This surely has to be a wind up? If not then the world's gone made. It would be beyond ridiculous. Not knocking for one second what she's done in the Women's game. Very impressive. But come on. If Spain happen to win on Sunday, does anyone really think that Spain would then consider their manager for the men's national team? No, not for one second.
These players need to be able to live and operate as professional athletes to raise the standard though. What's the point in having elite, top notch grassroots development programs if you can't make a living at the top of the game? Yes the top tier of womens' players make a good amount of money, but the vast majority don't. And that includes plenty of the players who were at the WC.
If Phil Neville was the one achieving this success with the women's team would you be vehemently opposed to a top PL club going after him?
Where are you getting all of this money from? Football is a meritocracy. If their game could attract that funding, then fine, but at present it can't, and it needs to build from the base up to be sustainable, so any new funding or sponsorship needs to reflect that.
Arsenal women played three games last year at the Emirates. Prices started from about £7. The minimum attendance for any of their games was 3,238. The highest was 47,367. The average 17,501. West Ham average attendance 1524. It would appear though a seeming hotbed at Arsenal, it has yet to catch on at West Ham. Of the twelve teams in the list I am looking at, only Arsenal and Manchester United averaged five figure attendances. By comparison, you cannot turn up and buy a match day ticket for the men's games. If you are not a season ticket holder, you join one of the Club Schemes, for an annual fee of course, and are then entered into a ballot. Me personally? Yes, I will be watching the final tomorrow. Would I pay to watch the final? No. Would I pay to watch a womens game? No.
What's 'all this money'? You said 'the money' should go to grassroots not the players, I was just using the same hypothetical pot as you. If the players improve the product improves and more eyeballs are put on the game, to then grow grassroots.
The players don't improve just because they're paid more, and neither does their ability to attract revenue. A quick google suggest that the women internationals are paid on par with RL club players, which draws more viewers over a year.
It's just another example of how the modern world works, people want everything now rather than letting the economics dictate the rate of change. Struggled to find the right word there and maybe economics is not the right one but i hope you get my point.
They do because they don't have to work other jobs or play other sports to supplement their income. Women down here work other jobs and then turn up and play in the local league, or play multiple codes. You don't think they'd improve if they were able to focus purely on football?
I don't think they would have paid for sponsorship expecting to get 11m viewers tuning into England v Aus in Australia alone, do you?
Do you go to watch any women's games, or know anybody that does? EDIT to add, I have, as I have various family and friends that were involved at various times.
Yes I do quite regularly watch women's sport matches, as do a number of my friends. Was there a point to asking that question? Or did you perhaps miss my post on the previous page where I raised that as a criticism of a lot of women in this context.
If not careful we will end up with a duplicity of the mens game, a few teams will have loads of money and most will not get enough to survive on let alone grow.
Agree with this, think a salary cap is the way to go. Also an issue where women's clubs unaligned to men's clubs will get left behind.
I didn't miss your post, it's just often difficult to tease out the point from the barbs. I notice the selective wording in your response there. Do you attend live women's football matches? Televised ones don't count, as they are already being promoted by definition.
So you think they expected the same level of viewers worldwide as they've had? Or less? You don't think they were considering viewers in the most relevant market with regards to timezone for the tournament when valuing the rights?
