From my experience, if your mate said this pre-2005, he had a point. But if after, it's comparing apples and oranges - two different sports with some similar skill sets.
The ball is in open play for twice the amount of time in league, so of course a league prop forward is more mobile and has a higher aerobic fitness than a union prop forward, but then if power output is measured, then an equal level league prop forward would struggle in the scrummaging over the course of a game. If it was so much easier, there would be a lot more league props moving over to bigger salaries in union, but as I wrote, it's a different job.
I am not so sure about the difference in fitness between league and union backs nowadays. When Sam Burgess played union for those two seasons, he was considered one of leagues best players (?), and his fitness didn't seem to be that different from union opposition players, nor do I remember his ball carrying strength being of a superior level to similar level union players. There's certainly been some league crossover success and ball handling skills are somewhat higher, due to the more open nature of the game.
I've never heard a professional league or union player disparage the other code, so it seems to be a fan mentality thing.
There's room for both codes, but the problem with both is that they don't generate enough money to support the player salaries. I know you from the Broncos time, so won't attempt to give my opinion on league clubs economies as don't know a lot in comparison, but the problem with English union is that the national team bring in millions but most clubs lose money due to salaries. There's just not enough paying spectators, despite the high number who train and play.
There's two mediocre TV deals and low level player sponsorship for the top Union league and the vast majority goes on salaries. But the major issues are with the equivalent of third-fifth tier level clubs - they're basically paid for by the profits from the national game and they're paying appearance fees of £100-350 to players, when only family members are watching. This money should be going into development and promotion of the sport instead of paying lower level players to beat the next village/small town's rival team. The money the national team generates is being badly spent/invested and has been for 20 years.
There's going to be some huge changes in union in the near future if the legal challenge regarding brain injuries is successful.
Long term, a cricket style solution will be likely - regional teams and national players on salaries. And it will probably be better for it.
Anyway, just my opinion
