Good post. Beth Mead - 78 games, 77 goals for Sunderland. Her second goal last night was magnificent in my opinion. Everything about how she played was brilliant. Jill Scott, another of our own, got gane time as well and I have always kept an eye on her long career. I see how girls football is growing at grassroots and at elite academy level. Like it or not womens football is here to stay, IMO. Participation numbers are strong.
I think the boxing comparison is interesting. A lot of the women's fights are a really good watch. In MMA even more so, women often headline events and the fights are equally as enjoyable as the mens. Thats why they get the same pay, Rhonda Rousey earned more than most of the men ever will. Unfortunately, that's not the case with football. It's a vastly inferior product. I've tried watching it, don't enjoy it at all, so as you suggested in an earlier post, I don't watch it.
Surely measuring the womens team against the records of the mens team is disrespectful to the female players. You wouldn't do that in other sports. Elaine Thompson-Herah and Marcel Jacobs are BOTH the current Olympic 100m champion. Why can't a male player and a female player BOTH be England's top goalscorer?
A women's perspective! I agree that the women's game is not as high quality or as competitive as the men’s game. The top women are highly skilled, exciting and interesting to watch, but there are too many imbalanced games due to lack of strength in depth. Personally I’m not that interested in it except when England are playing. It is ridiculous however to expect a women’s team to compete with a mens team due to the physical stature of these girls. Let’s face it, not many Premiership under 21’s do very well when they compete in the Papa John’s Cup ties against League 1 teams! As for equal pay? I’ve only seen that advocated in the US national teams and that is fair enough over here. The woman’s national team are better ranked, draw bigger crowds and have higher tv viewer numbers, so for internationals maybe they should be payed more. Until the ladies draw bigger crowds they will lag behind mens teams. I can’t see that ever happening. Here MLS teams attendances are twice that of the women's, and in England of course it is much greater. So I’ll watch the English women's team and be happy with them winning, but these games don’t and they won’t take away my preference for the football I’m used to and have watched since I was a young girl.
I try to avoid predictions, I've got to many wrong over the years. But I have been thinking about this. Most of the arguments used against the Womens Game are a rehash of those made against every Sport I can think of when Women started to take part as professinals. But we have Tennis where the Prize Money is now equal. I believe that it's the same in Elite Athletics. Golf where the Ladies game has a fairly remunarative Tour organised, (so I'm told), The list is not huge, but it is growing. yet I can only think of one sport where both sexes and all the inbetweeners and undecided can compete equaly, and that is ANGLING. So, Im making NO PREDICTIONS. But I am looking forward to seeing how it pans out.
Just look at TV viewing figures, that'll tell you everything. Just guessing but I'd think the men's Wimbledon pulled in twice what the women's did.
But with the clever PR along with some PC, no doubt, the Prize Money was the same for both. But it didn't start off like that. The first open Wimbledon saw Rod Laver win the Mens Singles and pocket £2000 while Billie Jean King got £750 for winning the Ladies Singles, Now, if Womens Football could come up with a Georgina Best,who looked like Maria Sharapova that would drag the Fans in
It's a difficult problem, and one which many people view far too simplistically. The usual argument is "when they're as good as the men and generate the same revenue, they can have the same money". But the truth is that this is an incredibly facile viewpoint. The nuance of the argument lies in WHY they are not as good as the men. And the answer is, obviously, systemic misogyny and sexism which has been there for literally as long as the game has existed, and is still rife to this day. If you need proof, look at almost any video of a woman doing anything football related on social media. I guarantee you that one of the top comments will be some half-wit regurgitating the usual moronic "that's a funny looking kitchen" ****e, and a bunch of blokes giving him a virtual back-slap and guffawing at the incredible originality and wit. Hell, until a few years back, it was colloquially known as "the man's game". Women have faced prejudice in society in general for years, but for some reason it seems to be amplified ten-fold when it comes to professional football. When you look at it through the lens of 100+ years of inequality, is it any wonder that the women's game is inferior? And on that basis, of course it makes sense that their game needs some help to bring it up to the level of the mens' - be that via "excessive" media coverage, or financial injection from the mens' game. The money side of things is admittedly a difficult issue, as obviously the women's game doesn't generate enough revenue, and there isn't enough cash in the game as a whole for the top women's player to be paid as much as Messi. But, looking at it purely from an equality standpoint, it doesn't seem fair that the best female footballer in the world is paid any less than the best male footballer. Especially when, for all we know, the only reason she ISN'T as good as Messi is because of 100+ years of systemic sexism.
Can you imagine it? One of the lads gets injured (falls over a team mates laces) and the entire womens team would be around him, mothering him. He would enjoy it so much it would take for ever for him to “recover”. Then all the lads would start falling over their own and team mates laces.
Like football played at any standard I enjoy some games and not others. I enjoyed the football in the lasses game last night, but the game itself would have been more exciting if the s ores had been closer. As for comparing a woman’s scoring record to that of a man who plays in one of the toughest and most skilful leagues in the world is ridiculous. They both play at different levels. And the principle extends to comparing the records of men to men. For instance, South Shields used to have a striker - Len Smith - who was prolific. As much as I liked Len, I would never compare his record to that of someone playing in the top 2 divisions of the football league.
In my opinion, womens football will only get on an equal footing with the mens game when as many women go to support them as men go to support the mens game.
"But, looking at it purely from an equality standpoint, it doesn't seem fair that the best female footballer in the world is paid any less than the best male footballer. Especially when, for all we know, the only reason she ISN'T as good as Messi is because of 100+ years of systemic sexism." That's absolute nonsense, you're looking at it far too simplistically. You're totally ignoring the gladiatorial nature of the game which women's football will never have. A bone shuddering tackle, in front of the Fulwell End, has been cheered as loudly as some goals. This is the reason why boxers, in the heavier weight classes, tend to attract the most attention and the highest pay. Other lightweight boxers may arguably be faster and more skilful but the big bucks will go to the big lads. There's the odd exception but ask boxing fans for their favourite boxers, of all time, and you'll hardly ever hear the best bantamweight mentioned. By your theory they should all be paid the same but that'll never happen. You may think that's unfair but it's a fact and nothing to do with any ism you can dream up ... ... it's not sexism to say that women's football is inferior, just the way it is and will always be, testosterone matters. Sorry but the word 'lightweight' says it all and isn't a sexist term. Also, by your logic, the best players in the disabled game should be paid the same as Messi, or do you believe in one form of equality but not another.
Women's football became very popular during the First World War and continued to be so until the mid 1920s. This public popularity was, arguably, mainly fueled by the large number of men who were away at war meaning that men's games became limited. Interest in playing, however, seems to have been driven by the women themselves rather than the large businesses (for whom the women were working) that raised, backed and named the teams. Press coverage was quite extensive and some teams eventually started playing in front of large crowds (up to 55000 according to one source). Dick, Kerr Ladies, probably the best known side, played more games after the war ended than during it, suggesting that interest didn't diminish with the end of the war. The stuffed shirts at the FA didn't like this and, in 1921, banned women from playing at football league grounds, a ban which wasn't lifted until 1969. https://www.footballandthefirstworldwar.org/womens-football-first-world-war/ https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/articles/zjxywty https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-30329606.amp https://aspectsofhistory.com/womens-football-and-the-first-world-war/ So, there's clear reason to state that the women's game was deliberately held back in this country. But I think its fairly obvious that the main reason its not as popular is the difference in physicality.
It is interesting to ponder physicality as the reason the mens game is more popular than the womens game, or better. Clearly there is something in that. Another reason for the popularity is that for ever we have had this deep rooted attachment to our teams. As is pointed out the powers that be blocked the womens game taking root. It is reasonable to wonder where it would be had the mindset at the time been to harness the popularity, rather than stamp it out. We will of course never know. I have a feeling we will see it grow now though, time will tell, and possibly for the reasons below. One of the main differences is the physicality. Football authorities have been and will continue to eradicate physicality from the game. All rule changes have been geared toward getting a more technical game. We are, in my opinion, 10 years maximum from having a game where heading is banned. That will remove a physical confrontation. Once that is in place it is a short step to head height. Tackling as we know is getting less of a thing (it isnt coached anymore). We are talking about replacing throw ins with kick ins ala futsal. So much of what is coached now is the technical element of the game, on the deck. The sort of goal Beth Mead scored is a product of modern coaching. I watched a game last night between a non-league team and an u23 side from an elite academy. The u23 side was a lot of 17 to 19 year trialists from places like Man City and Chelsea. The u23 side hit maybe 10 long passes all night. Every corner was short Every thing they did waa about 1 and 2 touch where possible, making the ball do the work. The non league team would be happy with a more physical game but it never really happened. All of this makes me think physical attributes will be less important in the future. This will mean the men and womens game are closer to each other than they are now. There will always be some difference, but that is a good thing as I like the differences on show at different levels of football.
Interesting post. The last coaching I did was with a women's rugby team years ago. Also the debate in Rugby atm is about head injuries/concussion and the number of other serious injuries from big hits. As both the men and women get fitter and stronger the 'collisions' are having a much more serious impact... I doubt this can go on. The number of players in the Aussie V England series injured and out of their teams is quite high. It may be that football is getting ahead of the curve... in that player welfare considerations and possible legal consequences of inaction, demand changes.
