Isn't the devaluation from Euro channels more about timezone, can't see many viewing figures for games played at 3am. If FIFA hadn't selected a stupid place for a tournament they would be making more money.
2 May 2023
34
-
The BBC has diversity commitments through its regulator, Ofcom, and its charter obligations which means what it "should" do is dependent on more than current viewers or numbers of fans of women's football. Although it absolutely doesn't reflect the popularity of the women's game, it also will shape the popularity of the women's game. If the women's FA Cup Final is on BBC One, it will draw more of an audience than if it is on the Red Button on ITV4.
As it is, the BBC website sub-categories for Football read:
Scores & Fixtures
Tables
Gossip
Transfers
Top Scorers
FA Cup
Women
All Teams
Leagues & Cups -
They would be the sorts of people who think everyone should be treated equally.. starting now.. taking no account of whatever has gone before.
At current rates of disporoportionate coverage, it would take 1000 years to level the score.
-
The wife was an excellent footballer but before it was worth doing. She played for the England unders but then it came down to a choice of a low paid part time job to fit in the football or a career so she chose a career.
My twins will play when old enough to as I’d rather spend time doing that than a dance class.
But neither us have much interest in the women’s game. It’s not the same for so many different reasons. It seems to have a market but only at cheap prices and without their own infrastructure.
-
All of this.
Also worth observing that women's football is much more popular than the county championship and that is still prominently reported on by the BBC. (And rightly so.)
-
The problem with that assessment is that it is based on a world of history. Go back a handful of years and the "demand" for women's football was far smaller than it is now, it is coverage and opportunity that has supported that, plus investment in infrastructure that has helped players develop more. There is still a lot more of that is needed to make up the gap from decades of suppressing the women's game. The game itself is getting both better and bigger, but that only happens with ambition and support, if we take a passive attitude it becomes self fulfilling that the game stops progressing.
For the first time we have high profile personalities playing the women's game and influencing young people. Leah Williamson is an outstanding role model, she has the talent and the ability to communicate, and at 26 she came through in a period of development but still quite low key opportunities. She has built on the achievements of Steph Houghton before her, who built on those of Casey Stoney before her. Each new generation is getting better and building on the last one. There probably is a ceiling but it's a lot higher than where we are now.
-
I am very supportive of women's football. As I am of all levels of football. I think it's important for a strong pyramid, in all categorisations of football, both to encourage recreational participation, as well as elite competition. I think sport for all is important, and football as by far the financially most powerful, and widest participation, sport has a substantial responsibility in that. One that historically it has badly let us all down on. I you feel extending sporting opportunity to all, at all age groups, is as important as I do.
I have some relatively direct links with women's football. I have football friends who have partners who have played internationally, I am friends with the family of a current player, I have a close football friend who is assistant (to a female head coach) of a high standard team. I have friends who coach in women's and girls football.
What I object to is the notion that it is 'the same' as other levels of football, and should be treated and rewarded equally. Objectively it is not. At an elite level the overall standards are below those in other elite women's sport (for example: athletics, swimming, tennis, golf, and field hockey, though that gap is closing).
It is perfectly reasonable to have a direct interest in women's football...or not. As it is with schoolboys football, or U21's, or indeed other levels. I have paid to attend games at schoolboys, U17's, U21's, reserve, and women's levels. I would not do those things with the same regularity as elite men's football, and definitely not at the same cost - because the product on show is not equivalent.
They have an interest in their own right, if you are interested in football (or are, say, a schoolboy, or a woman).
Women's football should be invested in, and promoted, and reported on, as an important elite level sport for a substantial proportion of our society to participate in. It has been let down in this regard, and I see it as very important.
But it needs to build it's standards to merit that, and support, as it's own game. Not pretend that it's the same, or price it (right now) at that level. That does not serve anyone well (apart from FIFA, who are all about the money).
-
To be clear, I am all for basing decisions on media coverage on more than "what has historically been popular."
-
I completely agree with this. It's all about money for FIFA,.as the men's game is too, but the priority at the moment for the game is to get in front of people. Having already won the Euros, to now have a strong World Cup with national engagement would be another step change in attracting a supporter base. The England team has more depth in quality than ever and is packed with personalities who with TV exposure will become household names and sporting idols for young people. That has come from the investment and attention so far and it will continue to grow.
-
Entertainment is not priced by its "standard" (impossible to judge objectively), but by its popularity. Sport is no different.
-
Stupid for who? The gap in quality and interest between women's and men's football is much smaller in many countries than it is in the UK and Europe - I don't know about Aus/NZ, but women's international football draws almost as much interest as the men in North America and I think large parts of Asia. It doesn't seem too crazy a decision to play a World Cup in a location where there's particular interest.
-
It is if the 'sell' is that it is the same, and that you are a bigot if you don't think so. I think that's very self-defeating...but it is an oft presented view. I mean, if it's the same, you can only possibly not like it if you hate women, right?
I find that approach extremely offensive, and just plain wrong. Ultimately it damages the relationship between the women's game and potential supporters.
-
Infantino said their goal was to increase that interest in Europe specifically, I should have said it was a stupid place to host if that was the goal.
I think perfectly OK that TV channels will not want to pay as much for games that will see far fewer viewers due to to TZ difference.
I think it would be the same for any sport regardless of which sex is playing. -
It's a question I've raised before.
It's an active decision by the BBC to promote the women's game in football, rugby union and cricket and, to a lesser extent, rugby league, which is a noble endeavour. It's working as well in football and rugby union, going by the rising crowd numbers (on-pitch success obviously helps).
However, it feels very much to the detriment of other sports. Take UK ice hockey. Sheffield Steelers regularly get crowds of 7,000-plus, Panthers, Belfast get 4,000 plus. Respectable League One attendances and bigger than most WSL games (ignoring the matches played at the "men's" stadia).
However, coverage of these sports, which arguably need the support more than the women's versions of our main sports to survive, is almost non-existent (ice hockey is pretty much limited to Welsh and Northern Irish regional news on the BBC).But it is a question for the BBC bosses. Are you driven by page views, or by your public broadcaster remit? (this could equally be applied to its news and entertainment output). They seem to not be sure and fall between doing neither particularly well and open themselves up to huge criticism. (witness the huge coverage for Wrexham winning the fifth tier of English football, I don't think even Burnley got as much attention for winning the second tier)
-
I'm not sure that the sell actually is that it is "the same". By whom? Isn't the sell more that it is "equivalent"?
I think it is self-evident that the women players aren't as strong or as tall or as fast as men (because... women). Or as skilled or as well-trained as men (because... the patriarchy).
I think it's perfectly OK to not like watching the women's game because it doesn't exhibit the pace and intensity of the men's game. But I don't think those are the only qualities people watch football for. Some people, for example, prefer the women's game because they think it exhibits more sportsmanship and less tribal loyalty.
The market value of the product isn't tied to what you perceive as the objective quality of the footbll.
-
I think the question of, say, women's football vs men's ice hockey, is what the respective ceilings are. If the EIHL was given as much coverage as the WSL, would it grow at the same rate? Is there as much latent demand for ice hockey? I'm going to guess not. I remember watching British ice hockey on Grandstand on Saturday afternoons as a teenager, so it's not like the BBC has never paid attention to it - in fact there might be an argument that it has the crowds it does today in part due to the coverage that the BBC gave it back then. I'm a big hockey fan these days but I have a degree of sympathy with prioritising women's football over it, especially given relative ease of participation in the two sports and the importance of encouraging kids to engage with and play sports.
-
Are the England women performing well due to investing more heavily than other nations?
-
Depends who you compare against...but overwhelmingly yes.
-
Of course, that tends to be how this stuff works, like Man City about to win the Premier League again or the way similar attention and investment transformed rowing and cycling in GB. The focused attention the game has had in England, and not without controversy given that the WSL creation and expansion pushed aside some historic but smaller women's clubs in favour of Premier League funded sides, has helped the team develop to the point of being European Champions. That said, the game as a whole is also better because England aren't the only ones.
-
The WSL seems to have piggybacked off of the global status of the Premier League and become the ladyball equivalent.. if many of the best players in the world are gathering in the English league, that should be good for the England team, as they are playing with, and against, the best.
Obviously that can tip too far and you can end up with a league that gets in the way of local player development.. but you have to figure that it’ll be a long time before things are so big that nobody feels they need English players and connections to anchor them to the community.
