Karen Carney

[StringerBell]

10 hours ago, HantsRam said:

Let's agree to disagree. 

I was trying to say that if dimensions were the key thing to enjoyment we would have altered the men's pitches, goal sizes etc over time. 

It hasn't been done which suggests we're happy to allow the game itself to develop to be a different spectacle. 

So personally I have no problem with the women's game being a different spectacle to the men's. Just as a game now is not the same spectacle as a game 50 years ago.

No problem with you having a different view mate! 

Some of the physical aspects  have changed - the football itself being one. The turf being another.

The women's game isn't a different spectacle, it is less of a spectacle. It is a game in which end to end football, one of the most exciting aspects about high quality professional football is significantly reduced. Considering the film about women's football was called Bend it like Beckham, the pitch sizes dictate that women loft it like a Jamie Ward corner more often than not in order to punt the ball as far forward as possible.

Fitness has been one of the driving factors behind the changing of the men's game. And women already have the modern day propensity to keep themselves fit, just as men do. So what developing are you suggesting might happen besides the dimensions of the game being altered as I have suggested? Must we wait hundreds if not thousands of years for women's bodies to evolve so that the game becomes the equivalent spectacle of today's men's game? 

You yourself have said that the modem women's game is akin to the men's game when it was basically an amateur sport. You've already made my point for me.

[Anon]

12 hours ago, fridgeless said:

Perhaps you're right on that last point, funding and coverage certainly aren't the only things preventing the women's game being as good as the men's. You're hinting at the fact men are bigger, quicker, stronger, etc am I right?

I actually think this is a really interesting subject. I won't try and deny that this is true, of course men are all of these things, but have you ever questioned why?

There was a study a few years ago in which mothers had to estimate the steepness of a slope that their babies would be able to crawl; and while they were able to predict correctly for the boys to within one degree, they underestimated the ability of girls by 9 degrees (it's here if you're at all interested, I can't say I've read the whole thing, I read about it here from a facebook post!)

The point I'm trying to make is that gender biases and expectations, which are ingrained into society, could be playing a major role in what makes men stronger, quicker etc. At this point, I don't think we'll ever know whether women could be just as strong/quick, because it's so deeply rooted into people's mindsets that women are smaller, slower, weaker... and so that means that because boys are assumed to be stronger, more physical, they're pushed to be stronger and more physical. Because girls are assumed to be less able, parents instead hold them back from more physical sports.

I don't know, I won't pretend to be an expert. I just think it's all very interesting to think about...

I am hinting that men are generally bigger, quicker, stronger, but that isn't the biggest barrier as those things can be countered to some extent with intensive work in the gym and specific diets. There are certain genetic differences that, no matter how dedicated you are, you can do nothing about. Wider hips evolved for child bearing and breasts any size above a small B are going to negatively affect performance, even with an amazing sports bra. There are outliers, but it cuts the potential talent pool considerably. Having said that the potential talent pool for the women's game is severely cut by the number of girls who never even try playing the game when they're young and that's something that will change as the women's game gets more exposure.

I'd agree with StringerBell that it might be beneficial to make some slight changes to the women's game. It seems churlish to constantly berate female 'keepers for not making saves we'd expect from men when they're normally around 6" shorter, but that will continue to happen if they play in the same size goals.

[Rev]

Massively expensive to create women sized goals and pitches though, why don't they just play 13 a side, and give the keepers 6" bigger gloves?

Problem solved, gets more women involved in the game too!

[eddie]

23 minutes ago, reveldevil said:

Massively expensive to create women sized goals and pitches though, why don't they just play 13 a side, and give the keepers 6" bigger gloves?

Problem solved, gets more women involved in the game too!

Give the keepers those foam hands

[StringerBell]

11 hours ago, reveldevil said:

Massively expensive to create women sized goals and pitches though, why don't they just play 13 a side, and give the keepers 6" bigger gloves?

Problem solved, gets more women involved in the game too!

Are you insinuating the women's game is riding on the coattails of the men's game and that it would be more dignified to establish their own game, governing body, pitches and teams? Whilst not siphoning money from the men's game and generating their own income?

Why the thought had never occurred to me!

[Rev]

1 hour ago, StringerBell said:

Are you insinuating the women's game is riding on the coattails of the men's game and that it would be more dignified to establish their own game, governing body, pitches and teams? Whilst not siphoning money from the men's game and generating their own income?

Why the thought had never occurred to me!

Not even close, I was just being flippant.

Have no problem with women's football being subsidised by the F.A. either, if indeed it is.

It's a game for all to enjoy and play, better to use the vast amount of cash swilling around football to encourage girls to play the game than give the likes of Rooney and Aguero an extra 25k a week.

That's just my opinion though, I suspect you'll see it differently. 

[StringerBell]

33 minutes ago, reveldevil said:

Not even close, I was just being flippant.

Have no problem with women's football being subsidised by the F.A. either, if indeed it is.

It's a game for all to enjoy and play, better to use the vast amount of cash swilling around football to encourage girls to play the game than give the likes of Rooney and Aguero an extra 25k a week.

That's just my opinion though, I suspect you'll see it differently. 

I know I was just shoehorning my point in after you gave me an opportunity by basically saying the goals and pitches are the size they are because they're the men's goals and pitches and it would be impractical to change them.

Such impracticalness wouldn't matter if the pitches were designed specifically for a women's football club who play the women's game though. But then that's probably too much hard work. Instead of the women of North London starting a grassroots football team why not just have Arsenal ladies? That's pretty demeaning to women in my eyes and its a token version of a popular sport.

Im not for encouraging anybody to do anything really and can't stand the modern phenomenon of trying to push football as something that everybody around the world should be doing. It's only to make money in any case. I'm for giving people opportunities and letting them take those opportunities up if they want to. There's nobody stopping 11 women starting a football team from scratch just like men did in the Victorian era. Just like men continue to do toaday.

Women's football as it is is akin to the charity or community work that professional men's teams do. And also, if it ever does become as popular as the men's game teams probably don't want to be left behind.

Its interesting that you don't have a problem with money from the men's game being used to fund the women's game, but that that funding stops short when it comes to altering the dimensions of the sport to better suit the women's game.

[Sexydadbod]

Sorry for the bump but this was the only women's football related thread I could find.

I find it strange how they still want equal pay when it's clear that they have nowhere near the quality as the men's game. That's not me being sexist but a simple fact. The latest example being this

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-3609949/Matildas-lose-7-0-Newcastle-Jets-15s-Rio-Olympics-warm-up.html

[Anon]

17 minutes ago, McLovin said:

Sorry for the bump but this was the only women's football related thread I could find.

I find it strange how they still want equal pay when it's clear that they have nowhere near the quality as the men's game. That's not me being sexist but a simple fact. The latest example being this

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-3609949/Matildas-lose-7-0-Newcastle-Jets-15s-Rio-Olympics-warm-up.html

The bottom line is that men and women's football are separate sports and the athletes involved should be paid according to the revenue their sport generates. If 100's of millions started paying to watch women's football then they should be paid more than the men regardless of the relative quality of football.

[sage]

10 minutes ago, McLovin said:

Sorry for the bump but this was the only women's football related thread I could find.

I find it strange how they still want equal pay when it's clear that they have nowhere near the quality as the men's game. That's not me being sexist but a simple fact. The latest example being this

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-3609949/Matildas-lose-7-0-Newcastle-Jets-15s-Rio-Olympics-warm-up.html

Where to start...

It's not a simple fact. men are stronger and more powerful, so in a game like football, men will usually persevere. Alfreton Town would probably beat the England Women's team. However, they play in a separate competition to be the best female footballers in their country or in the world. So the comparison isn't really relevant.

Obviously men's football is watched by more people. My friend plays in the equivalent of League One in women's football. Only around 60-70 watch them play. On a good day. But then again she doesn't get paid £2k a week to play. She doesn't get paid anything. The players going on strike are on strike from International duty not club football. So the comparison isn't really relevant.

The USA Women's team are the best in the world. They have won the Women's World Cup a record 3 times. The Men's team are 29th in the world behind Ecuador, Northern Ireland and Costa Rica. When the Women's World Cup was in the USA in 1999 they filled every stadium including over 90,000 spectators at the Pasadena Rose Bowl. They are more successful than the Men's team and are paid less. So the comparison is relevant.

Next time instead of hijacking an existing thread with only a vague connection which is an insult to start off with, try starting a new one with 'Ill-informed Rubbish' as a title so we all know what to expect.  

 

 

[SaintRam]

11 minutes ago, Anon said:

The bottom line is that men and women's football are separate sports and the athletes involved should be paid according to the revenue their sport generates. If 100's of millions started paying to watch women's football then they should be paid more than the men regardless of the relative quality of football.

Yeah, but they won't until the quality improves. I did my best to watch the women's WC but I'd struggle to imagine any of the sides I saw during that tournament competing at any professional level in the men's game. It was so drab.

If it entertains, I'll watch it. Has a way to go yet though. 

Think they should embrace the different sport mentality and change the rules a little to make it more entertaining. Because they're not going to stop trying to force it down people's throats and while the resources are focused on that rather than coaching and infrastructure it simply isn't going to improve.

Either curb the level at which they're trying to force success and let it grow naturally, or change the rules to make it more entertaining, I say. Not that I have any ideas for rule changes. I'd vote for the let it grow naturally angle. 

It's so young, compared to the professional men's game really, it's not that surprising it's so far behind. 

[Anon]

1 minute ago, sage said:

The USA Women's team are the best in the world. They have won the Women's World Cup a record 3 times. The Men's team are 29th in the world behind Ecuador, Northern Ireland and Costa Rica. When the Women's World Cup was in the USA in 1999 they filled every stadium including over 90,000 spectators at the Pasadena Rose Bowl. They are more successful than the Men's team and are paid less. So the comparison is relevant.

Hang on, how is the level of success relevant when we've already established that they're separate sports? To be fair to the US women's team they do generate an awful lot of cash from sponsors and from filling the stadiums they play in, so I think the disparity in pay is worth looking into. They are sneaky buggers though, in that when comparing the revenue they generate versus the men's team they deliberately selected a year in which the women's world cup was held and there were no significant men's tournaments.

[sage]

1 minute ago, Anon said:

Hang on, how is the level of success relevant when we've already established that they're separate sports? To be fair to the US women's team they do generate an awful lot of cash from sponsors and from filling the stadiums they play in, so I think the disparity in pay is worth looking into. They are sneaky buggers though, in that when comparing the revenue they generate versus the men's team they deliberately selected a year in which the women's world cup was held and there were no significant men's tournaments.

They aren't separate sports. They are separate competitions. Men's Tennis and Women's Tennis are the same sport, just different competitions. Glad you agree on pay though.  

[Anon]

9 minutes ago, SaintRam said:

Yeah, but they won't until the quality improves. I did my best to watch the women's WC but I'd struggle to imagine any of the sides I saw during that tournament competing at any professional level in the men's game. It was so drab.

My point is that quality is irrelevant in calculating pay when talking about entertainment because entertainment value is subjective.

For instance, I think darts is complete **** and the players don't deserve more than a free pint and a bag of nuts, but plenty of people do manage to find enjoyment in it (somehow) so the players are reasonably well paid.

[Sexydadbod]

23 minutes ago, sage said:

Where to start...

It's not a simple fact. men are stronger and more powerful, so in a game like football, men will usually persevere. Alfreton Town would probably beat the England Women's team. However, they play in a separate competition to be the best female footballers in their country or in the world. So the comparison isn't really relevant.

Obviously men's football is watched by more people. My friend plays in the equivalent of League One in women's football. Only around 60-70 watch them play. On a good day. But then again she doesn't get paid £2k a week to play. She doesn't get paid anything. The players going on strike are on strike from International duty not club football. So the comparison isn't really relevant.

The USA Women's team are the best in the world. They have won the Women's World Cup a record 3 times. The Men's team are 29th in the world behind Ecuador, Northern Ireland and Costa Rica. When the Women's World Cup was in the USA in 1999 they filled every stadium including over 90,000 spectators at the Pasadena Rose Bowl. They are more successful than the Men's team and are paid less. So the comparison is relevant.

Next time instead of hijacking an existing thread with only a vague connection which is an insult to start off with, try starting a new one with 'Ill-informed Rubbish' as a title so we all know what to expect.  

 

 

A lot of people want equal pay between women and male footballers. This will not occur because many are not interested in the women's game because the quality is not there so not many are interested in watching it to put it bluntly. People won't pay to watch it if the quality isn't there so the sponsorship deals etc will lead to the male footballers getting paid more . This isn't just an issue just in football either, it's an issue in other sports like tennis as well. There is not a lot we can do to fix this issue either but for the women's football we can let it naturally grow and hope for the best. Whilst the US women's team are more successful than the men's team, people are naturally doing to be more interested in the men's game for whatever reason, this may be as a result of the hype involving the 2014 world cup men's team. FYI I was not hijacking this thread, the discussion was already going on and also in previous threads. They should be only be deserving of equal or more pay if they gain the same interest as the men's game and I'm interested in hearing other people's views

[SaintRam]

I feel like the US women's team (a country where until recently the women's side of the sport was FAR more popular than the men's, but that fact is changing and the men's is now overtaking it) are the only ones who could genuinely complain about the pay. 

They're still boring af to watch though, imo. 

[SaintRam]

2 minutes ago, Anon said:

My point is that quality is irrelevant in calculating pay when talking about entertainment because entertainment value is subjective.

For instance, I think darts is complete **** and the players don't deserve more than a free pint and a bag of nuts, but plenty of people do manage to find enjoyment in it (somehow) so the players are reasonably well paid.

Yeah for sure and see my post above on that note. I was just saying I don't think the spectators of it are ever going to grow to a level that is even comparable to the top competitions in men's football because the quality is so poor. 

There's only so many people who'll watch it simply to make a point. 

[sage]

4 minutes ago, McLovin said:

A lot of people want equal pay between women and male footballers. This will not occur because many are not interested in the women's game because the quality is not there so not many are interested in watching it to put it bluntly. People won't pay to watch it if the quality isn't there so the sponsorship deals etc will lead to the male footballers getting paid more . This isn't just an issue just in football either, it's an issue in other sports like tennis as well. There is not a lot we can do to fix this issue either. Whilst the US women's team are more successful than the men's team, people are naturally doing to be more interested in the men's game for whatever reason. FYI I was not hijacking this thread, the discussion was already going on and also in previous threads. They should be only be deserving of equal or more pay if they gain the same interest as the men's game

This isn't really the case in the USA in international terms. 

Women have got equal pay in many tennis tournaments, so it would seem there is something that can be done.   

[Anon]

4 minutes ago, sage said:

They aren't separate sports. They are separate competitions. Men's Tennis and Women's Tennis are the same sport, just different competitions. Glad you agree on pay though.  

Apologies, you are correct. What I mean to say is that unless they compete in the same competition it is utterly pointless to gauge their pay against male footballers.

[Sexydadbod]

9 minutes ago, sage said:

This isn't really the case in the USA in international terms. 

Women have got equal pay in many tennis tournaments, so it would seem there is something that can be done.   

Sorry about that, I edited my previous post because my smartphone removed a number of my points. There is a huge interest in the women's international team in usa but that's just one country, the issue is global. I think one of the issues is that the women's game is so young in terms of exposure which means that it is so far behind the men's game in terms of popularity and quality. If you have been so used to seeing a particular sport for a long time and seeing the quality on show, you're not going to downgrade and watch a weaker version of it, especially when you are so used to seeing the better version all of your life.Ask your average joe in the pub if they were offered the choice of watching a women's football for £15 or men's football for £30, I'm sure the majority would prefer to watch the latter, simply because they grew up with it. Tennis perhaps wasn't the best example to use either because there has been interest in women's tennis for sometime now because there are some quality female tennis players around like Williams.