Women's World Cup

[SydneyTiger14]

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.

The barbs? You're the one that has asked a seemingly irrelevant question to the post you were responding to in a failed attempt at a 'gotcha'. My post was about raising the quality of the women's game by having full time athletes and you responded asking if I do my bit to support the growth of the game.

Yes I attend live women's football matches, I'm not quite sure what selective wording you think you saw.

 

[Asterix]

what's unders?

I think it means when FIFA asked all those comanies mentioned, were asked how much they were prepared to put into the pot, they said X. FIFA accepted this as good business. You know, the international body. Not the Australian FA.
Only until the international viewing figures are determined for this competion, then set alongside the mens world cup, the underpaying or, yes, overpaying, will be apparent.

 

[DMD]

The barbs? You're the one that has asked a seemingly irrelevant question to the post you were responding to in a failed attempt at a 'gotcha'.

Yes I attend live women's football matches, I'm not quite sure what selective wording you think you saw.

You mentioned watching women's sport, as opposed to attending a ladies football match.

 

[SydneyTiger14]

You mentioned watching women's sport, as opposed to attending a ladies match.

I've answered your question. Yes I attend. I'm sorry for referring to attending as watching. I watched the Matildas play England the other night. I also happened to be in attendance.

 

[DMD]

I've answered your question. Yes I attend. I'm sorry for referring to attending as watching.

It was more the 'sport' as opposed to football, but you're dragging this out too far for me to be arsed with trying to untangle your posts.

 

[SydneyTiger14]

I think it means when FIFA asked all those comanies mentioned, were asked how much they were prepared to put into the pot, they said X. FIFA accepted this as good business. You know, the international body. Not the Australian FA.
Only until the international viewing figures are determined for this competion, then set alongside the mens world cup, the underpaying or, yes, overpaying, will be apparent.

Hasn't FIFA themselves said on a number of occasions they believe that networks and sponsors weren't offering enough? And came out today saying they were justified in this belief based on the success? You know, the international body. Not the Australian FA.

 

[SydneyTiger14]

It was more the 'sport' as opposed to football, but you're dragging this out too far for me to be arsed with trying to untangle your posts.

Dragging what out? I've now answered your question three times. It wasn't the answer you expected so you're going around in circles rather than actually going back to the original topic of why paying women to be full time athletes might help the sport.

If it helps, the reason I said sport not football is because I go and watch multiples codes. The women's Aussie Rules starts in a few weeks for instance.

 

[DMD]

Dragging what out? I've now answered your question three times. It wasn't the answer you expected so you're going around in circles rather than actually going back to the original topic of why paying women to be full time athletes might help the sport.

You've actually only answered it once. Your other answers were broader, but thanks for demonstrating why I can't be arsed trying to untangle your points from your barbs.

I think you're just bitter your lot lost.

 

[originallambrettaman]

The women's World Cup has almost doubled it's viewing figures over the last women's World Cup, so clearly sponsorship will increase for the next one. Though it needed to, this one has only just broken even.

 

[SydneyTiger14]

You've actually only answered it once. Your other answers were broader, but thanks for demonstrating why I can't be arsed trying to untangle your points from your barbs.

I think you're just bitter your lot lost.

What on earth?

You claim I'm sending you barbs and you finish your post with an utterly irrelevant comment about the result of a game from the other night. If you can't discuss the topic at hand without shifting goal posts and playing the man then stay out of it.

 

[SydneyTiger14]

The women's World Cup has almost doubled it's viewing figures over the last women's World Cup, so clearly sponsorship will increase for the next one. Though it needed to, this one has only just broken even.

Interesting to read, thought it'd be well up on the last WC.

 

[DMD]

What on earth?

You claim I'm sending you barbs and you finish your post with an utterly irrelevant comment about the result of a game from the other night. If you can't discuss the topic at hand without shifting goal posts and playing the man then stay out of it.

Aye up, there's a new Sherriff in town.

 

[petersaxton]

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?

I dont know what they expected
I do know that there's many countries with a bigger interest in football than Australia in similar time zones

 

[SydneyTiger14]

I dont know what they expected
I do know that there's many countries with a bigger interest in football than Australia in similar time zones

And it sounds like they tuned in.

 

[DMD]

Should other categories of football get equal billing and promotion, or just the ones that are currently trendy?

England won the European walking football championships this year, they are unpaid and had to pay their own travel and accommodation.

Should they get the same as the main international team?

 

[SydneyTiger14]

Should other categories of football get equal billing and promotion, or just the ones that are currently trendy?

England won the European walking football championships this year, they are unpaid and had to pay their own travel and accommodation.

Should they get the same as the main international team?

Good old whatabouttism.

Keep on shifting those goal posts so you can keep complaining about women getting any attention.

 

[Asterix]

Hasn't FIFA themselves said on a number of occasions they believe that networks and sponsors weren't offering enough? And came out today saying they were justified in this belief based on the success? You know, the international body. Not the Australian FA.

Networks and sponsors said "X". FIFA accepted that amount. No good bleating about it being not enough before, during or after the event.

 

[DMD]

Good old whatabouttism.

But the womens claim for financial support is simply a variation of that same whataboutism.

 

[SydneyTiger14]

Networks and sponsors said "X". FIFA accepted that amount. No good bleating about it being not enough before, during or after the event.

FIFA begrudgingly accepted it after being very vocal about it. The indication being they believed they were getting unders, and considering the viewers have doubled, I'd suggest they were right.

 

[originallambrettaman]

Should other categories of football get equal billing and promotion, or just the ones that are currently trendy?

England won the European walking football championships this year, they are unpaid and had to pay their own travel and accommodation.

Should they get the same as the main international team?

No, because 2 billion people don't tune in to watch walking football.