Womens Game - amazing progression.

[owlinexile]

3 hours ago, kopman9 said:

How long till we see the first trans player in the WSL ?

 

Not until you can earn more playing for Chelsea Ladies than you can for your typical non-league side, I reckon.

[Ellis Rimmer]

3 hours ago, FreshOwl said:

Big crowds not organically though, all through vigorous marketing & free tickets 

This is my issue, it’s not organic, it’s had money pumped in so it looks good on instagram etc. It steps on the toes of sports like hockey and netball which are traditionally popular with women, but they don’t have the money to compete with the hype 

[owlinexile]

The thing is - almost no other sports attract anything like the same kind of crowds, media attention, sponsorship as (men's) football does.  Men's club football is a big piece of British culture, and the actual quality or entertainment value of what you are watching isn't even all that important to the experience a lot of the time.

 

Women's football is never, ever going to reach that level of popularity, not in a million years, regardless of how it is promoted or how good the players get.  So it's never going to generate the kind of money that the men's game does.  It's daft to ever expect it to.

 

It's always going to be a more niche thing that some people are super into, but lots of others might go to or watch occasionally as a novelty/bit of a change.  Like going to watch the Sheffield Steelers or the Sharks or whatever.  

 

And that's fine.  Those sports and clubs financially stand on their own two feet and do well enough.  But trying to force a comparison between women's football and the incredible popularity and cultural impact of the men's game is always going to do it a disservice.

 

 

 

[owls maniac]

1 hour ago, owlinexile said:

The thing is - almost no other sports attract anything like the same kind of crowds, media attention, sponsorship as (men's) football does.  Men's club football is a big piece of British culture, and the actual quality or entertainment value of what you are watching isn't even all that important to the experience a lot of the time.

 

Women's football is never, ever going to reach that level of popularity, not in a million years, regardless of how it is promoted or how good the players get.  So it's never going to generate the kind of money that the men's game does.  It's daft to ever expect it to.

 

It's always going to be a more niche thing that some people are super into, but lots of others might go to or watch occasionally as a novelty/bit of a change.  Like going to watch the Sheffield Steelers or the Sharks or whatever.  

 

And that's fine.  Those sports and clubs financially stand on their own two feet and do well enough.  But trying to force a comparison between women's football and the incredible popularity and cultural impact of the men's game is always going to do it a disservice.

 

 

 

It is interesting to think where womens football in Britain could be now culturally if it had been given even half the platform the mens game was at the start of the last century. Remember that women's football was actually banned in this country until 1970. In hindsight what a ******** shameful, stupid, sexist decision that was. 

[Quickly Kevin]

14 hours ago, FreshOwl said:

Big crowds not organically though, all through vigorous marketing & free tickets 

 

Just like Sheffield United?

[Adem Poric]

51 minutes ago, Quickly Kevin said:

 

Just like Sheffield United?

 

Sort of but there are loads of actual kids getting in on cheap tickets at women's football matches.

 

[Orlando_Trustful]

Let’s be reyt, it’s still a dreadful watch. 

[fudge27]

4 hours ago, owlinexile said:

The thing is - almost no other sports attract anything like the same kind of crowds, media attention, sponsorship as (men's) football does.  Men's club football is a big piece of British culture, and the actual quality or entertainment value of what you are watching isn't even all that important to the experience a lot of the time.

 

Women's football is never, ever going to reach that level of popularity, not in a million years, regardless of how it is promoted or how good the players get.  So it's never going to generate the kind of money that the men's game does.  It's daft to ever expect it to.

 

It's always going to be a more niche thing that some people are super into, but lots of others might go to or watch occasionally as a novelty/bit of a change.  Like going to watch the Sheffield Steelers or the Sharks or whatever.  

 

And that's fine.  Those sports and clubs financially stand on their own two feet and do well enough.  But trying to force a comparison between women's football and the incredible popularity and cultural impact of the men's game is always going to do it a disservice.

 

 

 

It is fine, and the growth is a good thing, people should be able to do what they want. 

 

All this equal pay nonsense is absurd though and what puts noses out of joint. 

 

It's usually the yanks starting it, where they tbf have a more level economic playing field in terms of what each team generates, but the World Cup pay argument was laughable

[fudge27]

3 hours ago, owls maniac said:

It is interesting to think where womens football in Britain could be now culturally if it had been given even half the platform the mens game was at the start of the last century. Remember that women's football was actually banned in this country until 1970. In hindsight what a ******** shameful, stupid, sexist decision that was. 

It was representative of the time. It's easy to look at the past and criticise, let's embrace the change and acceptance these days that society seems to be pushing for everyone being able to do whatever makes them happy 

[Skyline]

10 minutes ago, Orlando_Trustful said:

Let’s be reyt, it’s still a dreadful watch. 

It is.

It's better than it was, but it's still not great. You have the odd few who are actually really good player but still miles off the "best in the world men's" players.

 

Goalkeepers are probably by far the weakest by far. Some games I have watched, the keeper might as well not have played. 

[owlinexile]

7 hours ago, owls maniac said:

It is interesting to think where womens football in Britain could be now culturally if it had been given even half the platform the mens game was at the start of the last century. Remember that women's football was actually banned in this country until 1970. In hindsight what a ******** shameful, stupid, sexist decision that was. 

 

It's not hugely realistic to imagine, given that when, say, The Wednesday Football Club was formed in 1867, married women weren't even allowed to own property.

[torchomatic]

My local team Notts County folded just as the investment started rolling in.

[Bannofan]

9 hours ago, Skyline said:

It is.

It's better than it was, but it's still not great. You have the odd few who are actually really good player but still miles off the "best in the world men's" players.

 

Goalkeepers are probably by far the weakest by far. Some games I have watched, the keeper might as well not have played. 

 

 You can't and shouldn't compare it to the mens game in terms of techical quality and speed.

 

I wouldn't compare Stocksbridge PS to SWFC,  and SWFC to Arsenal and Man City.  Just different standards of the  same game. 

 

You can compare all of these standards of the game for everything else though.

 

Just my opinion, I guess I'm biased as I have a 10 year old daughter that sees them as great role models. 

[Arthur Bach]

WFA Cup Final.

 

Each team has 8,000 ticket allocation.

 

Neutral allocation 65,000.

 

Clubs are angry at this. Not sure why, do they get 8,000 fans week in, week out?

[BridportOwl]

1 minute ago, Arthur Bach said:

 

 

Clubs are angry at this. Not sure why, do they get 8,000 fans week in, week out?

 

What a strange thing to say.

[torryowl]

8 hours ago, Skyline said:

It is.

It's better than it was, but it's still not great. You have the odd few who are actually really good player but still miles off the "best in the world men's" players.

 

Goalkeepers are probably by far the weakest by far. Some games I have watched, the keeper might as well not have played. 

the keepers are on a downer playing with a full size ball they should do like the ladies cricket do and play with a smaller ball 

[Adem Poric]

21 hours ago, Skyline said:

It is.

It's better than it was, but it's still not great. You have the odd few who are actually really good player but still miles off the "best in the world men's" players.

 

 

Agree with that. It has come on loads and technically it's much better now. However, the pace of the game is what you notice the most when you go to watch. The good players tend to really stand out as they have so much time to do what they want. Having grown up on men's football it would take a lot to be able to watch it every week. It's just too slow paced.

 

The goalkeeper one is strange because women are naturally smaller than men the goals are just too big for them. Again, the keepers are much better than they used to be at the higher levels. 

[Bannofan]

11 hours ago, Arthur Bach said:

WFA Cup Final.

 

Each team has 8,000 ticket allocation.

 

Neutral allocation 65,000.

 

Clubs are angry at this. Not sure why, do they get 8,000 fans week in, week out?

 

SWFC took , what,  42'000   to Wembley for a playoff? 

 

Different scenario maybe, but traditionally teams take more fans to cup finals than they they do for average home games. 

 

Having said that, the womens game is less partisan so there will be more neutrals wanting to go to this game than if it was the mens cup final. 

 

I agree about the week in week out support though, that's likely not to be more than 8k for each team..and if you do miss out on a ticket from your teams allocation,  surely you just by a neutral one? it's not like there's going to be crowd trouble or anything if you're mixed with other fans. 

[BridportOwl]

Saw this video on the BBC website earlier. Really good.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-shropshire-65329369

[Arthur Bach]

8 hours ago, Bannofan said:

SWFC took , what,  42'000   to Wembley for a playoff?

 

We're constantly being told not to compare the two games, yet you've fallen into the trap.

 

The 2005 play-off final was attended by about 70,000 fans each paying between £25 and £75. The fixture was of relative unimportance in the footballing world yet stood up commercially on its own two feet.

 

I'm more concerned with scenarios like when Villa got to Wembley and were allocated just 25,000 tickets - a figure much less than their season ticket total.

 

The WTA and LPGA tours are examples of self-sustaining sports, albeit on a global level.

 

The WSL just seems to be a folly propped up by freebies and the male game.