Not Ed Davey. (Jose Breton/Pics Action/NurPhoto via Getty Images)
A useful guide to the significance of a sporting achievement can be gleaned from how desperate politicians are to be associated with it. And given that within minutes of England’s 3-1 World Cup semi-final win over Australia on Wednesday, Lib Dem leader Ed Davey had posted a staggeringly wooden shot of himself celebrating victory in a pub, it can safely be said that England reaching the Women’s World Cup final is a very big deal indeed.
At least Davey appeared to know what was going on. Barnaby Joyce, Australia’s former deputy prime minister, posted celebratory photos after inadvertently watching an old game rather than Australia’s quarter-final win over France. But the broader point is the same: politicians in both the UK and Australia have been desperate to leap aboard the bandwagon.
In the UK, the Lionesses’ successes have been splashed across front as well as back pages. Viewing figures have been extraordinary, particularly given games are being played in the mornings: 7.2 million people watched England’s quarter-final win over Colombia (only 300,000 fewer than watched the finale of Happy Valley) and, given the final of the Euros last year drew 11.2 million, it’s safe to assume Sunday’s final against Spain will attract well over 10 million. it may even challenge the Coronation, which drew 12.03 million, as the most-watched programme of the year. What that means is far harder to say.
It is common in the wake of sporting successes to make great claims about their wider significance. Yet history isn’t always a helpful guide. Despite South Africa’s rugby union World Cup win in 1995 and footballing success at the Africa Cup of Nations the following year, it is not a happy and harmonious rainbow nation. Nor did the victory of France’s “Black-Blanc-Beur” side at the 1998 football World Cup end prejudice and racial tension there. Which is not to say that those triumphs and the celebrations that followed were worthless: symbols can still have value even if the ideal they represent remains distant, perhaps unattainable.
Jules Rimet, the French Fifa president who oversaw the birth of the men’s tournament, believed the World Cup would be a force for good, fostering greater understanding and brotherhood among nations. Even at the first World Cup, in 1930, it must have been hard to maintain that idealism as the Argentina captain Luis Monti received death threats from Uruguayan fans before the final, after which Uruguayan property in Buenos Aires was stoned and torched. By 1934 in Italy, when Mussolini took charge and turned the tournament into a celebration of fascism, it became impossible.
But then what can be expected from sport? The Olympic Games was launched in 1896 with similarly high-minded ideals; its sixth edition, scheduled for Berlin in 1916, had to be abandoned because of the First World War. Nobody, though, could realistically say, as a result, that Baron De Courbertin had failed.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeThe basic premise of this piece is rather stretched and nonsensical. What surprises me though is that commenters here are taken aback by this – as it should be very obvious that women’s football, how it’s viewed and it’s media coverage, has been hijacked by “progressives” and politicised. Of course it has to be about “inclusion”, the “wider significance”, how it’s good that England fans are watching women’s football even though it’s inferior compared to men, simply out of pride for nation – while simultaneously deriding that concept of national pride and joy because it’s icky and Brexitey.
Now, I have a daughter who I constantly push towards stuff like gaming, coding, tech, football – not to “compete” against boys but to ensure she doesn’t grow up all girly and shallow.
But it’s very evident when it comes to football or cricket, she and other girls I know have very little interest (in contrast to boys her own age).
And it’s also fairly obvious that the standards of women’s sports are abysmal compared to men. Biology, and bodies tuned to ease childbirth rather than throwing stuff.
But, if you follow the coverage, and it’s quite overwhelming media coverage (which should be a clue), the message is not “there is some tournament on, watch it if interested, England winning hurrah”. It’s all about how women’s football must be treated at par with men, and how it’s unacceptable that football roughly equivalent to the 3rd tier division 1 or worse doesn’t get the same audiences and pay as Messi and co.
The ones pushing that stuff are exactly – almost precisely – the same idiots who think it’s awful that we don’t just let boatloads of immigrants jump over to Western countries (while they themselves stay in mostly white upper class gated suburbs), believe in multiculturalism or think Brexiteers are the spawn of Satan.
Hence articles like this.
And whether it’s “very good news for women’s football” is questionable, because this same lot of people would also support trans – of course they would.
So we might hilariously end up with women’s footballers being artificially brought closer to par with men pay wise – while simultaneously being overrun with 3rd rate men pretending to be women.
How in the name of sanity do you manage to shoehorn immigrants and wokeness into a sneering post about women’s football?
What’s the point of you mate
https://ayenaw.com/2023/08/19/world-cup-final/
If you do not want to address the argument an ad hominin attack is a poor substitute
I’d love to see some stats on how often different subscribers end up in “the red zone”. It would be amusing.
If you do not want to address the argument an ad hominin attack is a poor substitute
I’d love to see some stats on how often different subscribers end up in “the red zone”. It would be amusing.
Women’s football is not ‘inferior’ to men’s, it’s different. And ‘standards of women’s sports are abysmal compared to men’ – absolute b0oll0cks! I referee women’s rugby a fair bit at, assorted lower levels, and they are usually techinically superior to the equivalent men’s standard (‘cos they listen to their coaches!) if a tad slower and they cheat less (makes it easier to ref) – and also obviously enjoy it more than the boys.
Watch top international women’s rugby and tell me it ain’t physical!
BTW I agree that pay should be linked to income generated. Professional sport is not a game, it’s paid-for entertainment.
Having refereed the men’s game, and then done a number of women’s games, the difference in standard and ability is night and day – men are so much better, and even under 18s would make mincemeat of international women’s teams (and did, when the then world champion women’s team, the USA, were hammered by an amateur under 17 boys team). The difference in behaviour isn’t, women are just as bad, and just as foul mouthed.
Men crowing about how “superior” men’s sport is compared to women’s may be obvious, but because it’s so obvious, it’s not a good look. Of COURSE women’s football (and rugby, and basketball, and hockey) is “inferior” to men’s in terms of speed and strength. So what? It’s like saying Husain Bolt runs faster than any woman. We know. It’s irrelevant, even to the pay “issue,” where the only thing that matters is how much the game brings in.
The refereeing in many women’s games is awful… as it was in the World Cup.
It’s big of you to own up.
The fact that any decent U18 men’s team can beat any team in the World Cup is irrelevant. The women’s game is different, but no less enjoyable and increasingly, no less skillfull.
There is no woman player in history in Tennis who would get to the last 32 of any men’s comp. No women’s rugby team could play any U16 decent boys team. No women’s sprinter, or any other runner, would make the heats of men’s sprints.
Are women not supposed to play sport at all in your world?
I don’t think the argument is about whether women should play any sport but whether their entertainment value entitles them or is worthy of equal remuneration whether salary or prize money. I bet at most tennis clubs, like mine, when members are involved in a ballot for tickets to Wimbledon there is great disappointment from almost all when they are offered a ticket to a predominately woman day.
I don’t think the argument is about whether women should play any sport but whether their entertainment value entitles them or is worthy of equal remuneration whether salary or prize money. I bet at most tennis clubs, like mine, when members are involved in a ballot for tickets to Wimbledon there is great disappointment from almost all when they are offered a ticket to a predominately woman day.
Men crowing about how “superior” men’s sport is compared to women’s may be obvious, but because it’s so obvious, it’s not a good look. Of COURSE women’s football (and rugby, and basketball, and hockey) is “inferior” to men’s in terms of speed and strength. So what? It’s like saying Husain Bolt runs faster than any woman. We know. It’s irrelevant, even to the pay “issue,” where the only thing that matters is how much the game brings in.
The refereeing in many women’s games is awful… as it was in the World Cup.
It’s big of you to own up.
The fact that any decent U18 men’s team can beat any team in the World Cup is irrelevant. The women’s game is different, but no less enjoyable and increasingly, no less skillfull.
There is no woman player in history in Tennis who would get to the last 32 of any men’s comp. No women’s rugby team could play any U16 decent boys team. No women’s sprinter, or any other runner, would make the heats of men’s sprints.
Are women not supposed to play sport at all in your world?
Technically superior? Not sure about that. There’s little to be gained from lying.
…I Agree with Tony about rugby actually, except when it comes to kicking the ball. Which is also the problem in women’s football, which makes it less watchable for me.
That used to be the case but surprisingly if practised women are just as technically good at kicking, just that usually it don’t go as far! Have you watched the ongoing women’s soccer WC? – a couple of the goals have been astonishing, and I believe that one penalty was measured as harder than any recent male effort!
Yep. Been to some of the games! But speed on the ball is still well short of the men’s game, and most attempted power shots have been just that, attempts.
Yep. Been to some of the games! But speed on the ball is still well short of the men’s game, and most attempted power shots have been just that, attempts.
That used to be the case but surprisingly if practised women are just as technically good at kicking, just that usually it don’t go as far! Have you watched the ongoing women’s soccer WC? – a couple of the goals have been astonishing, and I believe that one penalty was measured as harder than any recent male effort!
How many women’s games have you watched or refereed?
It is indicative that people get excited about Women being in a World Cup Tournament only if they are playing a “typical” male game such a Rugby Union or League & cricket but when the England team was in the Netball World Cup Final in South africa a fw weeks ago the coverage was negligible
Personally much prefer to watch netball – you don’t get all of the aping of male behaviour that you see in women’s football. The only reason that football gets so much attention is because men play it too.
Personally much prefer to watch netball – you don’t get all of the aping of male behaviour that you see in women’s football. The only reason that football gets so much attention is because men play it too.
If they were technically superior, I guess they’d be playing in the men’s Premier League. But they’re not.
To be fair, the Spanish (in the 13 mins of added time I watched today) did look like they were actually playing decent football – and in the style of the men’s Spanish team. That is demonstrating the ability to quickly and precisely pass the ball and keep possession without endlessly turning it over to the other team. The “unforced error” rate in the WWC matches I’d seen was an order of magnitude higher than in the professional men’s game. Quality matters.
…I Agree with Tony about rugby actually, except when it comes to kicking the ball. Which is also the problem in women’s football, which makes it less watchable for me.
How many women’s games have you watched or refereed?
It is indicative that people get excited about Women being in a World Cup Tournament only if they are playing a “typical” male game such a Rugby Union or League & cricket but when the England team was in the Netball World Cup Final in South africa a fw weeks ago the coverage was negligible
If they were technically superior, I guess they’d be playing in the men’s Premier League. But they’re not.
To be fair, the Spanish (in the 13 mins of added time I watched today) did look like they were actually playing decent football – and in the style of the men’s Spanish team. That is demonstrating the ability to quickly and precisely pass the ball and keep possession without endlessly turning it over to the other team. The “unforced error” rate in the WWC matches I’d seen was an order of magnitude higher than in the professional men’s game. Quality matters.
When I was younger First Division professional footballers earned in the region two hundred pound a week. A lot of money but still not many multiple of average earnings. The players were still grounded in the community and you would occasionally see them out and about. I remember bumping into Gordon Banks and Geoff Hurst in the café at Stoke railway station completing insurance forms. It not being possible to make enough money from football, even at the highest level, to be able to retire when they finished playing, they had to take up selling insurance.
At the time those that controlled the game fought tooth and nail to try to keep out television and it was the advent of Sky that turned top fight football into a billion £ business which was a relevantly recent development.
On the one hand what top flight payers now earn can be seen as an abomination. On the other, misgivings about the system aside, they generate the income so why should they not keep it. Either way I sometimes berate my colleagues for giving their support and money to multi-millionaires with whom they have no connection. I try to encourage them to a proper sport like darts.
My problem with the push for women’s football is two-fold. First, the male game is an abomination; corrupt, awash with dubious money, tied to out of control gambling interests and sold to a gullible public by a bought and paid for MSM. Why would you want to replicate it?
Second, women’s football it is not a genuine organic evolution. It is being pushed by a bunch of activists who are in a position to ensure that it receives much more media and television coverage than it merits. As Mr Iker points out, these are almost precisely the same enemies who think it’s awful that we don’t just let in boatloads of immigrants, while they themselves reside in mostly white upper class gated enclaves, believe in multiculturalism, think Brexiteers are the spawn of Satan and who support the participation of transwomen in women’s sport.
“It is being pushed by a bunch of activists who are in a position to ensure that it receives much more media and television coverage than it merits.”
Absolutely spot on. As somebody else has pointed out, the women’s netball final got zero coverage. Why? Because it’s a girl’s game and there’s no agenda to push.
“It is being pushed by a bunch of activists who are in a position to ensure that it receives much more media and television coverage than it merits.”
Absolutely spot on. As somebody else has pointed out, the women’s netball final got zero coverage. Why? Because it’s a girl’s game and there’s no agenda to push.
Spot on… showbiz for sweaty people, just as politics is showbiz for ugly people.
Having refereed the men’s game, and then done a number of women’s games, the difference in standard and ability is night and day – men are so much better, and even under 18s would make mincemeat of international women’s teams (and did, when the then world champion women’s team, the USA, were hammered by an amateur under 17 boys team). The difference in behaviour isn’t, women are just as bad, and just as foul mouthed.
Technically superior? Not sure about that. There’s little to be gained from lying.
When I was younger First Division professional footballers earned in the region two hundred pound a week. A lot of money but still not many multiple of average earnings. The players were still grounded in the community and you would occasionally see them out and about. I remember bumping into Gordon Banks and Geoff Hurst in the café at Stoke railway station completing insurance forms. It not being possible to make enough money from football, even at the highest level, to be able to retire when they finished playing, they had to take up selling insurance.
At the time those that controlled the game fought tooth and nail to try to keep out television and it was the advent of Sky that turned top fight football into a billion £ business which was a relevantly recent development.
On the one hand what top flight payers now earn can be seen as an abomination. On the other, misgivings about the system aside, they generate the income so why should they not keep it. Either way I sometimes berate my colleagues for giving their support and money to multi-millionaires with whom they have no connection. I try to encourage them to a proper sport like darts.
My problem with the push for women’s football is two-fold. First, the male game is an abomination; corrupt, awash with dubious money, tied to out of control gambling interests and sold to a gullible public by a bought and paid for MSM. Why would you want to replicate it?
Second, women’s football it is not a genuine organic evolution. It is being pushed by a bunch of activists who are in a position to ensure that it receives much more media and television coverage than it merits. As Mr Iker points out, these are almost precisely the same enemies who think it’s awful that we don’t just let in boatloads of immigrants, while they themselves reside in mostly white upper class gated enclaves, believe in multiculturalism, think Brexiteers are the spawn of Satan and who support the participation of transwomen in women’s sport.
Spot on… showbiz for sweaty people, just as politics is showbiz for ugly people.
Interesting conflation of girly and shallow. Is it shallow to be able to cook? Is coding more worthy than being able to draw or sew? Why must girls be forced into traditionally male sports at the expense of say netball, ballet, horse riding? If your daughter chooses to be girly it doesn’t mean she’s shallow.
You are right, and “shallow” probably a bad word to use. But I would plead that the fault isn’t mine, it’s certain very vociferous voices in our society who elevate activities typically done by men – sports, coding, computer games – to be something precious and superior, which girls must attain – and a lot of gnashing of teeth because it’s still mostly men in those spheres, ignoring the fact that girls are mostly just not interested.
And I do agree that it’s nonsense, and having an interest in cooking is no less of a hobby than football. But I am constantly bombarded with messaging that says that cooking, sewing, netball is somehow inferior and women doing those are somehow losing out, and it’s difficult to avoid being sucked in.
That being said, I would still maintain that it’s nice for girls to at least take an interest and try out what’s “boy” stuff (and vice versa, I don’t see any reason why boys can figure out cooking etc). If eventually she decides that’s not for her, fair enough.
Trouble with sports culture at boys’ schools is that each new coach they hire wants you to ‘at least consider’ his sport when all previous attempts have found that you have zero talent to match your total lack of interest.
They challenge this by saying ‘but if you were better at it, you’d be interested right?’ ‘Well, yeah, maybe, slightly, but I’m not.’ And then the circle continues as they try out with you, in hopes of finding some ability in you, in order to spur interest, seeing as cultivating interest in order to spur effort in becoming more able has failed.
At the heart of all this is discomfort about the recalcitrant group of boys who they well know are likely to be homosexual.
I don’t get how you arrived at homosexuality from your lack of interest in playing sports.
I was talking about their suspicions. It was true in my case, not true in others.
It really sucked to be heterosexual and uninterested in / bad at sport in that era.
I was talking about their suspicions. It was true in my case, not true in others.
It really sucked to be heterosexual and uninterested in / bad at sport in that era.
I don’t get how you arrived at homosexuality from your lack of interest in playing sports.
I would hope that as a parent you would have enough backbone to be able to withstand social pressures and do what is ethical, so you set an example for your children when they are, inevitably, faced with difficult choices.
Trouble with sports culture at boys’ schools is that each new coach they hire wants you to ‘at least consider’ his sport when all previous attempts have found that you have zero talent to match your total lack of interest.
They challenge this by saying ‘but if you were better at it, you’d be interested right?’ ‘Well, yeah, maybe, slightly, but I’m not.’ And then the circle continues as they try out with you, in hopes of finding some ability in you, in order to spur interest, seeing as cultivating interest in order to spur effort in becoming more able has failed.
At the heart of all this is discomfort about the recalcitrant group of boys who they well know are likely to be homosexual.
I would hope that as a parent you would have enough backbone to be able to withstand social pressures and do what is ethical, so you set an example for your children when they are, inevitably, faced with difficult choices.
But Sue, isn’t there a powerful strain of feminism that insists on measuring the success of their movement by reference to the extent to which women are participating in what you would call non-girly activities and occupations?
Yes – university professors who work 15 hours a week 8 months of the year say that other women have to work 60 hours a week on the partnership track at a law firm or engineering firm or they have let the side down.
Yes – university professors who work 15 hours a week 8 months of the year say that other women have to work 60 hours a week on the partnership track at a law firm or engineering firm or they have let the side down.
I don’t like football and like it played not very well even less. I don’t like women’s football but if people do, that’s not a problem.
What I don’t get is why it’s feminist not to value women and what women do well. Why is it feminist to celebrate women doing something devised by and for men in the 19th century, aping some of the worst aspects of male behaviour and crippling yourself to boot?
And why I get stony silence or outright abuse if I politely say I don’t like women’s football? To be honest, it hasn’t been much of a problem; hardly anyone has mentioned it during this World Cup despite this alleged massive interest.
Maybe some girls/women love football and see no reason to not only watch football but play it too!! Some of which are good enough to be paid to play football so are they really trying to prove something or just love football?
Well said.
spot on.
Well said.
spot on.
You are right, and “shallow” probably a bad word to use. But I would plead that the fault isn’t mine, it’s certain very vociferous voices in our society who elevate activities typically done by men – sports, coding, computer games – to be something precious and superior, which girls must attain – and a lot of gnashing of teeth because it’s still mostly men in those spheres, ignoring the fact that girls are mostly just not interested.
And I do agree that it’s nonsense, and having an interest in cooking is no less of a hobby than football. But I am constantly bombarded with messaging that says that cooking, sewing, netball is somehow inferior and women doing those are somehow losing out, and it’s difficult to avoid being sucked in.
That being said, I would still maintain that it’s nice for girls to at least take an interest and try out what’s “boy” stuff (and vice versa, I don’t see any reason why boys can figure out cooking etc). If eventually she decides that’s not for her, fair enough.
But Sue, isn’t there a powerful strain of feminism that insists on measuring the success of their movement by reference to the extent to which women are participating in what you would call non-girly activities and occupations?
I don’t like football and like it played not very well even less. I don’t like women’s football but if people do, that’s not a problem.
What I don’t get is why it’s feminist not to value women and what women do well. Why is it feminist to celebrate women doing something devised by and for men in the 19th century, aping some of the worst aspects of male behaviour and crippling yourself to boot?
And why I get stony silence or outright abuse if I politely say I don’t like women’s football? To be honest, it hasn’t been much of a problem; hardly anyone has mentioned it during this World Cup despite this alleged massive interest.
Maybe some girls/women love football and see no reason to not only watch football but play it too!! Some of which are good enough to be paid to play football so are they really trying to prove something or just love football?
I like the women’s game because there’s more time playing and less time thrashing on the pitch looking for penalties.
Ignore the slobbering sentimentalists Iker – and no sport provokes slobbering sentimentaliity as effectively as “the beautiful game” (yuk!). Your comment holds true.
The current mania is more about the loud clanking feminist propaganda machine than the game itself. With every pundit and his progressive wife straining to display their support for those sentimentally dubbed “Lionesses”, you just know where the next contest will be fought: in the arena of equity in financial rewards, equity in celebrity status, equity in media exposure, equity in everything they can get away with.
Yet, if in five to ten years, girls fail to show the widespread, patriarchy-challenging, enthusiasm for soccer that feminists expect of them then social conditioning will be blamed (of course).
“It’s all about how women’s football must be treated at par with men, and how it’s unacceptable that football roughly equivalent to the 3rd tier division 1 or worse doesn’t get the same audiences and pay as Messi and co.”
There’s a difference between equal performance and equal respect.
In most sports men have an average performance advantage and therefore at the elite end men will overwhelmingly beat women. This is evident in everything from tennis club pyramids to park run times to Olympic finals. But it doesn’t mean female athletes are less worthy of respect. An exceptional female athlete is an exceptional athlete.
As for earning as much as Messi, I’ve never seen anyone suggest that. If I did I wouldn’t agree with it. Messi’s salary is driven by his value within the men’s football economy which is still much bigger than women’s.
What I do hope is that the popularity and financial value of women’s football (and other sports) continues to grow and as a result the players in turn benefit from increased financial rewards.
If, for the sake of argument, in 10 years time women’s football is as popular and financially lucrative as men’s, then I would see no problem in the best female players being paid “as much as Messi”.
That men have a massive performance advantage DOES matter. People want to watch the best. People want to pay for the best, and simply are not interested in second best.
You massively overstate the case.
I agree people are more interested in the best (in raw performance terms) and will pay a premium to watch the best. That’s why, for example, the men’s 100 metres final is watched y more people than the women’s. The men’s 100 metres champion is the fastest human, whereas the women’s 100 metres champion is the fastest woman.
But there’s a massive amount of room between the best and “not interested”. There are lots of examples of sports which thrive in that space: The English Championship (our 2nd tier) gets higher attendances some many major 1st tier leagues. Master’s golf is massively popular and lucrative. Champions flyweights still draw crowds even though they couldn’t beat a moderate heavyweight.
And of course, women’s football attendance, viewing etc are all growing, Will it ever be as big as men’s football? No, I doubt it ever will be and some of that is down to the raw performance gap. But there’s plenty of room to grow that interest into and make it to be a viable, lucrative sport for its participants.
He’s right. It’s an entertainment business. Like West End shows or concerts. There’s no case for “equal pay” when the product or service being offered is of a lower quality. You don’t even get “equal pay” within a team.
I do hope the women’s game does grow, develop and improve. But it’s a delusion – actually a fraud – to pretend it’s the same as the men’s professional game today. I don’t think the hangers-on pushing that line are actually doing the women’s game any favours.
He’s right. It’s an entertainment business. Like West End shows or concerts. There’s no case for “equal pay” when the product or service being offered is of a lower quality. You don’t even get “equal pay” within a team.
I do hope the women’s game does grow, develop and improve. But it’s a delusion – actually a fraud – to pretend it’s the same as the men’s professional game today. I don’t think the hangers-on pushing that line are actually doing the women’s game any favours.
Why do they flock to watch Spurs then?
You massively overstate the case.
I agree people are more interested in the best (in raw performance terms) and will pay a premium to watch the best. That’s why, for example, the men’s 100 metres final is watched y more people than the women’s. The men’s 100 metres champion is the fastest human, whereas the women’s 100 metres champion is the fastest woman.
But there’s a massive amount of room between the best and “not interested”. There are lots of examples of sports which thrive in that space: The English Championship (our 2nd tier) gets higher attendances some many major 1st tier leagues. Master’s golf is massively popular and lucrative. Champions flyweights still draw crowds even though they couldn’t beat a moderate heavyweight.
And of course, women’s football attendance, viewing etc are all growing, Will it ever be as big as men’s football? No, I doubt it ever will be and some of that is down to the raw performance gap. But there’s plenty of room to grow that interest into and make it to be a viable, lucrative sport for its participants.
Why do they flock to watch Spurs then?
Just curious – why so many downvotes here?
“Just curious – why so many downvotes here?”
Democracy means even people who are wrong get to vote 😉
“Just curious – why so many downvotes here?”
Democracy means even people who are wrong get to vote 😉
“But it doesn’t mean female athletes are less worthy of respect. ”
It isn’t their lack of ability that makes them less worthy of respect.
It’s their behaviour.
A weak EPL team, playing against City or Liverpool, will do their best and work hard to win, rather than complain about how their opponents are paid more or shown more on TV.
Female footballers, on the other hand:
A. Refuse to compete against men, and demand a separate league to avoid direct competition.
B. Are loudmouthed about how they are “as good” as the men they don’t have the guts to face directly.
C. Get thrashed, not by top men’s football teams, but by under -16 local or school boys or Wrexham FC.
D. Get paid much more than the men versus revenues earned, receive way more TV coverage and publicity relative to performance, while still being obnoxious and ungrateful.
E. After winning a competition against other WOMEN, start shrieking how they should be paid as much as men, and given the same status as a male footballer who proves himself against the best in the world.
Can you imagined if a bunch of men behaved like that, how much “respect” they would receive?
Maaaaate.
“A weak EPL team, playing against City or Liverpool, will do their best and work hard to win, rather than complain about how their opponents are paid more or shown more on TV.”
That’s hilarious. PL clubs complain all the time about the advantages of Big Clubs: from favourable refereeing decisions to, in Arsene Wenger’s words, “financial doping” by oligarchs. UEFA even have Financial Fair Play rules to try to even out these disparities, which don’t work but nevertheless.
In response to your other points. For a start, women don’t refuse to play against men. They are not allowed to by the rules. But regardless of that, why would any one expect them to given the known performance advantages of men?
I’m sure there are some examples, because you can find anything on the internet, but I’ve never heard a woman footballer seriously argue that football should be a mixed sex sport, like 3-day eventing. They are as realistic about the performance gap between men and women as anyone (except the sort of fanatics who deny reality) because they see it all the time.
By and large the financial demands of women footballers are not for the same pay as the top men (although of course you can always find odd examples because internet). What they want is to be able to have a viable career and be rewarded for their success. This covers not just remuneration but also things like access to training facilities and so on.
At the moment the average pay for a woman footballer is less than the average pay for a League 2 male footballer. By some measures this is fine, because League 2 crowds are higher. But when it comes to major championships, there is perfectly good argument that women footballers should be paid a lot more, because their labour is filling big stadiums and drawing big TV audiences. 17 million people in the UK watched the Women’s European Cup final. Why shouldn’t the footballers – who are the workers in this scenario – not be rewarded accordingly?
What’s more there is a perfectly good argument for putting more money into women’s football, and therefore wages, as an investment. Those European championships were watched by more than double the previous event in 2017. There is a huge opportunity to grow the women’s game, especially at international level, which will attract broadcaster and sponsor interest who should be all over the possibility of opening up the market for selling things to female participants, which is a largely untapped market.
Women don’t refuse to play against men. The fact is that in contact sports women would be in physical danger playing against the men. That is why we have separate categories for male and female.
You say you have a daughter? It would not be good to transmit mixed messgaes to her On one hand wantng her to take part in traditionally ‘male activities’ lest she be too ‘girly’ – but then simultaneously communicatiing disrespect for her doing so, and especially when she is not as successful as some men at those activities.
Well, not arguing for mixed sex competition, doesn’t make any sense.
But it’s ridiculous to pretend that girls are as physically strong and good at football, or even interested, as is being propogated.
My girl has always been much more mentally mature and better at verbal and writing skills than the boys around her.
That doesn’t make me feel inferior as a man. That’s just biology, and girls will be better or worse than boys in different aspects.
Well, not arguing for mixed sex competition, doesn’t make any sense.
But it’s ridiculous to pretend that girls are as physically strong and good at football, or even interested, as is being propogated.
My girl has always been much more mentally mature and better at verbal and writing skills than the boys around her.
That doesn’t make me feel inferior as a man. That’s just biology, and girls will be better or worse than boys in different aspects.
Maaaaate.
“A weak EPL team, playing against City or Liverpool, will do their best and work hard to win, rather than complain about how their opponents are paid more or shown more on TV.”
That’s hilarious. PL clubs complain all the time about the advantages of Big Clubs: from favourable refereeing decisions to, in Arsene Wenger’s words, “financial doping” by oligarchs. UEFA even have Financial Fair Play rules to try to even out these disparities, which don’t work but nevertheless.
In response to your other points. For a start, women don’t refuse to play against men. They are not allowed to by the rules. But regardless of that, why would any one expect them to given the known performance advantages of men?
I’m sure there are some examples, because you can find anything on the internet, but I’ve never heard a woman footballer seriously argue that football should be a mixed sex sport, like 3-day eventing. They are as realistic about the performance gap between men and women as anyone (except the sort of fanatics who deny reality) because they see it all the time.
By and large the financial demands of women footballers are not for the same pay as the top men (although of course you can always find odd examples because internet). What they want is to be able to have a viable career and be rewarded for their success. This covers not just remuneration but also things like access to training facilities and so on.
At the moment the average pay for a woman footballer is less than the average pay for a League 2 male footballer. By some measures this is fine, because League 2 crowds are higher. But when it comes to major championships, there is perfectly good argument that women footballers should be paid a lot more, because their labour is filling big stadiums and drawing big TV audiences. 17 million people in the UK watched the Women’s European Cup final. Why shouldn’t the footballers – who are the workers in this scenario – not be rewarded accordingly?
What’s more there is a perfectly good argument for putting more money into women’s football, and therefore wages, as an investment. Those European championships were watched by more than double the previous event in 2017. There is a huge opportunity to grow the women’s game, especially at international level, which will attract broadcaster and sponsor interest who should be all over the possibility of opening up the market for selling things to female participants, which is a largely untapped market.
Women don’t refuse to play against men. The fact is that in contact sports women would be in physical danger playing against the men. That is why we have separate categories for male and female.
You say you have a daughter? It would not be good to transmit mixed messgaes to her On one hand wantng her to take part in traditionally ‘male activities’ lest she be too ‘girly’ – but then simultaneously communicatiing disrespect for her doing so, and especially when she is not as successful as some men at those activities.
“In most sports men have an average performance advantage and therefore at the elite end men will overwhelmingly beat women”.
Not just at the elite end – in 2017, while preparing for two friendlies against Russia the U.S. women’s national team played the FC Dallas U-15 boys academy team and lost 5-2.
Yes, I didn’t mean to suggest otherwise. Although I would also point out that the FC Dallas U15 also count as elite as they are on an elite pathway.
There is something of a performance multiplier effect to team sports. Football, for example, combines many of the ways which men typically have a performance advantage over women (average height, speed, power, jumping etc) but multiplies it across 11 participants plus subs. So it shouldn’t be a surprise that even the elite women’s team’s lose to male age group teams.
The point however, is that this does not make women’s football unworthy of respect. It is simply a fact that human biology sets a ceiling for women relative to men.
At the end of the day, respect has to be earned. You can’t just go out there and demand it because you think you somehow deserve it.
I saw this today at the Athletics World Cup. A female UK 100m runner made the worst false start I’ve ever seen. She protested and ran under protest. And was then disqualified. Her behaviour was not directly challenged by the saintly BBC commentators (who polirtely glossed over the fact that her challenge was ridiculous). Later, a top male South African 100m runner marginally false started in a semi-final. He accepted the decision and withdrew immediately. I can respect the second athlete. But not the first. Note: the gender is irrelevant for me here – it’s the behaviour that counts.
At the end of the day, respect has to be earned. You can’t just go out there and demand it because you think you somehow deserve it.
I saw this today at the Athletics World Cup. A female UK 100m runner made the worst false start I’ve ever seen. She protested and ran under protest. And was then disqualified. Her behaviour was not directly challenged by the saintly BBC commentators (who polirtely glossed over the fact that her challenge was ridiculous). Later, a top male South African 100m runner marginally false started in a semi-final. He accepted the decision and withdrew immediately. I can respect the second athlete. But not the first. Note: the gender is irrelevant for me here – it’s the behaviour that counts.
Yes, I didn’t mean to suggest otherwise. Although I would also point out that the FC Dallas U15 also count as elite as they are on an elite pathway.
There is something of a performance multiplier effect to team sports. Football, for example, combines many of the ways which men typically have a performance advantage over women (average height, speed, power, jumping etc) but multiplies it across 11 participants plus subs. So it shouldn’t be a surprise that even the elite women’s team’s lose to male age group teams.
The point however, is that this does not make women’s football unworthy of respect. It is simply a fact that human biology sets a ceiling for women relative to men.
Quite! Female excellence is female excellence – it doesn’t need to be compared to male excellence. A top female athlete is every bit as committed and hard working as her male counterparts.Of course men are bigger and stronger and the fastest will far out run any woman – but that doesn’t make male sports necessarily any ‘better’.
I have no interest in women’s football, though.
“A top female athlete is every bit as committed and hard working as her male counterparts.”
Sometimes more so, I would suggest. In the premium sports like football, elite male prospects have pretty much everything in life taken care of for them from their early teens. Few female prospects get that treatment (perhaps some tennis players). They have to juggle jobs, study etc.
And of course women athletes have to deal with periods and if they choose to have children they have to manage those physical and emotional demands. None of which are an issue for men.
Relatively speaking it’s much harder to make a living from sports as a woman. I can’t remember the exact figure but it’s something like 10x as many men in the UK do so. The very least we can do is show the ones that do some respect.
“A top female athlete is every bit as committed and hard working as her male counterparts.”
Sometimes more so, I would suggest. In the premium sports like football, elite male prospects have pretty much everything in life taken care of for them from their early teens. Few female prospects get that treatment (perhaps some tennis players). They have to juggle jobs, study etc.
And of course women athletes have to deal with periods and if they choose to have children they have to manage those physical and emotional demands. None of which are an issue for men.
Relatively speaking it’s much harder to make a living from sports as a woman. I can’t remember the exact figure but it’s something like 10x as many men in the UK do so. The very least we can do is show the ones that do some respect.
That men have a massive performance advantage DOES matter. People want to watch the best. People want to pay for the best, and simply are not interested in second best.
Just curious – why so many downvotes here?
“But it doesn’t mean female athletes are less worthy of respect. ”
It isn’t their lack of ability that makes them less worthy of respect.
It’s their behaviour.
A weak EPL team, playing against City or Liverpool, will do their best and work hard to win, rather than complain about how their opponents are paid more or shown more on TV.
Female footballers, on the other hand:
A. Refuse to compete against men, and demand a separate league to avoid direct competition.
B. Are loudmouthed about how they are “as good” as the men they don’t have the guts to face directly.
C. Get thrashed, not by top men’s football teams, but by under -16 local or school boys or Wrexham FC.
D. Get paid much more than the men versus revenues earned, receive way more TV coverage and publicity relative to performance, while still being obnoxious and ungrateful.
E. After winning a competition against other WOMEN, start shrieking how they should be paid as much as men, and given the same status as a male footballer who proves himself against the best in the world.
Can you imagined if a bunch of men behaved like that, how much “respect” they would receive?
“In most sports men have an average performance advantage and therefore at the elite end men will overwhelmingly beat women”.
Not just at the elite end – in 2017, while preparing for two friendlies against Russia the U.S. women’s national team played the FC Dallas U-15 boys academy team and lost 5-2.
Quite! Female excellence is female excellence – it doesn’t need to be compared to male excellence. A top female athlete is every bit as committed and hard working as her male counterparts.Of course men are bigger and stronger and the fastest will far out run any woman – but that doesn’t make male sports necessarily any ‘better’.
I have no interest in women’s football, though.
Agreed.
Quit pushing the game on the USA.
I agree with most of what you wrote except for your equating girly being shallow. Sounds like your desired goal is masculinized females. I don’t understand why traditionally female pursuits have to be demonized. Feminism in the 70s was about choice – we had none then. Now it seems like we once again have only one acceptable female choice – to be as much like men as possible so we can dispense with them.
Not watching Australia v Sweden yesterday then?
I feel badly for your daughter that you are “”constantly” pushing her toward things that she may not be interested in, for fear that she may turn out “girly’. I’m sure she will naturally gravitate to what interests her and what she has a natural aptitude for. Constantly pushing a child into an activity is counter productive. Allow her to trust her own instincts and intuition instead of trying to control her. You’ll have a much better relationship.
“pushing her toward things that she may not be interested in, for fear that she may turn out “girly’. ”
That’s not the idea, and frankly I would love it if she turned out girly – daughters are great!
But the idea is to push her to try things. Just try.
And if she doesn’t like some of those, fine.
She doesn’t like dancing – after a year of dance practice!
On the other hand, she does love dolls – and computer gaming, Lego, maths…..
What I find a bit negative is how many young girls don’t even get any exposure to football, gaming, etc.
How do you know if you like something if you don’t even try it?
“pushing her toward things that she may not be interested in, for fear that she may turn out “girly’. ”
That’s not the idea, and frankly I would love it if she turned out girly – daughters are great!
But the idea is to push her to try things. Just try.
And if she doesn’t like some of those, fine.
She doesn’t like dancing – after a year of dance practice!
On the other hand, she does love dolls – and computer gaming, Lego, maths…..
What I find a bit negative is how many young girls don’t even get any exposure to football, gaming, etc.
How do you know if you like something if you don’t even try it?
It isn’t inferior to the men’s game, it’s different – but good. My husband watches it, as he does top women’s golf, because they are so good.
We’re more than half the population, and many of us older women would’ve loved to have played soccer at school – I used to scuff my shoes playing on thr netball court at lunchtime. This global trend isn’t going away. It will increase participation in sport, especially if it’s included in the school curriculum – and heaven knows, lardy ass westerners need it.
I’m not sure this article celebrates women’s football as much as you think it does. I’m not even sure it’s particularly “progressive.” And I see no evidence the author supports equal pay for women players, or trans players in women’s football or other sports.
How in the name of sanity do you manage to shoehorn immigrants and wokeness into a sneering post about women’s football?
What’s the point of you mate
https://ayenaw.com/2023/08/19/world-cup-final/
Women’s football is not ‘inferior’ to men’s, it’s different. And ‘standards of women’s sports are abysmal compared to men’ – absolute b0oll0cks! I referee women’s rugby a fair bit at, assorted lower levels, and they are usually techinically superior to the equivalent men’s standard (‘cos they listen to their coaches!) if a tad slower and they cheat less (makes it easier to ref) – and also obviously enjoy it more than the boys.
Watch top international women’s rugby and tell me it ain’t physical!
BTW I agree that pay should be linked to income generated. Professional sport is not a game, it’s paid-for entertainment.
Interesting conflation of girly and shallow. Is it shallow to be able to cook? Is coding more worthy than being able to draw or sew? Why must girls be forced into traditionally male sports at the expense of say netball, ballet, horse riding? If your daughter chooses to be girly it doesn’t mean she’s shallow.
I like the women’s game because there’s more time playing and less time thrashing on the pitch looking for penalties.
Ignore the slobbering sentimentalists Iker – and no sport provokes slobbering sentimentaliity as effectively as “the beautiful game” (yuk!). Your comment holds true.
The current mania is more about the loud clanking feminist propaganda machine than the game itself. With every pundit and his progressive wife straining to display their support for those sentimentally dubbed “Lionesses”, you just know where the next contest will be fought: in the arena of equity in financial rewards, equity in celebrity status, equity in media exposure, equity in everything they can get away with.
Yet, if in five to ten years, girls fail to show the widespread, patriarchy-challenging, enthusiasm for soccer that feminists expect of them then social conditioning will be blamed (of course).
“It’s all about how women’s football must be treated at par with men, and how it’s unacceptable that football roughly equivalent to the 3rd tier division 1 or worse doesn’t get the same audiences and pay as Messi and co.”
There’s a difference between equal performance and equal respect.
In most sports men have an average performance advantage and therefore at the elite end men will overwhelmingly beat women. This is evident in everything from tennis club pyramids to park run times to Olympic finals. But it doesn’t mean female athletes are less worthy of respect. An exceptional female athlete is an exceptional athlete.
As for earning as much as Messi, I’ve never seen anyone suggest that. If I did I wouldn’t agree with it. Messi’s salary is driven by his value within the men’s football economy which is still much bigger than women’s.
What I do hope is that the popularity and financial value of women’s football (and other sports) continues to grow and as a result the players in turn benefit from increased financial rewards.
If, for the sake of argument, in 10 years time women’s football is as popular and financially lucrative as men’s, then I would see no problem in the best female players being paid “as much as Messi”.
Agreed.
Quit pushing the game on the USA.
I agree with most of what you wrote except for your equating girly being shallow. Sounds like your desired goal is masculinized females. I don’t understand why traditionally female pursuits have to be demonized. Feminism in the 70s was about choice – we had none then. Now it seems like we once again have only one acceptable female choice – to be as much like men as possible so we can dispense with them.
Not watching Australia v Sweden yesterday then?
I feel badly for your daughter that you are “”constantly” pushing her toward things that she may not be interested in, for fear that she may turn out “girly’. I’m sure she will naturally gravitate to what interests her and what she has a natural aptitude for. Constantly pushing a child into an activity is counter productive. Allow her to trust her own instincts and intuition instead of trying to control her. You’ll have a much better relationship.
It isn’t inferior to the men’s game, it’s different – but good. My husband watches it, as he does top women’s golf, because they are so good.
We’re more than half the population, and many of us older women would’ve loved to have played soccer at school – I used to scuff my shoes playing on thr netball court at lunchtime. This global trend isn’t going away. It will increase participation in sport, especially if it’s included in the school curriculum – and heaven knows, lardy ass westerners need it.
I’m not sure this article celebrates women’s football as much as you think it does. I’m not even sure it’s particularly “progressive.” And I see no evidence the author supports equal pay for women players, or trans players in women’s football or other sports.
The basic premise of this piece is rather stretched and nonsensical. What surprises me though is that commenters here are taken aback by this – as it should be very obvious that women’s football, how it’s viewed and it’s media coverage, has been hijacked by “progressives” and politicised. Of course it has to be about “inclusion”, the “wider significance”, how it’s good that England fans are watching women’s football even though it’s inferior compared to men, simply out of pride for nation – while simultaneously deriding that concept of national pride and joy because it’s icky and Brexitey.
Now, I have a daughter who I constantly push towards stuff like gaming, coding, tech, football – not to “compete” against boys but to ensure she doesn’t grow up all girly and shallow.
But it’s very evident when it comes to football or cricket, she and other girls I know have very little interest (in contrast to boys her own age).
And it’s also fairly obvious that the standards of women’s sports are abysmal compared to men. Biology, and bodies tuned to ease childbirth rather than throwing stuff.
But, if you follow the coverage, and it’s quite overwhelming media coverage (which should be a clue), the message is not “there is some tournament on, watch it if interested, England winning hurrah”. It’s all about how women’s football must be treated at par with men, and how it’s unacceptable that football roughly equivalent to the 3rd tier division 1 or worse doesn’t get the same audiences and pay as Messi and co.
The ones pushing that stuff are exactly – almost precisely – the same idiots who think it’s awful that we don’t just let boatloads of immigrants jump over to Western countries (while they themselves stay in mostly white upper class gated suburbs), believe in multiculturalism or think Brexiteers are the spawn of Satan.
Hence articles like this.
And whether it’s “very good news for women’s football” is questionable, because this same lot of people would also support trans – of course they would.
So we might hilariously end up with women’s footballers being artificially brought closer to par with men pay wise – while simultaneously being overrun with 3rd rate men pretending to be women.
It’s a game. Geez. If your team does well and it’s exciting, interest in the sport grows, and that’s always good. The nation feels a sweet sense of pride momentarily, which is good as well. But that’s about it, outside of some narrow exceptions.
And what’s with this? “ At the time, it was claimed that Freeman’s success heralded a new, more inclusive Australia, yet just a year later the Australian government turned away the Tampa, a Norwegian freighter laden with asylum seekers it had rescued from the seas north of Christmas Island.”
Another ideological spin on the meaning of inclusivity. And why on god’s green earth would an athletic endeavor have any impact on political policy?
You took the words out of my mouth
Sport has always had some cultural, and thus political, implications and impact on perceptions, going all the way back to c700BC and the first Olympics. Just a few examples – the impact of Berlin 34 and Jesse Owens; Muhammad Ali in the 60s, 70s; the use of sport to demonstrate national superiority whether Russia, East Germany, China now, or the USA; the Generals use of 78 Argentinian WC to strengthen their hold on power; ‘War minus the shooting’ as Orwell said, albeit the context in 49 when he wrote that was somewhat different.
The gradual move to equality in sport for Women, with worldwide coverage including to parts of the world where repression of women much worse, has a much bigger impact than many men instinctively grasp.
There are of course hundreds more such examples.
You took the words out of my mouth
Sport has always had some cultural, and thus political, implications and impact on perceptions, going all the way back to c700BC and the first Olympics. Just a few examples – the impact of Berlin 34 and Jesse Owens; Muhammad Ali in the 60s, 70s; the use of sport to demonstrate national superiority whether Russia, East Germany, China now, or the USA; the Generals use of 78 Argentinian WC to strengthen their hold on power; ‘War minus the shooting’ as Orwell said, albeit the context in 49 when he wrote that was somewhat different.
The gradual move to equality in sport for Women, with worldwide coverage including to parts of the world where repression of women much worse, has a much bigger impact than many men instinctively grasp.
There are of course hundreds more such examples.
It’s a game. Geez. If your team does well and it’s exciting, interest in the sport grows, and that’s always good. The nation feels a sweet sense of pride momentarily, which is good as well. But that’s about it, outside of some narrow exceptions.
And what’s with this? “ At the time, it was claimed that Freeman’s success heralded a new, more inclusive Australia, yet just a year later the Australian government turned away the Tampa, a Norwegian freighter laden with asylum seekers it had rescued from the seas north of Christmas Island.”
Another ideological spin on the meaning of inclusivity. And why on god’s green earth would an athletic endeavor have any impact on political policy?
…so Australians en masse paying attention to one of their own in the Olympics, didn’t transpond into compassion for a boatload of would be illegal migrants? Huh? Only a deeply racist mind could connive that connection.
Quite.
One action was about symbolically resetting the treatment of indigenous Australian people.
The other was about upholding the lawfully and democratically determined immigration policy of Australia.
The worst part of an otherwise generally good article. And totally unnecessary.
Quite.
One action was about symbolically resetting the treatment of indigenous Australian people.
The other was about upholding the lawfully and democratically determined immigration policy of Australia.
The worst part of an otherwise generally good article. And totally unnecessary.
…so Australians en masse paying attention to one of their own in the Olympics, didn’t transpond into compassion for a boatload of would be illegal migrants? Huh? Only a deeply racist mind could connive that connection.
I watched the last women’s World Cup avidly, because my teenage daughter was then into football. It was quite interesting, and at times I really enjoyed what the women had brought to the game: more courtesy, lower levels of fouling and play-acting, some nice set-pieces and accurate square passing out to the wing.
Then, when it was all over, I watched a few men’s games again (I’ve never been a consistent fan of the game) and found them to be far more exciting and entertaining, with some real flashes of something close to genius.
For me, the most interesting feature of this whole tournament is how desperate the BBC are to portray the women’s game as the equal of the men’s game. It’s verged on gaslighting at times. The desire to spin a narrative about female equality is far more evident than any attempt to just report on the game and let people make up their own minds.
The England women would be beaten by an U14 boys team from any of the Premiership academies. But its still an entertaining watch, and I can get behind them for the Final. Come on England!!
From a referee’s perspective let me tell you that women are NOT more courteous, nor do they ‘play nicer’.
We must never forget that the champion US women’s team was soundly beaten by a team of 15 yr old Texan males, soon after they won it all last time.
It’s nice that most nations are now encouraging women’s soccer (the original English name of the sport), but comparing them to the brilliance of the world-class men’s teams is a waste of time.
An individual game could be misleading. The Spanish women footballers were trounced 4 goals to nil by the Japanese, yet the English ladies couldn’t hit the net once against them.
An individual game could be misleading. The Spanish women footballers were trounced 4 goals to nil by the Japanese, yet the English ladies couldn’t hit the net once against them.
Some of the roots of transgender ideology lie in the denial of any inherent difference between the sexes. The problem is that for women to be valued they are held to male standards of performance and behaviour – and female qualities are utterly devalued – unless they are performed by men who adopt female personas and identities ( and the roots of that lie in the sexualisation of women).
Equality should not have to mean ‘sameness’ – but about accommodating differences too.
The England women would be beaten by an U14 boys team from any of the Premiership academies. But its still an entertaining watch, and I can get behind them for the Final. Come on England!!
From a referee’s perspective let me tell you that women are NOT more courteous, nor do they ‘play nicer’.
We must never forget that the champion US women’s team was soundly beaten by a team of 15 yr old Texan males, soon after they won it all last time.
It’s nice that most nations are now encouraging women’s soccer (the original English name of the sport), but comparing them to the brilliance of the world-class men’s teams is a waste of time.
Some of the roots of transgender ideology lie in the denial of any inherent difference between the sexes. The problem is that for women to be valued they are held to male standards of performance and behaviour – and female qualities are utterly devalued – unless they are performed by men who adopt female personas and identities ( and the roots of that lie in the sexualisation of women).
Equality should not have to mean ‘sameness’ – but about accommodating differences too.
I watched the last women’s World Cup avidly, because my teenage daughter was then into football. It was quite interesting, and at times I really enjoyed what the women had brought to the game: more courtesy, lower levels of fouling and play-acting, some nice set-pieces and accurate square passing out to the wing.
Then, when it was all over, I watched a few men’s games again (I’ve never been a consistent fan of the game) and found them to be far more exciting and entertaining, with some real flashes of something close to genius.
For me, the most interesting feature of this whole tournament is how desperate the BBC are to portray the women’s game as the equal of the men’s game. It’s verged on gaslighting at times. The desire to spin a narrative about female equality is far more evident than any attempt to just report on the game and let people make up their own minds.
”Grandiose claims about deeper meaning aren’t always the answer”. I’m struggling to understand what the question might be ?
”Grandiose claims about deeper meaning aren’t always the answer”. I’m struggling to understand what the question might be ?
The author writes for the Guardian and Sports Illustrated, so I won’t be surprised if his next UnHerd article will be about how huge fat bikini models will end global warming and the patriarchy.
The author writes for the Guardian and Sports Illustrated, so I won’t be surprised if his next UnHerd article will be about how huge fat bikini models will end global warming and the patriarchy.
Quite. Sack this writer with his miserable blather.
Sport, training, effort, achievement, role models for our girls – there are so many positive things to write about here.
Accusations of racism and negative energy need to be edited out so we can come to UnHerd to avoid this crap.
Really, you want to edit this stuff out? I don’t want an echo chamber. That’s not helpful to anyone.
Agreed. Just because he might write for the Graun doesn’t mean he’s a bad person.
Agreed. Just because he might write for the Graun doesn’t mean he’s a bad person.
Really, you want to edit this stuff out? I don’t want an echo chamber. That’s not helpful to anyone.
Quite. Sack this writer with his miserable blather.
Sport, training, effort, achievement, role models for our girls – there are so many positive things to write about here.
Accusations of racism and negative energy need to be edited out so we can come to UnHerd to avoid this crap.
Has this awful author ever done a piece that is not cynical?
There’s no doubt that women’s football has launched the sport at grassroots, just go to the park and you’ll see girls playing organised matches every weekend, which was completely unheard of ten years ago.
The passion and energy is definitely present, let’s celebrate it.
I read some foolish remarks in this article, especially about the boat filled with would be migrants to Australia, but I didn’t detect cynicism, wokishness yes! His main theme was that the link between sports success and wider culture exists but is subtle – and we shouldn’t expect too much. Pretty banal I suppose, because I’d say that was fairly obvious.
The problem I see is that while you have some girls interested in organised matches and playing regularly (though still far fewer than men), interest beyond that group falls off dramatically among girls. Whereas among men, even those who aren’t actively playing, there is a lot of interest in the game.
What this means is that the young boys I know, after playing or watching football, discuss among themselves excitedly next day in school.
Whereas my daughter, after being dragged unwillingly to a football game to begin with, has zero interaction with the other girls in her school. I know, I asked her after every game that I took her.
Pity really, as it would be great for her to play and enjoy the sport (and not just for my selfish reasons!)
I find that sport for girls is far better and stronger in single sex/girl only schools; and netball and hockey are just as worthwhile as football – in fact I’d much prefer it should we celebrate women’s sport beyond just football. I watched and enjoyed the netball world cup last week – I can’t say the same for women’s football.
“I’d much prefer it should we celebrate women’s sport beyond just football.”
I understand the sentiment but football is the big win. Its global profile and the money to be made, make it the most obvious route to winning over traditional sports fans, who are overwhelmingly male, and attracting a new generation of women to sport.
The women’s road race at the Worlds last week was a brilliant race. But even with it being in the UK and on the red button, I’d be amazed if it was watched by a 10th of the number who watched the match today.
“I’d much prefer it should we celebrate women’s sport beyond just football.”
I understand the sentiment but football is the big win. Its global profile and the money to be made, make it the most obvious route to winning over traditional sports fans, who are overwhelmingly male, and attracting a new generation of women to sport.
The women’s road race at the Worlds last week was a brilliant race. But even with it being in the UK and on the red button, I’d be amazed if it was watched by a 10th of the number who watched the match today.
I find that sport for girls is far better and stronger in single sex/girl only schools; and netball and hockey are just as worthwhile as football – in fact I’d much prefer it should we celebrate women’s sport beyond just football. I watched and enjoyed the netball world cup last week – I can’t say the same for women’s football.
Well, “Bend It Like Beckham” is 21 years old, so not completely unheard of.
I read some foolish remarks in this article, especially about the boat filled with would be migrants to Australia, but I didn’t detect cynicism, wokishness yes! His main theme was that the link between sports success and wider culture exists but is subtle – and we shouldn’t expect too much. Pretty banal I suppose, because I’d say that was fairly obvious.
The problem I see is that while you have some girls interested in organised matches and playing regularly (though still far fewer than men), interest beyond that group falls off dramatically among girls. Whereas among men, even those who aren’t actively playing, there is a lot of interest in the game.
What this means is that the young boys I know, after playing or watching football, discuss among themselves excitedly next day in school.
Whereas my daughter, after being dragged unwillingly to a football game to begin with, has zero interaction with the other girls in her school. I know, I asked her after every game that I took her.
Pity really, as it would be great for her to play and enjoy the sport (and not just for my selfish reasons!)
Well, “Bend It Like Beckham” is 21 years old, so not completely unheard of.
Has this awful author ever done a piece that is not cynical?
There’s no doubt that women’s football has launched the sport at grassroots, just go to the park and you’ll see girls playing organised matches every weekend, which was completely unheard of ten years ago.
The passion and energy is definitely present, let’s celebrate it.
What.. Australia being “less inclusive” by turning away illegal immigrants?
Like a bank being ‘less generous’ by keeping bank robbers at bay.
What utter nonsense!
What.. Australia being “less inclusive” by turning away illegal immigrants?
Like a bank being ‘less generous’ by keeping bank robbers at bay.
What utter nonsense!
I’ve tried to read this article three times now. Can someone tell me what on earth he is on about?
I’ve tried to be an article on occasion, but find it deeply unsatisfying.
You want others to suffer on your behalf? I got part-way through and decided that I could guess the ending.
I’ve tried to be an article on occasion, but find it deeply unsatisfying.
You want others to suffer on your behalf? I got part-way through and decided that I could guess the ending.
I’ve tried to read this article three times now. Can someone tell me what on earth he is on about?
The point of the Women’s World Cup is that the best women footballers in the world should compete, enjoy and celebrate their ability at the game of football and receive respect for being exceptional sportswomen.
You are of course free to infer whatever wider meaning you wish from observing them play football. But that doesn’t make it true.
The point of the Women’s World Cup is that the best women footballers in the world should compete, enjoy and celebrate their ability at the game of football and receive respect for being exceptional sportswomen.
You are of course free to infer whatever wider meaning you wish from observing them play football. But that doesn’t make it true.
Yes. Ye gods! I can only assume that there is a saboteur in his publicity team, or that he sees the world very differently from the rest of us. With his attacks on the Tory “wall” with rubbers mallets and cardboard cannons, it’s like watching some unfortunate “care in the community” type struggle with social skills training.
Yes. Ye gods! I can only assume that there is a saboteur in his publicity team, or that he sees the world very differently from the rest of us. With his attacks on the Tory “wall” with rubbers mallets and cardboard cannons, it’s like watching some unfortunate “care in the community” type struggle with social skills training.
Why are so many people suddenly trying so very hard to to show enthusiasm for women’s football? Perhaps the suspiciously exaggerated excitement stems from a need to show support for the latest feminist project. Lack of fervor could imply misogyny (and we can’t have that).
Pundits have been suggesting that a victory in this tournament will be equivalent to England’s 1966 World Cup victory. Are they just trying too hard or have they really lost all sense of proportion?
Why are so many people suddenly trying so very hard to to show enthusiasm for women’s football? Perhaps the suspiciously exaggerated excitement stems from a need to show support for the latest feminist project. Lack of fervor could imply misogyny (and we can’t have that).
Pundits have been suggesting that a victory in this tournament will be equivalent to England’s 1966 World Cup victory. Are they just trying too hard or have they really lost all sense of proportion?
Off course had the Classical World survived, this tournament and all others would have been performed “Gymnos’- stark naked, as were for example the Ancient Olympic Games.
This would certainly improve television ratings, and also put an immediate end to all this TRANS nonsense.
Sadly the triumph of two Semitic monotheistic cults known respectively as Christianity and Islam put a stop to all that!
Sic Gloria Transit Mundi.
Off course had the Classical World survived, this tournament and all others would have been performed “Gymnos’- stark naked, as were for example the Ancient Olympic Games.
This would certainly improve television ratings, and also put an immediate end to all this TRANS nonsense.
Sadly the triumph of two Semitic monotheistic cults known respectively as Christianity and Islam put a stop to all that!
Sic Gloria Transit Mundi.
Growing up in Australia, I’d say a ferocious interest in sport is a marker of a country’s insignificance in more important fields of endeavour ; arts, sciences, manufacture, war.
So Britain’s renewed interest in this field is not a good omen, to tell the truth.
“. . . and those who can’t teach, teach phys-ed” as they say.
Growing up in Australia, I’d say a ferocious interest in sport is a marker of a country’s insignificance in more important fields of endeavour ; arts, sciences, manufacture, war.
So Britain’s renewed interest in this field is not a good omen, to tell the truth.
“. . . and those who can’t teach, teach phys-ed” as they say.
I think the Author a bit blind to how all this might be looking to a 10 year Girl, and as compared to the equivalent when my generation was that age, or even younger – nothing anywhere near similar for them.
This stuff counts.
What a bunch of middle age men think probably not going to make much difference to the coming future.
I think you might find it’s middle aged men who get up early in the morning to watch women’s football or take their daughters to games!
According to the ECB, the majority of people who went to watch the recent women’s Ashes matches were men, middle age men and older who will no doubt encourage their children (sons and daughters) to partake in the sport.
Don’t let reality break his narrative! #bekind
Don’t let reality break his narrative! #bekind
Unless, of course, they’re Soros or Gates? (ESG codswallop and vaccines for babies will certainly affect the future.)
I think you might find it’s middle aged men who get up early in the morning to watch women’s football or take their daughters to games!
According to the ECB, the majority of people who went to watch the recent women’s Ashes matches were men, middle age men and older who will no doubt encourage their children (sons and daughters) to partake in the sport.
Unless, of course, they’re Soros or Gates? (ESG codswallop and vaccines for babies will certainly affect the future.)
I think the Author a bit blind to how all this might be looking to a 10 year Girl, and as compared to the equivalent when my generation was that age, or even younger – nothing anywhere near similar for them.
This stuff counts.
What a bunch of middle age men think probably not going to make much difference to the coming future.
GLADIATRIX!
What is the plural? If you say Gladiatrixes, then I prefer GLADIATOR.
Takes two to Gladiate ; )
Gladiatrices.
Correct.
Correct.
Incidentally there is evidence for one of these ‘Gorgons’ actually fighting in the arena in Londinium.
The interesting question is did they fight only other women or men as well?
Sadly we don’t yet have any ‘sources’ to decide this issue.
Takes two to Gladiate ; )
Gladiatrices.
Incidentally there is evidence for one of these ‘Gorgons’ actually fighting in the arena in Londinium.
The interesting question is did they fight only other women or men as well?
Sadly we don’t yet have any ‘sources’ to decide this issue.
What is the plural? If you say Gladiatrixes, then I prefer GLADIATOR.
GLADIATRIX!
I really do not understand why this piece was written, let alone published. We like sport. We like British success, even in sports we can’t play and never normally watch. We like to have something to cheer about. Humans the world over are in this respect, as in others, more or less the same. Does success inspire others to get into whatever the game was that we won? The evidence is doubtful. I have never watched women playing football. I don’t watch men either. If they were playing in the back garden I’d draw the curtains. But I’ll be cheering the women on in the morning. Because they’re ours. Simples.
I really do not understand why this piece was written, let alone published. We like sport. We like British success, even in sports we can’t play and never normally watch. We like to have something to cheer about. Humans the world over are in this respect, as in others, more or less the same. Does success inspire others to get into whatever the game was that we won? The evidence is doubtful. I have never watched women playing football. I don’t watch men either. If they were playing in the back garden I’d draw the curtains. But I’ll be cheering the women on in the morning. Because they’re ours. Simples.
Sadly, sport today means money and that means US TV networks broadcasting events.
And in America, women’s football has to compete with women’s basketball for attention.
So women’s football will always be a minority sport where the players don’t get the money they perhaps should.
Of course, it is still a good thing that more girls are taking up football – a sport which helps improve fitness.
Let’s get real and stop being so damn woke about this: men’s sport is much tougher, and better on any conceivable metric.
Women “deserve” the same pay, yet they play far less and far fewer people are interested. There has never been a nail biting 5 set tennis match between two women at any major tournament.
Women’s tennis gets equal pay because the Grand Slam tournaments are held at the same time and venue as the men’s Grand Slam tournaments, and so contribute to the vast profits made by the organisers.
A lesson for supporters of women’s football there!
Just because you play in the same venue, it doesn’t mean that you contributed equally to the profits so you deserve the same money.
For a start, you need at least 3 women matches against 2 men matches to fill the broadcasting schedule.
Women got equal pay because of relentless campaign of blackmail against GS organisers.
Women’s tennis is more enjoyable to watch simply because they have less power than men. There are more rallys.
Agreed – I much prefer women’s tennis, and so does my father who is a massive tennis fan. So much more graceful and watchable than the tedious baseline hammering that forms much of men’s tennis matches. I do miss Roger Federer – a rare male player who was actually graceful and interesting to watch on court.
Most of the ladies are baseline hammer specialists who are rarely tempted near the net and never play a slice volley.
They’re good at what they do, but I miss serve and volley tennis.
Most of the ladies are baseline hammer specialists who are rarely tempted near the net and never play a slice volley.
They’re good at what they do, but I miss serve and volley tennis.
Agreed – I much prefer women’s tennis, and so does my father who is a massive tennis fan. So much more graceful and watchable than the tedious baseline hammering that forms much of men’s tennis matches. I do miss Roger Federer – a rare male player who was actually graceful and interesting to watch on court.
Hardly equal pay when ‘earned’ in less than half the time?
Just because you play in the same venue, it doesn’t mean that you contributed equally to the profits so you deserve the same money.
For a start, you need at least 3 women matches against 2 men matches to fill the broadcasting schedule.
Women got equal pay because of relentless campaign of blackmail against GS organisers.
Women’s tennis is more enjoyable to watch simply because they have less power than men. There are more rallys.
Hardly equal pay when ‘earned’ in less than half the time?
“There has never been a nail biting 5 set tennis match between two women at any major tournament.”
Amen to that.
Could this be because women didn’t play 5 sets, but three?
Those of us old enough to remember could point to the 1970 Wimbledon women’s final when our Margaret Court prevailed over Billie Jean King 14-12, 11-9. If you think that wasn’t nail-biting!!
Aha! The days of “the chocolate drop darling!”
Yes those were the days.
Aha! The days of “the chocolate drop darling!”
Yes those were the days.
Could this be because women didn’t play 5 sets, but three?
Those of us old enough to remember could point to the 1970 Wimbledon women’s final when our Margaret Court prevailed over Billie Jean King 14-12, 11-9. If you think that wasn’t nail-biting!!
Men’s sport may be ‘tougher’, but it ain’t necessarily more physical – you obviously haven’t watched much women’s sport. And “better”? – that is a very subjective opinion indeed and not subject to ‘metrics’.
Men’s sport is, in almost every case, ‘better’ in the sense that they would beat the women’s team. BUT professional sport is all about entertainment and so skill etc can be irrelevant. I used to watch tennis and there was a time when I found women’s tennis more enjoyable than men’s and so it was, for me, better (entertainment).
So pay, media coverage etc should purely reflect how much spectators enjoy it, are willing to pay and where that meets players’ demands.
Many people prefer women’s tennis because they actually return the ball, it isn’t all power serves. Women tennis players are often more high profile, get more advertising contracts, and deservedly make more money than the men. It is the only sport in which they pull their own weight financially.
There has however been quite a bit of completely unnecessary ‘grunting’ in recent years, mainly but not exclusively by women.
This rather shatters the serenity of the game and must cease.
Then there is the current controversy about what coloured knickers to wear. Simple, do as the Cricketers do and wear trousers.
Not ice skating?
You’ll find that the men’s tennis game brings in far more money than the women’s game. Try dealing with facts rather than wishfuls.
They don’t make more money than top male players.
No one minds if one slam wonder Raducanu made 20 million from contracts etc.
What many people object to is subsidising women game in GS from money generated by men.
If you look at market place for resale of Wimbledon tickets women final is worth between price of 4th round and QF of men.
Or at least it was before Wimbledon decided to have mixed days this year at QF and SF stage.
There has however been quite a bit of completely unnecessary ‘grunting’ in recent years, mainly but not exclusively by women.
This rather shatters the serenity of the game and must cease.
Then there is the current controversy about what coloured knickers to wear. Simple, do as the Cricketers do and wear trousers.
Not ice skating?
You’ll find that the men’s tennis game brings in far more money than the women’s game. Try dealing with facts rather than wishfuls.
They don’t make more money than top male players.
No one minds if one slam wonder Raducanu made 20 million from contracts etc.
What many people object to is subsidising women game in GS from money generated by men.
If you look at market place for resale of Wimbledon tickets women final is worth between price of 4th round and QF of men.
Or at least it was before Wimbledon decided to have mixed days this year at QF and SF stage.
Many people prefer women’s tennis because they actually return the ball, it isn’t all power serves. Women tennis players are often more high profile, get more advertising contracts, and deservedly make more money than the men. It is the only sport in which they pull their own weight financially.
You really need to be woke or blind not to see discrepancy in skills between top women players in tennis or football and man.
Women nr1 Swiatek can not even execute backhand volley trying to do it with 2 hands.
Men’s sport is, in almost every case, ‘better’ in the sense that they would beat the women’s team. BUT professional sport is all about entertainment and so skill etc can be irrelevant. I used to watch tennis and there was a time when I found women’s tennis more enjoyable than men’s and so it was, for me, better (entertainment).
So pay, media coverage etc should purely reflect how much spectators enjoy it, are willing to pay and where that meets players’ demands.
You really need to be woke or blind not to see discrepancy in skills between top women players in tennis or football and man.
Women nr1 Swiatek can not even execute backhand volley trying to do it with 2 hands.
Female tennis players have been prepared to play 5 sets at grand slams for a long time. Its the tournament organisers that will not allow it, as they say it would make the schedule impossible. Someone commenting on another publication suggested all grand slam matches being 3 sets until quarter final stage, then moving to 5 sets for both men and women. This seemed to me an eminently sensible solution to the schedule issues, whilst making the sport more equitable. Of course, because it is eminently sensible, there is zero chance of this ever happening. Also, do not forget that men only play 3 sets at the vast majority of tournaments, its only the four slams and one or two other tournaments where men play 5 sets.
Well said.
The question is: are the punters who buy the tickets and cable TV subscriptions able to watch the 5 set women’s game ? I guess if there really were strong demand for this, it would happen.
If you want to get paid for professional sport, you have to accept that you’re in the entertainment business and at the whim of the audience. Fairness and equity don’t come into it. We chose to bury amateur sport 30-40 years ago and have to live with the consequences.
Well said.
The question is: are the punters who buy the tickets and cable TV subscriptions able to watch the 5 set women’s game ? I guess if there really were strong demand for this, it would happen.
If you want to get paid for professional sport, you have to accept that you’re in the entertainment business and at the whim of the audience. Fairness and equity don’t come into it. We chose to bury amateur sport 30-40 years ago and have to live with the consequences.
Women’s tennis gets equal pay because the Grand Slam tournaments are held at the same time and venue as the men’s Grand Slam tournaments, and so contribute to the vast profits made by the organisers.
A lesson for supporters of women’s football there!
“There has never been a nail biting 5 set tennis match between two women at any major tournament.”
Amen to that.
Men’s sport may be ‘tougher’, but it ain’t necessarily more physical – you obviously haven’t watched much women’s sport. And “better”? – that is a very subjective opinion indeed and not subject to ‘metrics’.
Female tennis players have been prepared to play 5 sets at grand slams for a long time. Its the tournament organisers that will not allow it, as they say it would make the schedule impossible. Someone commenting on another publication suggested all grand slam matches being 3 sets until quarter final stage, then moving to 5 sets for both men and women. This seemed to me an eminently sensible solution to the schedule issues, whilst making the sport more equitable. Of course, because it is eminently sensible, there is zero chance of this ever happening. Also, do not forget that men only play 3 sets at the vast majority of tournaments, its only the four slams and one or two other tournaments where men play 5 sets.
A. Boosting pay for the handful of tip level women footballers
B. Getting ordinary girls to play and watch football.
These are two different things and it’s irritating that they are so often muddled
The link provided about increasing WSL attendances in the article , for instance, actually points to a Sport England page that’s focused on getting women to be more active through sports. Which is great (and same holds true for men, too).
And as for pay,
“women’s football has to compete with women’s basketball”
And both sports are heavily subsidised or paid proportionally significantly higher as a % of income, compared to their male equivalent!
No it doesn’t because few here watch either. Women’s beach volley ball, on the other hand . . .
Particular when played on Horse Guards Parade.
Particular when played on Horse Guards Parade.
Let’s get real and stop being so damn woke about this: men’s sport is much tougher, and better on any conceivable metric.
Women “deserve” the same pay, yet they play far less and far fewer people are interested. There has never been a nail biting 5 set tennis match between two women at any major tournament.
A. Boosting pay for the handful of tip level women footballers
B. Getting ordinary girls to play and watch football.
These are two different things and it’s irritating that they are so often muddled
The link provided about increasing WSL attendances in the article , for instance, actually points to a Sport England page that’s focused on getting women to be more active through sports. Which is great (and same holds true for men, too).
And as for pay,
“women’s football has to compete with women’s basketball”
And both sports are heavily subsidised or paid proportionally significantly higher as a % of income, compared to their male equivalent!
No it doesn’t because few here watch either. Women’s beach volley ball, on the other hand . . .
Sadly, sport today means money and that means US TV networks broadcasting events.
And in America, women’s football has to compete with women’s basketball for attention.
So women’s football will always be a minority sport where the players don’t get the money they perhaps should.
Of course, it is still a good thing that more girls are taking up football – a sport which helps improve fitness.
Footy aside, which on a technical level improves visibly with each passing women’s tournament, it feels somewhat like the revenge of the lesbian community on the cultural zeitgeist.
Or at least the rather novel notion of the working-class girl who does more than pass her hours on social media.
Represented ironically by Meghan Rapinoe, the US is sadly the outlier here while kneeling aside, the English women’s team seems to be stepping out of the 51st State shadow for once. On verra…
Glad to see our gals lose after their disgraceful behavior, led by Ms Rapinoe, who, ironically, is all for trans ‘women’ competing now that she has made her million$.
What “disgraceful behaviour” is that?
I must admit I have NOT being paying much attention to all this, as this was a Test year after all.
Ah yes, Test year.
The only sport British invented that is only played by former slaves of Empire.
Thus speaks the man from The Royal Black Preceptory! And not only grammatically* incorrect but factually, as one might expect.
(*Britain not British.-QED?)
Steady on. The Aussies may have been convicts, but I don’t think they were ever slaves.
Thus speaks the man from The Royal Black Preceptory! And not only grammatically* incorrect but factually, as one might expect.
(*Britain not British.-QED?)
Steady on. The Aussies may have been convicts, but I don’t think they were ever slaves.
Ah yes, Test year.
The only sport British invented that is only played by former slaves of Empire.
Is that true? How very sad.
What “disgraceful behaviour” is that?
I must admit I have NOT being paying much attention to all this, as this was a Test year after all.
Is that true? How very sad.
Glad to see our gals lose after their disgraceful behavior, led by Ms Rapinoe, who, ironically, is all for trans ‘women’ competing now that she has made her million$.
Footy aside, which on a technical level improves visibly with each passing women’s tournament, it feels somewhat like the revenge of the lesbian community on the cultural zeitgeist.
Or at least the rather novel notion of the working-class girl who does more than pass her hours on social media.
Represented ironically by Meghan Rapinoe, the US is sadly the outlier here while kneeling aside, the English women’s team seems to be stepping out of the 51st State shadow for once. On verra…
Comments that centre around whether women’s football is not as good as men’s and therefore not worth watching are completely missing the point. People play and watch sports for enjoyment, and fans of club or national football are fans because they are, well, fans of that club or national team, regardless of gender, skill levels or having the best players. I mean, why do people in the London area enthusiastically support teams like Charlton, Leyton Orient or Sutton United when they could support “much better teams” like Arsenal, Tottenham or Chelsea? Or why do people in the Manchester area support teams like Stockport, Wigan or Salford when Man City and Man Utd are very close by? The women’s game has improved by leaps and bounds and is very watchable. Not as good as men? Not relevant to those who follow and support the teams. BTW, the Saudi leagues will not become popular just because Ronaldo, Neymar and others have cashed in.
Comments that centre around whether women’s football is not as good as men’s and therefore not worth watching are completely missing the point. People play and watch sports for enjoyment, and fans of club or national football are fans because they are, well, fans of that club or national team, regardless of gender, skill levels or having the best players. I mean, why do people in the London area enthusiastically support teams like Charlton, Leyton Orient or Sutton United when they could support “much better teams” like Arsenal, Tottenham or Chelsea? Or why do people in the Manchester area support teams like Stockport, Wigan or Salford when Man City and Man Utd are very close by? The women’s game has improved by leaps and bounds and is very watchable. Not as good as men? Not relevant to those who follow and support the teams. BTW, the Saudi leagues will not become popular just because Ronaldo, Neymar and others have cashed in.
It used to be true that women were the superior sex precisely because most of them recognised the pointlessness of competitive team sports. It is a sign of further social degradation that women now seem in love with the utterly meaningless activity of kicking a ball around a park for 90 minutes. Oh how we have fallen. The tyranny of bread and circuses seems unstoppable.
It used to be true that women were the superior sex precisely because most of them recognised the pointlessness of competitive team sports. It is a sign of further social degradation that women now seem in love with the utterly meaningless activity of kicking a ball around a park for 90 minutes. Oh how we have fallen. The tyranny of bread and circuses seems unstoppable.
(?) Evidently, the writer is immune to sports’ appeal, is annoyed that other people aren’t, and is determined to pooh-pooh the whole enterprise because of its failure to fix and/or rise above flaws that afflict all societies in general. The result is less an analysis of sports than an incoherent indictment of people who unaccountably fail to share his sensibilities. Writing it must have been a lonely project, a forlorn splashing of mud on the wheels of the golden carriage as it sweeps by, admired by everyone else. Too bad he won’t be able to join the fun on Sunday, but as an alternative to nursing his resentments maybe he can take a relaxing walk in the park or a refreshing drive in the country. By all means, let him find a quiet bench in the sunshine and re-read some Somerset Maugham; the nation will neither begrudge him the solace nor miss him.
P.S. Why pick on women footballers in particular? It’s never made clear, and most readers likely don’t care; but the seeming irrelevance of the gratuitous sideswipe makes you wonder just how many bees are buzzing around in this poor chap’s bonnet.
(?) Evidently, the writer is immune to sports’ appeal, is annoyed that other people aren’t, and is determined to pooh-pooh the whole enterprise because of its failure to fix and/or rise above flaws that afflict all societies in general. The result is less an analysis of sports than an incoherent indictment of people who unaccountably fail to share his sensibilities. Writing it must have been a lonely project, a forlorn splashing of mud on the wheels of the golden carriage as it sweeps by, admired by everyone else. Too bad he won’t be able to join the fun on Sunday, but as an alternative to nursing his resentments maybe he can take a relaxing walk in the park or a refreshing drive in the country. By all means, let him find a quiet bench in the sunshine and re-read some Somerset Maugham; the nation will neither begrudge him the solace nor miss him.
P.S. Why pick on women footballers in particular? It’s never made clear, and most readers likely don’t care; but the seeming irrelevance of the gratuitous sideswipe makes you wonder just how many bees are buzzing around in this poor chap’s bonnet.
Girls playing sports…what’s not to like if it’s not politicized like everything else seems to be these days? I’m from the USA and loved to see that Rapinoe ass fail. Love the pretty girls from England, Sweden, Denmark, and Spain. I’m a man and it’s not a religious event. Let’s have some fun or is that outlawed now too?
Girls playing sports…what’s not to like if it’s not politicized like everything else seems to be these days? I’m from the USA and loved to see that Rapinoe ass fail. Love the pretty girls from England, Sweden, Denmark, and Spain. I’m a man and it’s not a religious event. Let’s have some fun or is that outlawed now too?
I was enjoying watching the odd game in the women’s world football competition. But, England were struggling, grinding out results etc…etc. And the media were, er, barely noticing. (Imagine that in the men’s game!?)
Great. As it should be.
Then, England progressed to the semi-final.
And , the media suddenly woke up (there’s a clue there…)
And we now have a load of hyperbolic nonsense being splurged out and we’re back into episode 133 of the culture wars.
I was enjoying watching the odd game in the women’s world football competition. But, England were struggling, grinding out results etc…etc. And the media were, er, barely noticing. (Imagine that in the men’s game!?)
Great. As it should be.
Then, England progressed to the semi-final.
And , the media suddenly woke up (there’s a clue there…)
And we now have a load of hyperbolic nonsense being splurged out and we’re back into episode 133 of the culture wars.
Once the women’s game has been corrupted with a large influx of cash, it will just become like the men’s game, and all this tedious talk of the profound significance of women’s football will disappear.
Once the women’s game has been corrupted with a large influx of cash, it will just become like the men’s game, and all this tedious talk of the profound significance of women’s football will disappear.
Well, I tried watching for ten minutes, and sorry, but to me but it looks sluggish and insipid.
Well, I tried watching for ten minutes, and sorry, but to me but it looks sluggish and insipid.
Davey as a future guide to what would be good news? You have to be joking – he doesn’t know what a woman is and thinks some of them have penises. Get a grip JW.
Davey as a future guide to what would be good news? You have to be joking – he doesn’t know what a woman is and thinks some of them have penises. Get a grip JW.
Oh well, heartbreak, agony, deflation as ‘our’ finest feminists fail to beat Spains finest feminists in an allegedly nail-biting final.
Will my lack of sympathy be noted as a non-crime hate incident?
Oh well, heartbreak, agony, deflation as ‘our’ finest feminists fail to beat Spains finest feminists in an allegedly nail-biting final.
Will my lack of sympathy be noted as a non-crime hate incident?
And if they don’t win? They’ll be derided and hoist as failures. This is the nature of sportsmanship today: unsporting. I always look at the Olympics or Formula One, a Bronze is seen as ‘could try harder’ Fourth? Invisible, top of the also rans, top of all performers bar three. Especially when judged by non participants. The slowest woman athlete would beat the average man in the street by miles.
Already talk of welcoming trans women into their ranks. Then what? Challenge a lower league men’s team and then only allowed the ball if the men’s team feel like it.
And if they don’t win? They’ll be derided and hoist as failures. This is the nature of sportsmanship today: unsporting. I always look at the Olympics or Formula One, a Bronze is seen as ‘could try harder’ Fourth? Invisible, top of the also rans, top of all performers bar three. Especially when judged by non participants. The slowest woman athlete would beat the average man in the street by miles.
Already talk of welcoming trans women into their ranks. Then what? Challenge a lower league men’s team and then only allowed the ball if the men’s team feel like it.
What does it mean? Well, judging by the media coverage, most of the team are gay, mixed race or both, so draw your own conclusions
Does that trigger you, Ben?
Indeed. Given that both groups are very small proporion of the total female popuation, you have to wonder why this is the case
What is the point? It seems to be that the public like watching a winning team even if the winning team would be a loosing team against a comparable team of men.
What is the point? It seems to be that the public like watching a winning team even if the winning team would be a loosing team against a comparable team of men.
The point is that by getting the other half of the human race to take football seriously and attending to their matches with some enthusiasm, we get more good footy to watch than we would if we just paid attention to the men’s game.
Damn voting system. I up voted you,David, but it didn’t register. There was a zero, surely if I upvoted it woud go to one, but it didn’t. I don’t get it.
Damn voting system. I up voted you,David, but it didn’t register. There was a zero, surely if I upvoted it woud go to one, but it didn’t. I don’t get it.
The point is that by getting the other half of the human race to take football seriously and attending to their matches with some enthusiasm, we get more good footy to watch than we would if we just paid attention to the men’s game.
I think these Tour d’horizon articles are more about the writer than the subject. It’s just football, enjoy it. Leave the big waffley, state of the nation revealed through a footie game, stuff to politicians.
Women’s football will grow and grow and , sadly, probably become more like the men’s game where millionaires and billionaires tweet ‘man-of-the-people’ stuff and talk in a slightly cartoonish argot to draw attention away from their own wealth and privilege, in what used to be called the people’s game.
But just right now, and last summer, the woman’s game hasn’t reached that state yet, we should enjoy it while it lasts.
Don’t even get me started on VAR.
I haven’t watched football since the stupid morons started “taking the knee”. That said, I do like how the Whiteness of the England women’s team offends the woke skum.
I think the England men’s team need Wiegman – Southgate has had his day, time for some fresh blood and she has more than proved she is a fantastic manager. The Lionesses are going from strength to strength, and I wish them luck for tomorrow. My money is on an England win, hopefully in normal time but we know the girls can go the distance and even win on penalties if required.
I think the England men’s team need Wiegman – Southgate has had his day, time for some fresh blood and she has more than proved she is a fantastic manager. The Lionesses are going from strength to strength, and I wish them luck for tomorrow. My money is on an England win, hopefully in normal time but we know the girls can go the distance and even win on penalties if required.
I cannot tell you how much I want the Lionesses to win the World Cup. At that point, if it did not happen last year, then English football would become primarily a sport for girls. I have waited 41 years, since the day that I started school, for the fun that I would have with that.
I cannot tell you how much I want the Lionesses to win the World Cup. At that point, if it did not happen last year, then English football would become primarily a sport for girls. I have waited 41 years, since the day that I started school, for the fun that I would have with that.