In Ireland, rugby's popularity, at least during international tournaments, indicates to the extent to which "Castle" Anglo-Irishness is integral to, and in many ways definitive of, Irish identity as a whole, which exists plainly and simply within that of this Archipelago and of the ties that bind it, for good or ill, to the world that the Irish, no less than anyone else, went out to conquer and to colonise.
On that note, in Australia and New Zealand, the link is obvious. A subject, so to speak, which becomes pricklier in relation to Fiji. The game's followers there, the indigenous and long-Christian Melanesians (notably, most of whom are Methodists, which recalls Wales, and the playing of Rugby Union as a working-class game in the North East, unlike in Yorkshire and historic Lancashire), are now a minority, while the descendants of Indian indentured labourers have come to predominate in what has become a republic. But the President is nevertheless elected by the Great Council of Chiefs, which continues to acknowledge the Queen as Paramount Chief. And the people who look to Her Majesty as their Paramount Chief not only join the British Army in remarkable numbers, but they also play rugby.
An absolute prohibition on the use of foul language on the field of play has long worked perfectly well in rugby. And I mean both codes, so this is not about class or what have you. Why should it not also work in football?