Should women's sports have separate websites on BBC Sport, Sky News, etc.?

Richie said:
I was just about to post this.

He goes onto to say the low interest/spectator numbers in women's sport, compared to men's, is being blamed on men and asks how it's men's fault - why aren't more women watching it e.g..football?...

Surely low spectator numbers to watching female sports can be attributed to women not being interested in it...

They are more interested in shows where the women attack/are bitchy towards each other e.g. Kardashians than where women work together for a common goal (no pun intended)
Click to expand...

I'm not sure about other countries but at least in the UK you could make an argument for men being partly to blame for the lack of popularity in organised womens football. During WW1 it was popular and used as a way to raise money for charity work associated with the war. Many womens teams were formed in similar ways to how some established male clubs are today, workers keeping fit and blowing off some steam. Post war support remained pretty high until the FA effectively banned womens association football.

Who knows how well established the womens game would be had that never happened. A lot of clubs are now forming womens teams and the structure and leagues are still relatively new. Arsenal women, the most successful english team, are only about 30ish years old. Compare that to the mens team who have been around for 135 years with no interruption.

As for women not being interested in it, I think the growth of the womens game shows that it's going to take some time and a lot of continued investment but it will eventually be a much better product. The number of young girls playing football in the UK is rising rapidly, especially after the 2019 WC run. If you ever attend a big game you'll see the crowds are vastly different to the mens game, a lot more women, young kids, and families... the interest is there it just needs continued investment and prominence on our screens.

There's a very big gap between the more established teams and the rest which doesn't help the competitiveness of the football on display. It's no different to mens international football in that regard, the less developed footballing nations despite qualifying for major tournaments still get spanked by the more established countries with a proper league structure and developed game.
 
Unpopular opinion: We should get rid of men's/women's divisions and just have tiers/classes depending on performance, with qualifiers so people compete with others in the same performance bracket... regardless of gender.
 
explicit4u said:
I'm not sure about other countries but at least in the UK you could make an argument for men being partly to blame for the lack of popularity in organised womens football. During WW1 it was popular and used as a way to raise money for charity work associated with the war. Many womens teams were formed in similar ways to how some established male clubs are today, workers keeping fit and blowing off some steam. Post war support remained pretty high until the FA effectively banned womens association football.

Who knows how well established the womens game would be had that never happened. A lot of clubs are now forming womens teams and the structure and leagues are still relatively new. Arsenal women, the most successful english team, are only about 30ish years old. Compare that to the mens team who have been around for 135 years with no interruption.

As for women not being interested in it, I think the growth of the womens game shows that it's going to take some time and a lot of continued investment but it will eventually be a much better product. The number of young girls playing football in the UK is rising rapidly, especially after the 2019 WC run. If you ever attend a big game you'll see the crowds are vastly different to the mens game, a lot more women, young kids, and families... the interest is there it just needs continued investment and prominence on our screens.

There's a very big gap between the more established teams and the rest which doesn't help the competitiveness of the football on display. It's no different to mens international football in that regard, the less developed footballing nations despite qualifying for major tournaments still get spanked by the more established countries with a proper league structure and developed game.
Click to expand...

Do you think they could scrap the Euros and just have a world cup every two years until other nations can compete? They were talking about the 9 nil game the other day like it was amazing for women's football and for me it damaged it.

Richie said:
I was just about to post this.

He goes onto to say the low interest/spectator numbers in women's sport, compared to men's, is being blamed on men and asks how it's men's fault - why aren't more women watching it e.g..football?...

Surely low spectator numbers to watching female sports can be attributed to women not being interested in it...

They are more interested in shows where the women attack/are bitchy towards each other e.g. Kardashians than where women work together for a common goal (no pun intended)
Click to expand...
I mean that last part is a bit of a generalisation (is that the right word...im tired lmao). My wife hates that crap...equally hates football lmao.

There can be too much football. Last season my team played 64 (SIXTY FOUR) games...I dont want to watch it all summer aswell especially when the standard isnt there.
 
omnomnom said:
Do you think they could scrap the Euros and just have a world cup every two years until other nations can compete? They were talking about the 9 nil game the other day like it was amazing for women's football and for me it damaged it.
Click to expand...
I think the teams who attend but can't compete need all the money and screentime they can get to develop the game, I don't see how scrapping the Euros would benefit them other than avoiding the humiliation. Maybe something like the nations league structure, with all the leagues/divisions would work better for the Euros to at least make it more of a level playing field.

opethian said:
Unpopular opinion: We should get rid of men's/women's divisions and just have tiers/classes depending on performance, with qualifiers so people compete with others in the same performance bracket... regardless of gender.
Click to expand...
Football is way too athletic for that to ever work in womens favour. Not to take anything away from the physical challenge of it but that kinda thing works better for say motor racing.
 
explicit4u said:
Football is way too athletic for that to ever work in womens favour. Not to take anything away from the physical challenge of it but that kinda thing works better for say motor racing.
Click to expand...
I was thinking more along the lines of pursuing equality but still being realistic as well. It would be more inclusive towards trans athletes as well.
 
Had Sky news on the other day as some background noise, heard something about the euros football and how some team has done really well which peaked my interest. Was like oh crap have I somehow missed the start of the euros, so started listening in. Not a single mention it was the womens football, only clocked on when they started reading out some of the scores and was like wait a minute.

Why not just call it the womens euros, felt deceived and wasted a few minutes so just ended up turning tv off :) I do think it is something the media are doing on purpose.
 
BBC sport should represent the most popular sports. We all pay for it… so sports get covered in proportion.
They are NOT there to drive some demographic money spinner, or to prop up teams that are fundamentally unable to compete in an open field.

Womens sports is by definition 2nd rate… there wouldn’t be womens sections if we were equal.
Where women and men compete equally (horse racing/jumping) no one gives a **** what sex you are… did you win?

There are plenty of sports that have higher footfall than womens football. They don’t get BBC prime time coverage. They should.
 
omnomnom said:
Then by all means question it but it isnt Sunday league standard.
Click to expand...

Its not that far off. Its been covered a million times but in general elite level womens sport is quite often about as good as elite level mid-teen boys. Its a hard one to rationalise because ultimately above a certain level, sport is entertaining to watch. Top womens international teams would probably get a pasting from any of the teams in the top 4-5 mens leagues in England though.
 
I wonder if this is just a muscular (for want of a better word) thing. I mean it must be fairly easy to defend when you can fairly easily knock someone of a ball, or dribble past someone when you substantially faster, or save a goal when you taller etc etc.
 
ChroniC said:
I wonder if this is just a muscular (for want of a better word) thing. I mean it must be fairly easy to defend when you can fairly easily knock someone of a ball, or dribble past someone when you substantially faster, or save a goal when you taller etc etc.
Click to expand...
A bit of everything, general athleticism, natural fitness, height etc.

Ikar Casillas was short for a goalkeeper in the mens game for example but made up for it with his athleticism - and yet he'd tower over all the keepers currently at the women's euro.
 
While I've got no doubt that ultimately male teams will generally beat female teams if you played, say, England vs England.

I do wonder how much of the existing gap is due to the physiological differences and how much would be made up if women were coached to the extent most men have been these days, I.e. from 6/7 years old.

It's like the arguments about whether the Busby Babes were better than the modern Man Utd sides, no, they weren't, today's football is so much better than back then purely due to the physical and tactical training.

And also, I would imagine that 'most' boys at some point play football, and while participation for females is getting higher, I would guess the pool of players for men is significantly higher than for females.
 
wesimmo said:
While I've got no doubt that ultimately male teams will generally beat female teams if you played, say, England vs England.

I do wonder how much of the existing gap is due to the physiological differences and how much would be made up if women were coached to the extent most men have been these days, I.e. from 6/7 years old.

It's like the arguments about whether the Busby Babes were better than the modern Man Utd sides, no, they weren't, today's football is so much better than back then purely due to the physical and tactical training.

And also, I would imagine that 'most' boys at some point play football, and while participation for females is getting higher, I would guess the pool of players for men is significantly higher than for females.
Click to expand...
Pretty similar to tennis when the Williams were at their peak would be my guess, exceptional athletes, but not comparable to the men.
 
opethian said:
Unpopular opinion: We should get rid of men's/women's divisions and just have tiers/classes depending on performance, with qualifiers so people compete with others in the same performance bracket... regardless of gender.
Click to expand...

You would just end up with tiers defined by sex again, with all the top tiers populated by males. Women's sport is separate because males have a 10% or more, depending on discipline, athletic advantage over female peers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom