Women's football

[AngryOfTuebrook]

3 minutes ago, bossy said:

Presenter Mark Chapman has never to my knowledge played football at a high level

But he did kill John Lennon.

[bossy]

3 minutes ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

But he did kill John Lennon.

Who famously wasn’t really arsed about football.

[SasaS]

I'd say there is an obvious discrepancy between media space and actual interest in women's football, at least on BBC's and Guardian's websites. You only have to check number of comments under the most popular articles. Also, attendances, ticket prices, there is no comparison.

 

It's also fairly obvious that this is deliberate pushing of women's football, which is motivated by what I still see is a misconception that this would somehow promote gender equality. It won't. Not every sport needs to be on equal footing with respect to gender, I think women's gymnastics or figure skating is more popular than men's, also beach volleyball, for different reasons though. Tennis is fairly popular too, athletics, swimming etc. There is no need to take each sport men do and then fund it and organize it for women, if genuine, grassroots interest isn't there in sufficient supply to raise naturally to men's level.

 

It's not about the quality of the game played, irritation comes from what is a deliberate attempt of manufacturing interest which isn't quite there.

[SasaS]

Just now, SasaS said:

I'd say there is an obvious discrepancy between media space and actual interest in women's football, at least on BBC's and Guardian's websites. You only have to check number of comments under the most popular articles. Also, attendances, ticket prices, there is no comparison.

 

It's also fairly obvious that this is deliberate pushing of women's football, which is motivated by what I still see is a misconception that this would somehow promote gender equality. It won't. Not every sport needs to be on equal footing with respect to gender, I think women's gymnastics or figure skating is more popular than men's, also beach volleyball, for different reasons though. Tennis is fairly popular too, athletics, swimming etc. There is no need to take each sport men do and then fund it and organize it for women, if genuine, grassroots interest isn't there in sufficient supply to raise ir naturally to men's level.

 

It's not about the quality of the game played, irritation comes from what is a deliberate attempt of manufacturing interest which isn't quite there.

 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

32 minutes ago, bossy said:

Who famously wasn’t really arsed about football.

That's why he killed him.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

23 minutes ago, SasaS said:

I'd say there is an obvious discrepancy between media space and actual interest in women's football, at least on BBC's and Guardian's websites. You only have to check number of comments under the most popular articles. Also, attendances, ticket prices, there is no comparison.

 

It's also fairly obvious that this is deliberate pushing of women's football, which is motivated by what I still see is a misconception that this would somehow promote gender equality. It won't. Not every sport needs to be on equal footing with respect to gender, I think women's gymnastics or figure skating is more popular than men's, also beach volleyball, for different reasons though. Tennis is fairly popular too, athletics, swimming etc. There is no need to take each sport men do and then fund it and organize it for women, if genuine, grassroots interest isn't there in sufficient supply to raise naturally to men's level.

 

It's not about the quality of the game played, irritation comes from what is a deliberate attempt of manufacturing interest which isn't quite there.

In the UK, at least, there's been a deliberate, systematic suppression of women's grassroots football for decades, so if they now get disproportionate investment, that's only payback.  At the elite level, this is an exciting time for the women's game in the UK - they genuinely are attracting bigger crowds and playing to a higher standard than they have for a century.  I've got no problem with people in the game getting excited about that and if - as often happens, everywhere - people's hyperbole gets a bit silly as a result, I'm not going to get angry about it.

[Curly]

7 minutes ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

In the UK, at least, there's been a deliberate, systematic suppression of women's grassroots football for decades, so if they now get disproportionate investment, that's only payback.  At the elite level, this is an exciting time for the women's game in the UK - they genuinely are attracting bigger crowds and playing to a higher standard than they have for a century.  I've got no problem with people in the game getting excited about that and if - as often happens, everywhere - people's hyperbole gets a bit silly as a result, I'm not going to get angry about it.

How has it been systematically and deliberately oppressed mate? And by who?

 

Fair play to the growth of women’s football - it’s building decent momentum. I don’t watch it though as I’m not interested or emotionally invested in it at all.

 

I think there is a legitimate point @SasaS and @BeefStroganoff make though in that there is a wave of pushing the women’s game and with that wave there feels like a constant undertone of misogyny accusations that go with it, so the push back that you get from that is unavoidable really.

 

I couldn’t give a fuck if there’s women or no women pundits for what it’s worth - they all talk fucking shit.

 

I always like the Bill Burr clip about the women’s basketball in America…

 

 

[bossy]

6 minutes ago, Curly said:

How has it been systematically and deliberately oppressed mate? And by who?

 

Fair play to the growth of women’s football - it’s building decent momentum. I don’t watch it though as I’m not interested or emotionally invested in it at all.

 

I think there is a legitimate point @SasaS and @BeefStroganoff make though in that there is a wave of pushing the women’s game and with that wave there feels like a constant undertone of misogyny accusations that go with it, so the push back that you get from that is unavoidable really.

 

I couldn’t give a fuck if there’s women or no women pundits for what it’s worth - they all talk fucking shit.

 

I always like the Bill Burr clip about the women’s basketball in America…

 

 

Start here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bans_of_women's_association_football

[SasaS]

8 minutes ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

In the UK, at least, there's been a deliberate, systematic suppression of women's grassroots football for decades, so if they now get disproportionate investment, that's only payback.  At the elite level, this is an exciting time for the women's game in the UK - they genuinely are attracting bigger crowds and playing to a higher standard than they have for a century.  I've got no problem with people in the game getting excited about that and if - as often happens, everywhere - people's hyperbole gets a bit silly as a result, I'm not going to get angry about it.

 

 Maybe, but when was this and when has this systematic suppression of women's grassroots football end? Fifty years ago? And what is happening now has nothing to do with that, I've heard this argument a couple of times already, it seems to me it is intended to create an impression that women actually wanted to play football and were genuinely interested in football as much as men did, but they somehow weren't allowed to pursue their interest so what is happening now isn't ideologically motivated manufactured media picture but a liberation of natural tendencies.

 

Women mostly don't care about football. Men mostly don't care about women's football. It is always going to be heavily subsidized and deliberately over-promoted sideshow, in terms of actual commercially viable phenomenon.

[Bjornebye]

Guess what, if you don’t like women playing football then watch something else. We live in a world of limitless channels and things to do. Imagine if your go too porn site decided duck this we can’t have women on here let’s just have men. You’d go mad unless you like a bit of anal and hairy balls. 
 

Im all for women’s footy, good on them. I don’t watch it because I don’t need to. If I’m gonna punch a wall I’ll punch it because the Tories are ruining peoples lives not because Alex Scott is presenting SPOTY 

[Curly]

6 minutes ago, bossy said:

Start here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bans_of_women's_association_football

That’s quite mad - I think I recall that stuff actually. 
 

It did end 50 years ago now though - we’re not just springing out of the suppression period and things are looking on the up for them, so all the best to them.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

40 minutes ago, SasaS said:

 

 Maybe, but when was this and when has this systematic suppression of women's grassroots football end? Fifty years ago? And what is happening now has nothing to do with that, I've heard this argument a couple of times already, it seems to me it is intended to create an impression that women actually wanted to play football and were genuinely interested in football as much as men did, but they somehow weren't allowed to pursue their interest so what is happening now isn't ideologically motivated manufactured media picture but a liberation of natural tendencies.

 

 

Women mostly don't care about football. Men mostly don't care about women's football. It is always going to be heavily subsidized and deliberately over-promoted sideshow, in terms of actual commercially viable phenomenon.

 

Just because the FA started sanctioning women's football 50 years ago, doesn't mean everything was hunky dory for the women's game since then.  Girls were actively discouraged from playing football in schools until very recently (within the last five years).  Women's teams (where they actually existed) have always been under-resourced and underfunded.  Of course girls and women wanted to play football; some of them wanted it enough to overcome the obstacles that were put in their way.  (The alternative notion - that women didn't want to play until one generation all suddenly decided they did - is obvious nonsense.)  If providing more equal opportunities to participate in sport is "ideologically motivated", what do you call the systematic exclusion that existed before?

 

True, women mostly don't care about playing football.  Guess what; nor do men.

 

Women care about watching football; they always have, but for too long football grounds have been unwelcoming places for women (and gay people and non-white people).   That's all changing and it's hard not to say "about fucking time". 

 

The idea that the women's game (in the UK, at least) is never going to be viable would have been a difficult position to argue a few years ago; now that it's growing and attracting more interest, bigger crowds, bigger TV audiences and more sponsorship, it just sounds silly. 

 

 

[Curly]

41 minutes ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

Just because the FA started sanctioning women's football 50 years ago, doesn't mean everything was hunky dory for the women's game since then.  Girls were actively discouraged from playing football in schools until very recently (within the last five years).  Women's teams (where they actually existed) have always been under-resourced and underfunded.  Of course girls and women wanted to play football; some of them wanted it enough to overcome the obstacles that were put in their way.  (The alternative notion - that women didn't want to play until one generation all suddenly decided they did - is obvious nonsense.)  If providing more equal opportunities to participate in sport is "ideologically motivated", what do you call the systematic exclusion that existed before?

 

True, women mostly don't care about playing football.  Guess what; nor do men.

 

Women care about watching football; they always have, but for too long football grounds have been unwelcoming places for women (and gay people and non-white people).   That's all changing and it's hard not to say "about fucking time". 

 

The idea that the women's game (in the UK, at least) is never going to be viable would have been a difficult position to argue a few years ago; now that it's growing and attracting more interest, bigger crowds, bigger TV audiences and more sponsorship, it just sounds silly. 

 

 

Just to add my view to the bits in bold there mate:

 

Being discouraged to play is probably due to being in a bit of rock and a hard place situation. They won’t have had enough interest to set up a girls football team and the couple that were interested wouldn’t have been able to play with the boys due to the risk of injury and therefore backlash for the school. Schools will swerve anything like that like the plague.

 

That’s a bit of a misleading statement - there are around 7 million registered amateur footballers in the uk per year according the the fa website, with 5 million school players. There are only 25-30 million people of both genders in the normal playing age group (7 to 40) so assuming the majority of registered players are male, that’s just under half of all men in the age bracket that play in some kind of organised version of the game.

 

The women’s game is on the rise mate, and good for it. They are building the brand and will see revenues, funding and sponsorship increase because of it. It wasn’t just the UK who had the issues up to 50 years ago though - on the link bossy shared it had a load of different countries listed. 

[BeefStroganoff]

5 minutes ago, Curly said:

Just to add my view to the bits in bold there mate:

 

Being discouraged to play is probably due to being in a bit of rock and a hard place. They won’t have had enough interest to set up a girls football team and the couple that were interested wouldn’t have been able to play with the boys due to the risk of injury and therefore backlash for the school. Schools will swerve anything like that like the plague.

 

That’s a bit of a misleading statement - there are around 7 million registered amateur footballers in the uk per year according the the fa website, with 5 million school players. There are only 25-30 million people of both genders in the normal playing age group (7 to 40) so assuming the majority of registered players are male, that’s just under half of all men in the age bracket that play in some kind of organised version of the game.

 

The women’s game is on the rise mate, and good for it. They are building the brand and will see revenues, funding and sponsorship increase because of it. It wasn’t just the UK who had the issues up to 50 years ago though - on the link bossy shared it had a load of different countries listed. 

But what about Gregorys Girl?

[SasaS]

36 minutes ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

Just because the FA started sanctioning women's football 50 years ago, doesn't mean everything was hunky dory for the women's game since then.  Girls were actively discouraged from playing football in schools until very recently (within the last five years).  Women's teams (where they actually existed) have always been under-resourced and underfunded.  Of course girls and women wanted to play football; some of them wanted it enough to overcome the obstacles that were put in their way.  (The alternative notion - that women didn't want to play until one generation all suddenly decided they did - is obvious nonsense.)  If providing more equal opportunities to participate in sport is "ideologically motivated", what do you call the systematic exclusion that existed before?

 

True, women mostly don't care about playing football.  Guess what; nor do men.

 

Women care about watching football; they always have, but for too long football grounds have been unwelcoming places for women (and gay people and non-white people).   That's all changing and it's hard not to say "about fucking time". 

 

The idea that the women's game (in the UK, at least) is never going to be viable would have been a difficult position to argue a few years ago; now that it's growing and attracting more interest, bigger crowds, bigger TV audiences and more sponsorship, it just sounds silly. 

 

 

 

 My point is, interest does not match the media coverage, which is fairly obvious to anyone who isn't willfully blind. It's a (fairly deliberately) manufactured reality.

 

On viability, it is still a drain on resources as far as I know. If it's no longer the case, great. Last time I looked at youtube clips and saw average attendance figures, it didn't look like that would be commercially viable. I am not opposed to development of women's game or women's football or any other sport in general. My point is in the first paragraph. There is a reason why news and articles about women's football are placed on the same page with men's. Because if they weren't , nobody would look at it.

 

There is obviously a wider discussion of the role of football in socializing of (mostly) working class boys and young men as opposed to women and gender roles and many a sociologist has earned their PhD on symbolic stadium and away fans behaviour and rituals,  but that is for another day and possibly another forum. As far as this one goes, a big shout out to all the women regulars. Both of them.

 

[Curly]

11 minutes ago, BeefStroganoff said:

But what about Gregorys Girl?

What’s Gregory’s Girl mate? Sounds like a runner in the 2.15 at Kempton

[VladimirIlyich]

45 minutes ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

Just because the FA started sanctioning women's football 50 years ago, doesn't mean everything was hunky dory for the women's game since then.  Girls were actively discouraged from playing football in schools until very recently (within the last five years).  Women's teams (where they actually existed) have always been under-resourced and underfunded.  Of course girls and women wanted to play football; some of them wanted it enough to overcome the obstacles that were put in their way.  (The alternative notion - that women didn't want to play until one generation all suddenly decided they did - is obvious nonsense.)  If providing more equal opportunities to participate in sport is "ideologically motivated", what do you call the systematic exclusion that existed before?

 

True, women mostly don't care about playing football.  Guess what; nor do men.

 

Women care about watching football; they always have, but for too long football grounds have been unwelcoming places for women (and gay people and non-white people).   That's all changing and it's hard not to say "about fucking time". 

 

The idea that the women's game (in the UK, at least) is never going to be viable would have been a difficult position to argue a few years ago; now that it's growing and attracting more interest, bigger crowds, bigger TV audiences and more sponsorship, it just sounds silly. 

 

 

There werent previously girls football teams because there was a genuine lack of interest,alongside appropriately qualified people,females in particular to chaperone and oversee that participation. This has now changed dramatically.

[BeefStroganoff]

26 minutes ago, Curly said:

What’s Gregory’s Girl mate? Sounds like a runner in the 2.15 at Kempton

It was a 1980s movie about a lad in the school footy team who was in love with a girl who replaced him in it. Clare Grogan was in it.

[BeefStroganoff]

27 minutes ago, VladimirIlyich said:

There werent previously girls football teams because there was a genuine lack of interest,alongside appropriately qualified people,females in particular to chaperone and oversee that participation. This has now changed dramatically.

 

And thats fine. But you cant expect parity with the mens game and thats an issue - because those that support womens football won't accept it as sport in its infancy. Thats why you get the aggressive pushing.

 

I agree that we shouldn't have women pundits commenting on the elite mens game though, they feel shoehorned in. When I watch them commenting about players that have won the biggest prizes it doesn't relate. I feel the same way when I watch Robbie Earl and Robbie Mustoe and any other third rate male player commenting on the big games and events.

 

As annoying as they are at least Neville, Carragher, Souness and Keane have actually won the top prizes.

[Jairzinho]

Gregory's Girl is a great film.

[Manny]

11 minutes ago, BeefStroganoff said:

 

And thats fine. But you cant expect parity with the mens game and thats an issue - because those that support womens football won't accept it as sport in its infancy. Thats why you get the aggressive pushing.

 

I agree that we shouldn't have women pundits commenting on the elite mens game though, they feel shoehorned in. When I watch them commenting about players that have won the biggest prizes it doesn't relate. I feel the same way when I watch Robbie Earl and Robbie Mustoe and any other third rate male player commenting on the big games and events.

 

As annoying as they are at least Neville, Carragher, Souness and Keane have actually won the top prizes.

Why is it so terrible if it's given parity with the men's game? The men's game is absolutely everywhere, there are TV channels and websites and podcasts and YouTube channels chock full of it - tons of media covering it. You're never going to want for content on the men's game so why is it genuinely so terrible if it's given some sort of parity - especially when, as pointed out above, it was given precisely zero coverage for decades, and actively suppressed for decades before that? I just find it difficult to care.

 

And on pundits - why's that a problem? You've named a few players there who did play at the top of the game - but what about all the others? Micah Richards, Leon Osman, Jermaine Jenas, Glenn Murray - all these players who played to a high level but they can't offer their lived experience of playing in the biggest games because they didn't, they played a level below that absolute top one. So we're splitting hairs really about how close they played to that level.

 

Again, there's tons of football content out there. I don't tend to watch Sky Sports punditry or MoTD punditry because I just don't really care for it - I'd rather consume a different football media that's presented in a style and manner that I like and whose opinions I find interesting and entertainingly discussed.

 

None of this matters, I just don't get why it's so annoying or what people are afraid of when it comes to seeing more womens footy on the TV, or headlines on websites about it, or pundits on the sofa. I find it far more offensive that Sky and other football media are forcing fucking gambling down our throats constantly than women's football.

[SasaS]

11 minutes ago, BeefStroganoff said:

 

And thats fine. But you cant expect parity with the mens game and thats an issue - because those that support womens football won't accept it as sport in its infancy. Thats why you get the aggressive pushing.

 

I agree that we shouldn't have women pundits commenting on the elite mens game though, they feel shoehorned in. When I watch them commenting about players that have won the biggest prizes it doesn't relate. I feel the same way when I watch Robbie Earl and Robbie Mustoe and any other third rate male player commenting on the big games and events.

 

As annoying as they are at least Neville, Carragher, Souness and Keane have actually won the top prizes.

 

I may have said it before, I am always baffled by how much authority is given to people with actual experience in sport compared to other activities, especially in Britain. You don't have to be a an acclaimed painter or writer or film maker or musician or chef or an experienced former politician to be  a critic or a political commentator, yet in sport, you need to be a former athlete to do TV punditry (and athletics is even worse than football). Interestingly, to be a newspaper football writer, you don't have to be a former footballer. But you will never be asked to speak on TV about football. Regardless of the actual insight and ability to express it in words.

[BeefStroganoff]

1 hour ago, Manny said:

Why is it so terrible if it's given parity with the men's game? The men's game is absolutely everywhere, there are TV channels and websites and podcasts and YouTube channels chock full of it - tons of media covering it. You're never going to want for content on the men's game so why is it genuinely so terrible if it's given some sort of parity - especially when, as pointed out above, it was given precisely zero coverage for decades, and actively suppressed for decades before that? I just find it difficult to care.

 

And on pundits - why's that a problem? You've named a few players there who did play at the top of the game - but what about all the others? Micah Richards, Leon Osman, Jermaine Jenas, Glenn Murray - all these players who played to a high level but they can't offer their lived experience of playing in the biggest games because they didn't, they played a level below that absolute top one. So we're splitting hairs really about how close they played to that level.

 

Again, there's tons of football content out there. I don't tend to watch Sky Sports punditry or MoTD punditry because I just don't really care for it - I'd rather consume a different football media that's presented in a style and manner that I like and whose opinions I find interesting and entertainingly discussed.

 

None of this matters, I just don't get why it's so annoying or what people are afraid of when it comes to seeing more womens footy on the TV, or headlines on websites about it, or pundits on the sofa. I find it far more offensive that Sky and other football media are forcing fucking gambling down our throats constantly than women's football.

because they haven’t earnt it? Why should the women rock up and get parity when it’s in its infancy? It can’t support itself currently and it doesn’t command the interest and commercial power that the men’s game does. The men’s game is keeping it propped up. But even the men’s game has taken decades to get to the money milking machine it is.

 

I tell you what why don’t we give everyone equal pay? I’ve worked 25 years in my given career, when a junior rocks up why should he get the same pay as myself? It’s because experience matters in every walk of life as much as talent, it takes time, graft, mistakes to learn and grow.

 

Theres a reason a bunch of those pundits you mention never made the grade and never played in finals and won trophies - it’s because they didn’t have what it takes to get to that level, just as I didn’t have the ability to go beyond semi pro when I played. Elite football is tough and demanding and the people watching want their experts to be actual experts.

[Manny]

18 minutes ago, BeefStroganoff said:

because they haven’t earnt it? Why should the women rock up and get parity when it’s in its infancy? It can’t support itself currently and it doesn’t command the interest and commercial power that the men’s game does. The men’s game is keeping it propped up. But even the men’s game has taken decades to get to the money milking machine it is.

 

I tell you what why don’t we give everyone equal pay? I’ve worked 25 years in my given career, when a junior rocks up why should he get the same pay as myself? It’s because experience matters in every walk of life as much as talent, it takes time, graft, mistakes to learn and grow.

 

Theres a reason a bunch of those pundits you mention never made the grade and never played in finals and won trophies - it’s because they didn’t have what it takes to get to that level, just as I didn’t have the ability to go beyond semi pro when I played. Elite football is tough and demanding and the people watching want their experts to be actual experts.

What does it matter to you if they "rock up and get parity" - how the fuck does it make your life any worse in any way? Is it taking anything away from the men's game? It's just a nonsense attitude - and don't try and compare it with experience in the workplace, because you're comparing individual career paths with an entire sociocultural phenomenon, It's apples and oranges.

 

And yeah those pundits never made the grade - which is exactly my point. Nobody cares that Leon Osman (career trophies 0, career highlight scoring against the redshite) is commenting about Liverpool vs Arsenal, a game played a level well above his. So why is it a problem that a woman who never played at that high level is commenting about it?

 

None of them are "actual experts" - they're just people with opinions. Sometimes they're informed on their own experience of playing the game, sometimes on their interpretation of events having watched a lot of football. Sometimes you'll agree and sometimes you won't - what's the big deal and why is it so offensive to you?

[BeefStroganoff]

1 hour ago, Manny said:

What does it matter to you if they "rock up and get parity" - how the fuck does it make your life any worse in any way? Is it taking anything away from the men's game? It's just a nonsense attitude - and don't try and compare it with experience in the workplace, because you're comparing individual career paths with an entire sociocultural phenomenon, It's apples and oranges.

 

And yeah those pundits never made the grade - which is exactly my point. Nobody cares that Leon Osman (career trophies 0, career highlight scoring against the redshite) is commenting about Liverpool vs Arsenal, a game played a level well above his. So why is it a problem that a woman who never played at that high level is commenting about it?

 

None of them are "actual experts" - they're just people with opinions. Sometimes they're informed on their own experience of playing the game, sometimes on their interpretation of events having watched a lot of football. Sometimes you'll agree and sometimes you won't - what's the big deal and why is it so offensive to you?

Oh dear. You ok? You seem upset? 

If you can’t see the comparison I was making which is very valid then there’s little I can do.

 

I think things should be worked for and not given out purely based on ideology.