back of the net?
For me it would remove a huge interest factor in the season and something that would introduce so many 'dead rubber' games into our league, that fans would simply lose interest. But mistakenly, I thought that anyone would feel the same.
So I was shocked when a debate on the matter broke out here last week, with a collegue adament that it would acually improve the Premiership. He says filling the league with clubs which, potentially, could compete to a high level would improve the competition. He believes that, the top few sides aside, the league is full of all-so-rans who's main objective is to finish 17th.
He also cites the examples of clubs like Southampton, Nottingham Forest, Charlton, Bradford etc who now find themselves struggling financially in the lower reaches of the game, after suffering relegation. Surely, he believes, the structure of the game shouldn't put clubs at risk of going out of business.
So it seems that its a question of whether it is more important to look after the welfare of the business side of the sport, or prioritise the entertainment factor, where, whatever the background of the club, the pitch is, in the end, where your future will be fundamentally decided.
The discussion did open my mind to, at least, some possible positives to all but eliminating league movement. In time, it could make for a more competetive league with more genuine contenders. It would allow for more investment in youth - as clubs are able to look at a long term plan rather than the quick fix. And it would stop clubs collapsing though trying to live beyond their means.
But for all this, I still would hate to see a world where the mighty cannot fall, where the dreams of the minnows cannot come true, where the Premiership becomes a closed shop, open only to those favoured by some faceless suits in a boardroom.
Another area of debate concerned a salary cap - an agreed total wage bill applied across all clubs. There is the valid point that football may have already gone too far to introduce a spending limit, that the multimillionaire owners would simply walk away leaving their executive toys in more trouble than the benefits would be worth. But if we look past that and into the hypothetical world, what would it mean?
This may surprise you, but this week, Rugby's Super League clubs voted against raising the limit. Of course, being a poorer sport, many clubs worry about how they would go about generating the extra money required to increase their wage bill.... (isn't it nice to see a group of clubs against increasing ticket prices during the credit crunch?!)..... but even so, many clubs enjoy the benefits that the salary cap brings.
It is often said that the Premiership is unpredictable. We do see the likes of Fulham overcoming the might of Manchester United, Hull getting a point at Anfield, and pulling out 3 points from their trip to Arsenal.
But these are so rare that you can remember them instantly, they make huge headlines as the shock reverberates around the sport.
In this way Super League has achieved true unpredictability. Catalans Dragons, who finished third last year currently lie third from bottom of this years table, whilst Huddersfield, who ended 2008 in that position are currently flying high in 4th.
The quality players are more evenly distributed, making for competetive games where anyone can truly beat anyone. Champions, Leeds Rhinos, for example, are 2nd, but have lost 5 of their 17 games so far this season.
Who can honestly say they wouldn't like a situation where we have 10 games in each Premiership weekend, which could truly go either way? Where we honestly cannot predict a final table at the start of a season with any accuracy at all.
However, we would be denied seeing those legendary teams we all fawn over. But even that could be seen as positive - with many thinking Real Madrid's current 'Galactico' aquisition is immoral. Is it really good for the sport for one team to have such worldwide monetary power to be able to snap up any top star they set their sites on?
A salary cap would limit this, spreading quality more evenly across the world, stop clubs spending beyond their means, bring an end to supporters paying through the nose for more and more lucrative wages and maybe add an extra challenge for managers. Do they, for example, bring in that prolific striker, or would the money be better spent bolstering a leaky defence? For the first time, at bigger clubs, a tactical choice would have to be made.
We could also see clubs using more money to invest in youth. With no limit on money spent on players in a youth team, it is in clubs interests to generate talent from within, rather than spend precious pounds on expensive imports... who knows agents might be slightly less well-off too!
Unfortunately 'player-power' is probably too strong already for us to reel this hypothetical world into reality, but it makes a nice dream I'm sure you'd agree.
But whilst I can see the benefits of a franchise system, and would throw my weight behind a salary cap, there's one aspect of Super League I could never abide. The playoffs. To allow the top EIGHT teams in a league the chance to claim the 'Champions' title is simply wrong. It transforms a system which ultimately finds the season's best team into a one which rewards a one-off performance.
But I'm a hypocrite. As a lover of drama, the football league playoffs are some of my favourite fixtures of the season, despite their undeniable unfairness. Sixth-placed Burnley's promotion over the three more deserving sides is similarly wrong - and there is no argument I can make to legitimise it.
I suppose as a fan of drama and entertainment I should, therefore, be in favour of an end of season cup-style decider to the season-long slog. But somehow it seems worse to decide a league TITLE in this way, rather than a secondary prize. Maybe a playoff between the sides in 4th-8th for the final Champions League place could be a dramatic addition for the fans of all-or-nothing football, but I would struggle for the words to argue legitimately for its introduction.
So maybe at times we can look to our oval-ball cousins for pointers for the future. To catch a glimpse at a better world, to see how we could reinvent football's arena into one that is truly competetive and to restructure the game so that it benefits itself, rather than its participants.
But in the same breath, I for one am glad we still have a structurally open system, allowing fairytales, however brief they prove to be, to come true and a league that is truly a league. Where 38 games decide an overall winner, and 3 points won in August can be just as important as those claimed the following May.
Wages aside, maybe football isn't that bad after all!

