Klaus wrote:
Ricky1985 wrote:

Gabby Logan and Hope Solo were talking at full time about potentially making the goals smaller, and the former was confusing in what she said. My understanding is the goals are the same size as in men's football, but Logan seemed to be suggesting they were smaller?

Not sure about the specific conversation, but they're talking about making the goals smaller because women are, on average, 6 inches shorter than men and weigh 60% less or so. I'd imagine male goalkeepers would have plenty of objections if someone suggested we'd make the goals a foot wider in every direction. The large goals are one of many examples of letting women play along in male spaces instead of making an effort to create space for their sport.

Have to echo Quincy's post above about finding enjoyment in lower levels of football. I would have thought that someone who spends so much time watching youth players strut around on weeny pitches and shooting at junior-sized goals would recognise that point, Ricky. Maybe it's different if you're born in north London with Premier League outside your door, but there are literally billions of blokes around the world who fiercely support their own shithouse local teams only to scoff at the poor standard of women's football whenever an international tournament comes around. I know because I see them in the stands myself every year.

I'd also add that a sport can't really develop when it's being denied exposure, money and facilities. That has been the reality of women to various degrees in any sport I can think of, but football is easily one of the worst defenders. The popularity of the sport and the disgusting sums that modern football throws around just exacerbate the inequality. Take Arsenal for instance; we don't even put a fraction of the money we spend on our male U20 teams into the women's first team.

We should be forced to allocate a significant percentage of all earnings into the women's side, and having a women's team should be one of the requirements for gaining entry into Premier League in the first place. We talk about giving back to the sport by spending money on academies, but the same should go for developing the female side of it. It's frankly disgraceful that a club like Manchester United, the richest bellends in the world for the last three decades, didn't even have a women's team up until 14 months ago.

That was actually a very interesting part of the conversation between Gabby Logan, Hope Solo and Alex Scott.

As was pointed out, the goals are currently the same standard and size as in men’s football but there was recent talk of making goals smaller in the women’s game. Gabby Logan pointed out that when the goal size was standardised the men were commonly around 6 inches shorter than they tend to be now putting them much more in line with the height of current women goalkeepers.

Gabby Logan also asked Hope Solo if that meant the American team (and others) should be scouring netball/basketball teams for athletes with physical traits that would better suit a goalkeeper to reduce the disadvantage of bigger goals. Solo’s reply was that so much more is expected of goalkeepers now that the first thing to be considered is ability, with the goalkeepers game being built on that and working to overcome any physical disadvantages of height and so on. Solo said the likes of the China are known to cherry pick individuals for certain sports based on their physical attributes but that doesn’t necessarily place the best players in the best positions, or even best sports.

Klaus this follows from your points about investment and exposure. Alex Scott added that so much investment has been made in many aspects of women’s football following the increasing exposure in recent years but that investment hasn’t made its way to goalkeeping coaches. She said that it’s only recently we got a proper goalkeeping coach for the women’s team at Arsenal, and we’re one of the biggest and best funded. Both agreed that training and development of goalkeeping coaching and players was a better route than changing the goals or finding taller players, and it’s hard to argue with them.

@Klausie, Quincy

Arsenal are different because I have an emotional connection. I will watch and care at whatever level they play at. To a much lesser extent, I enjoyed occasionally watching Leyton Orient, my local team until I moved to Surrey. Even then that was mostly predicated on being at the game and getting into the atmosphere. And I think that's true of the people you're talking about that scoff at women's football but lap up their crap local team: There's an emotional connection that makes the standard irrelevant.

And that leads me on to an interesting discussion my partner had with a friend of mine recently. He says he wouldn't watch a second of women's football because it's crap and not football. This is a guy that bangs on about the magic of the FA Cup, plays for the reserves of a woeful weekend team, can't personally kick a ball himself, but goes down to watch them play even when he doesn't get in their squad--which is often. He'd gladly watch any standard of football televised as long as it is English.

My partner says he's just sexist and can't bare women playing football, encroaching, as a man, on his domain. He says it's just preference and not sexist at all. He argues he doesn't like Italian football because of the lack of atmosphere and slower speed or La Liga "because of the cheating." And that is exactly the same case as not liking women's football.

I obviously think he's full of shit, and is clearly not okay with women playing or being part of football. If you watch rubbish football for the football then something else is driving you when you refuse to even engage with women's football.

Regarding youth football, again, Arsenal anchor my interest there and do generally with football. I watch because I want to see something special, to see a genuine talent emerge. It's exciting and fun to watch them develop. I'm always hoping they'll end up in Arsenal's first team though. I'm very much viewing through that lens. And the only change in any youth football I've watched is shortening the game to 80 minutes. I'm pretty sure at Arsenal even under 16 is full size pitch and goals.

On the money side: Why should Arsenal football club take money that is generated by the mens' team and invest that into the womens' team? Why is incumbent on them to do so?

When the club invest in youth sides it is with a view to imrpoving the first team. So it's money generated by the men's team spent to hopefully benefit the men's team.

Would you make the same argument if Arsenal started a basketball team, for example?

Ricky1985 wrote:

On the money side: Why should Arsenal football club take money that is generated by the mens' team and invest that into the womens' team? Why is incumbent on them to do so?

Aside from it simply being the right thing to do (even the most self serving corporations practice some form of corporate social responsibility), there are more cynical reasons to do it. You mentioned the viewing numbers for the England game as well as plans for the PL to start running the womens game, if we can get ahead this could be brilliant for Arsenal as a brand and open up more avenues for commercial income for both the mens and the womens team.  

Sounds like a really interesting conversation, Tam. I'll have to track it down.

Ricky1985 wrote:

Would you make the same argument if Arsenal started a basketball team, for example?

If Arsenal started a basketball team I wouldn't have any interest in either the male or female team because I don't give a rat's ass about that sport. But yeah, the same argument should fundamentally apply there. I don't demand, or even ask, that someone should watch something they have no interest in watching just because of the gender of the athletes, but I do believe that women should have the same opportunities as men to exercise sports (and coming from a background in competitive swimming I know that it does work, both in terms of gaining results and generating an interest from the audience), so I'd want and expect Arsenal Basketball to invest in the women's team too, on every level.

goon wrote:
Ricky1985 wrote:

On the money side: Why should Arsenal football club take money that is generated by the mens' team and invest that into the womens' team? Why is incumbent on them to do so?

Aside from it simply being the right thing to do (even the most self serving corporations practice some form of corporate social responsibility), there are more cynical reasons to do it. You mentioned the viewing numbers for the England game as well as plans for the PL to start running the womens game, if we can get ahead this could be brilliant for Arsenal as a brand and open up more avenues for commercial income for both the mens and the womens team.  

So, other than the possibility that Arsenal football club might gain from it in the long run, the reason why Arsenal must finance the women's team is because they have a philanthropic responsibility?

Klaus wrote:

Sounds like a really interesting conversation, Tam. I'll have to track it down.

Ricky1985 wrote:

Would you make the same argument if Arsenal started a basketball team, for example?

If Arsenal started a basketball team I wouldn't have any interest in either the male or female team because I don't give a rat's ass about that sport. But yeah, the same argument should fundamentally apply there. I don't demand, or even ask, that someone should watch something they have no interest in watching just because of the gender of the athletes, but I do believe that women should have the same opportunities as men to exercise sports (and coming from a background in competitive swimming I know that it does work, both in terms of gaining results and generating an interest from the audience), so I'd want and expect Arsenal Basketball to invest in the women's team too, on every level.

I still don't see an answer to why Arsenal have a responsibility to take money generated by one sport and use it to invest in another.

Should it be split 50/50? Where do you draw the line? Invest in one until the facilities and opportunites are equal in both?

Ricky1985 wrote:

I still don't see an answer to why Arsenal have a responsibility to take money generated by one sport and use it to invest in another.

It's the same sport.

What it comes down to is whether you fundamentally think people should have the same opportunities regardless of things like race and gender. If you don't there's no more conversation to be had obviously. Conversely, if you do, we could have a much longer conversation, but I know you're an intelligent bloke. You don't need anyone to explain structures and inequality to you. For the last hundred years we have only developed the male side of the game, just like we've developed most societes at large that way across the globe.

It's lamentable that it won't sort itself out, that football clubs won't automatically admit and develop girls the same way they do boys without being forced to, and that tv channels that pay to stream Manchester United WebTV for 10 hours per day have no interest in showing women's football, but that's capitalism for you. You need to regulate the shit out of it in order for it to benefit the common people in even the smallest, most mundane ways. Nothing ever trickles down unless you make it.

Ricky1985 wrote:

Should it be split 50/50? Where do you draw the line? Invest in one until the facilities and opportunites are equal in both?

Just because something can't be split 50/50 doesn't mean you can't work towards a goal of better equality. People aren't suggesting that men's football should financially support women's football indefinitely. They just want clubs to devote some of the wealth and resources to giving women's football a chance to become profitable and grow. And it's not just the clubs. FIFA, UEFA, the national FA:s... they all have various roles to play in this too.

Ricky1985 wrote:

So, other than the possibility that Arsenal football club might gain from it in the long run, the reason why Arsenal must finance the women's team is because they have a philanthropic responsibility?

I don't know about must, but sure. Football clubs more so than most organisations have a responsibility towards the community as a whole, locally and increasingly globally. And to the clubs credit, they're already one of the most supportive of the womens team. And it only takes a fraction of the income. It shouldn't be limited to the womens game either, there should be much more investment in grassroots football.

Ricky1985 wrote:

I watched both semi-finals, admittedly the first minutes I saw of the competition. I got into the England-USA game because of the VAR controversy, but, come on, it's a poor standard of football.

There's no speed or athleticism, technique is at a really low level generally and the worst part is the goalkeepers can barely touch the crossbar. The two headers the USA scored were in the middle of the goal and only about 6 feet in the air. Through a combination of a small goalkeeper and poor positioning, they went in without threat of being saved. No set-piece had any real power or whip on the ball. The ball was constantly given away under no pressure.

English non-League teams would annihilate the 4 teams I saw in those semi-finals. I'd even argue a decent Sunday League team would beat them. I saw Arsenal women at the Emirates when they were dominant domestically and I would say the same of them. Physcially it's football in slow motion, much the same way men's amateur football is, but without the occasional standout athlete you see, even in Sunday League teams.

Gabby Logan and Hope Solo were talking at full time about potentially making the goals smaller, and the former was confusing in what she said. My understanding is the goals are the same size as in men's football, but Logan seemed to be suggesting they were smaller?

In my opinion, it would make for a better spectacle played on a 3/4 pitch, with 3/4 goals. But I understand why that would damage the credibility of the sport when they are fighting to be taken seriously in comparison to men.

The atmosphere was fantastic in the England-USA semi-final and over 11m watched here in the UK. If they can translate that to the club game here--the Premier League are trying to take over the running of the game from the FA-- and pack out stadiums then more power to them.

I don't really have an interest because of the poor standard. I don't enjoy watching non-league teams play each other in the FA cup, let alone mediocre women's teams as part of league fixtures on tv. Burnley vs Brighton is bad enough in the Premier League, now imagine the women's versions of those teams! I watch football on tele to see what I can't see at the local park, women's football will always lack the physical level to offer that, and it certainly lacks the techncial ability at least for now.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-4389760/USA-women-s-team-suffer-5-2-loss-FC-Dallas-U-15-boys.html

u-15's mate.

It's a really poor way to look at sport and at structural inequality, and it's frankly pretty misogynistic. Disappointing conversation.

Agree with Klaus on the financing issue. If our objective is to have a higher quality women's game, then we should dip into the men's pot to finance it. There's two ways to look it.

First, if we want commercial sponsors to invest more, then they will always view the game itself (clubs and FIFA) investing more very favourably, especially if it yields results. The men's game will essentially be de-risking investment for commercial sponsors. Even in England where the league is rich, once you get past the big 5 or 6 teams, the women are badly off and every cent will go towards giving them better coaches, practice fields, playing fields, etc.

Second, one can also view financing the game from the men's side the right thing to do. Premier League clubs earned 2,5Bn pounds just for their league TV deals year. The Women's Premier League sponsorship is 10m pounds. That's 250x. If we believe that women should have a chance to develop to the highest level, then it would be the equitable thing to extend some of that money towards women's development. We just need to care about women's football and recognise that we significantly shorten a development journey with this mindset.

I enjoyed watching most of the women's matches a lot more than some high level men's match like UCL final for example purely based on quality of football.

To be honest in many aspects the womens game is the way to go. Basic pass and move football with good shooting technique, nothing overly complicated. It's enjoyable and pure.

Sweden has finished 3rd to spark wild celebrations. Really something refreshing, 3rd place meant so much to these teams

VAR strikes again.. US gets the penalty on replay and score to take the lead.

IMO, it actually was probably the right call.

Some incredible skill from the Dutch striker taking the ball down and dribbling her way into the box. Shame she couldn’t get a shot off

flobaba wrote:

Some incredible skill from the Dutch striker taking the ball down and dribbling her way into the box. Shame she couldn’t get a shot off

was great dribbling skill until she took about 2 or 3 touches too many, allowing the US to get it away.

Yup. US dominating now. I like how good the ladies are. I love it when the standard at the top is this high. Should force other nations and FA’s to invest even more in their women’s team at all levels thereby increasing the overall quality and exposure of the women’s game

flobaba wrote:

Some incredible skill from the Dutch striker taking the ball down and dribbling her way into the box. Shame she couldn’t get a shot off

Our Arsenal striker. She's been brilliant but forced to play in an unfamiliar number 10 role

Write a Reply...