Women's football does it have a future?

[footnote]

RicharDC5 said:

footnote said:

How do you reach that conclusion? You're the one suggesting your individual observation of women in your vicinity can be considered representative of 'women' in general.

Because that is what appears to be (mostly) marketed towards women in magazines, on tv etc, and from women I have met.

You're the one saying women enjoy light entertainment over sport

It certainly appears that way.

You're the one saying women prefer celebrity based programmes.

See above.

I think you've entirely misunderstood the thrust of the original argument

You wanting women's football to be over-promoted because it isn't fair that the male sport is more popular for some made up historical reasons

And on what basis did you conclude that women wouldn't have paid more than half the license fee before you checked the numbers?

I thought the population was roughly 50/50

I'd already stated there were more women than men in the population.
Sometimes it's okay to accept that people know different facts to you.

You cannot base your understanding of gender politics on a cursory glance over the TV schedules and an interpretation of advertising media where you perceive only those 'facts' which support your existing belief system.

I have no agenda re: the promtion of women's football or men's football

[RicharDC5]

footnote said:

RicharDC5 said:

footnote said:

How do you reach that conclusion? You're the one suggesting your individual observation of women in your vicinity can be considered representative of 'women' in general.

Because that is what appears to be (mostly) marketed towards women in magazines, on tv etc, and from women I have met.

You're the one saying women enjoy light entertainment over sport

It certainly appears that way.

You're the one saying women prefer celebrity based programmes.

See above.

I think you've entirely misunderstood the thrust of the original argument

You wanting women's football to be over-promoted because it isn't fair that the male sport is more popular for some made up historical reasons

And on what basis did you conclude that women wouldn't have paid more than half the license fee before you checked the numbers?

I thought the population was roughly 50/50

I'd already stated there were more women than men in the population.
Sometimes it's okay to accept that people know different facts to you.

You cannot base your understanding of gender politics on a cursory glance over the TV schedules and an interpretation of advertising media where you perceive only those 'facts' which support your existing belief system.

I have no agenda re: the promtion of women's football or men's football

Apologies, I must have missed where you wrote that, and I've already accepted that I was wrong.

Where do you get your understanding of gender politics from then?

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Driver101 said:

It says a lot that even women are voting with their feet and paying more attention to the men's game than their own.

Their own? what does that even mean. The men's game does not belong to men, it belongs to all of us. Same with the women's game. When the England women's team is playing, they're my team. Same with Chelsea Ladies.

You seem Intent is making divisions where there are none.

[PhilH42]

Most male and female sports are a different standard. Men post quicker times and longer distances in athletics for instance but is it not enjoyable to watch both?

I've seen first hand at grass roots football clubs and its all about the boys, best pitches, facilities, kick off times, coaching etc etc. Girls are not really given a fair and equal chance, but they do play together in the younger age groups where physique does not come in to play as much. To be fair its still not one of the most popular sports for females to take up either (it is changing though) so the pool of talent is much smaller where as most boys grow up wanting to be a footballer...not the same for girls.

Many boys age 15 are already fairly strong and developed, but more importantly fast and many would compete (speed and skill) in some of the lower male leagues...the point is its not comparable so why try? Becker won Wimbledon at 17 and of course against another man so its not that surprising is it.

My daughter played at the madjedski stadium in the national u15 girls final and the quality of football was good from both sides....its improving all the time because its starting to be taken more seriously and because of the higher profile. Theres no point in looking at the womens game now, its going to be in 10 years time before we start to see significant improvement...but worth persevering with I think.

[footnote]

RicharDC5 said:

Apologies, I must have missed where you wrote that, and I've already accepted that I was wrong.

Where do you get your understanding of gender politics from then?

I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic - do you mean me personally or where does 'one' look for an understanding of gender politics?

Broadly, I would suggest that it's probably not politic for men to suggest that women be deprived of a thing, which men have had for nothing or by advantage or favour of being men, on the basis that the women are not as good at the thing as men, because they are women.

[Driver101]

footnote said:

It's certainly interesting that women are watching men's football in increasing numbers and it may well be that women's football remains a minority interest for the reasons you describe.

But, none of us actually know how long it took for football/men's football to develop from its starting point to what it is today - well, we know how when it started and where we are now.. but it presumably took a significant period to go from initial beginnings to amateur/jumpers for goalposts to the establishment of organised leagues and eventually the professional level.

But the main difficulty for women's football is that it is competing with the established form - men's football.
When men's football came along, people had nothing to compare it with - nobody to say - 'this is crap' - whereas the women (as with any new arrival in any sphere) will always be compared unfavourably at first - it's just the way people react to new things.

I would argue though, that if we only wanted the BBC to cover sports (or any subject) which was the most 'popular' we just end up in a tyranny of the majority situation - where we only see football, we only get to watch Strictly Come Dancing, we only get Downton Abbey etc etc

I think there's a duty, an obligation, in the 'education' part of the BBC charter to give everything a fair go - and that may mean a number of years - until women players come through and see what happens.

I mean, most of the Olympic sports attract half a pub's worth, cricket not much more and we all have to put up with that.

I really don't follow cricket, but I only really see the BBC covering that when a big match is on. I don't see the BBC promoting it on a weekly basis for normal county games. When the Ashes is on there is huge interest. I also believe that the attendance for county games is more that 3.5x the average of women's football. 1100 v. 3800. Cricket is much bigger than women's football.

Athletics isn't really popular outside the big events either. Just like most sports it's only the key events that make it to headline news as people are interested. The BBC doesn't have an in-depth sports range these days. It rarely has live football other than the FA cup and major international tournaments. Sky and BT have the vast majority. ITV have some of the England games. I don't see anyone being obliged to show anything that doesn't have enough viewers.

Just reading some stats from the women's world cup that the BBC promoted heavily. By the time the tournament got to the final the viewing figures had declined to just 500,000. So much marketing and exposure and the biggest event in women's football only got 500,000 viewers. The men's final was watched by 20m.

They are making a big deal for 35,000 at Wembley yesterday. It was only £15 per ticket and kids were free. Tons of tickets were also given away from free. FA Cup final tickets for the men cost up to £115 and they could sell the stadium out numerous times.

Man City are the best supported with an average 2200. It's easy to support a succesful team. It only costs £6 for a full price home ticket, or £50 for a season ticket. How does that even pay the bills? My local junior team is £130 for a season ticket.

The men's game has evolved over the years. The women's teams have access to things that didn't exist years ago. I'm sure the bigger women's teams have access to all the equipment of their male counterparts that they couldn't afford otherwise. Man City have been on the go for nearly 30 years. How long do you give them to develop?


I just can't see women's football progressing enough to become a mainstream sport. The initial interest isn't there and it doesn't appear to be growing either. There has been a good effort to help promote it too. Even with everything a tiny fraction of the cost of the men's game there's still little interest.

[footnote]

Driver101 said:

The men's game has evolved over the years. The women's teams have access to things that didn't exist years ago. I'm sure the bigger women's teams have access to all the equipment of their male counterparts that they couldn't afford otherwise. Man City have been on the go for nearly 30 years. How long do you give them to develop?

I see what you're saying but I can't agree with you.

You say rightly the men's game has evolved over how many years - 150 nearly as professionals - at some level.

Women couldn't even vote then! They weren't even treated as proper people.

So, Man City have been on the go 30 years - that was a different world too - no SKY TV, no internet - it's all changed.

The men's game has changed beyond recognition in 30 years - nobody could have foreseen what it is now.

We have to have a level playing field (excuse the pun) before the comparisons become valid.

[RicharDC5]

footnote said:

RicharDC5 said:

Apologies, I must have missed where you wrote that, and I've already accepted that I was wrong.

Where do you get your understanding of gender politics from then?

I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic - do you mean me personally or where does 'one' look for an understanding of gender politics?

Yes, I'm asking you personally as you clearly have views on this. I answered the question for you, so why can't you do the same for me?

[RicharDC5]

footnote said:

Women couldn't even vote then!

Neither could large numbers of men.

[Driver101]

footnote said:

I see what you're saying but I can't agree with you.

You say rightly the men's game has evolved over how many years - 150 nearly as professionals - at some level.

Women couldn't even vote then! They weren't even treated as proper people.

So, Man City have been on the go 30 years - that was a different world too - no SKY TV, no internet - it's all changed.

The men's game has changed beyond recognition in 30 years - nobody could have foreseen what it is now.

We have to have a level playing field (excuse the pun) before the comparisons become valid.

The best women's teams have been getting thumped from under 15 year old kids teams. Kids beating women who've had a full life of football at professional level. It doesn't take much coaching for a bunch of young physical guys to easily outclass professional women with far more experience and coaching.

Is there any physical sport that women can come close to competing with men? Why do you appear to think that women have the ability to match men at football?

It'll never be a level playing field. Women will never have the same physical attributes to begin with. The interest will always be so low that it will be unlikely survive as a professional game. How can it be professional at £6 per game and tiny gates?

I really can't see any foundation that women's football has a worthwhile platform that it is going to evolve into a quality product.

Football has changed over the last 30 years. The women have had the same access to sports and science technology. The Man City women have access to the same training facilities as the man's team.

[joema]

Yeah just stop trying and go back to looking after the kids.

It's not a problem that there is womens football is there? You aren't put out by it are you?

Their level isn't as good but no one is saying go and watch that instead. The idea is to get more women into sport and that can only be a good thing right?

[Driver101]

joema said:

Yeah just stop trying and go back to looking after the kids.

It's not a problem that there is womens football is there? You aren't put out by it are you?

Their level isn't as good but no one is saying go and watch that instead. The idea is to get more women into sport and that can only be a good thing right?

I'm not saying anything like that.

I have absolutely no issue with women playing football either.

[Wacky Racer]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

The question was does it have a future.

Of course..it is growing more popular year by year.

Will it ever rival the mens game?

Of course not.

I thought City's goals were excellent, especially the first one.

[hilly10]

Got nothing against woman playing football and good luck to them, but as a footie fan I would not cross the road to watch them

[alanwul]

joema said:

And more women to support it would be good also.

And that's always going to be the main hindrance to its growth. Can anyone realistically ever see 30k or 40k women attending women's football matches on a regular basis?

Or even 10k? Hell, even 5k.

In 2016 the average attendance in the FA WSL 1 was 1,128 - Dulwich Hamlet in the Rymans Isthmian league (2 below National Conference level) averaged 1,300.

It will grow a bit more but I feel it will always be restricted by the low interest level of fellow women.