[Football] Postponements in men's and women's matches

[Acker79]

How am I denying you your rights exactly ? I’m giving you my opinion which happens to differ from yours. That’s how conversations work.

I edited to add 'seemingly' The wording of the post, as the similar reading from Sid and the sharknado suggests, "Clubs are privately owned and no particular team within them has a right to expect anything" sounds very much like 'how dare you ask for anything!?'

 

[beorhthelm]

how long ago did top flight football require undersoil heating and other measures to ensure games went ahead? not long ago i recall in depths of winter games would be off. still not required for L1 or L2 as far as im aware. seems to me the WSL could insist on such measures and find many grounds cant comply, locking out the smaller, less well funded clubs, end up with the top 4-5 and even less interest as Arsenal Womens play Chelsea Womens for the 4th time in the season.

 

[hart's shirt]

She has a point if attendances warrant it.

In the WSL this season, of the top 10 recorded attendances, 7 games were above 28,500, with the highest being 47,367.

The next 3 highest attendances were between 6000-8000, with 2 of the 3 games at the regular ground used by women.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022–23_Women's_Super_League


It's reassuring to see the large attendances, albeit with significantly lower ticket prices compared with men.

(Albion's U18/65+ season ticket is £19 for 11 home games, so £1.72 per game. The full price is £49 - £4.45 per game.)

But it would be misleading to believe the monumental growth narrative across the board. It's a little more nuanced than that.

As an example, only 616 watched Everton v Reading a week ago on Saturday. https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/64201136

And just 303 were there to see Tottenham lose at home to Everton in December. https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/63443687


The point is that more women's games should be played at the main club's ground, like Chelsea who have undersoil heating installed.

And especially those scheduled for the winter months. Attendances would be higher with a smaller chance of postponement.

But Emma Hayes is asking the wrong question to the wrong people. She should really look closer to home.

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

I edited to add 'seemingly' The wording of the post, as the similar reading from Sid and the sharknado suggests, "Clubs are privately owned and no particular team within them has a right to expect anything" sounds very much like 'how dare you ask for anything!?'

Very odd and entitled interpretation but if you wish to make it then fill your boots. Sounds to me like you have difficulty listening to another point of view.

 

[Acker79]

Very odd and entitled interpretation but if you wish to make it then fill your boots. Sounds to me like you have difficulty listening to another point of view.

You asked a question, I answered it, and you then, bizarely, called my reading of your post 'entitled'. I'm not sure I'm the one struggling with other's points of view.

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

You asked a question, I answered it, and you then, bizarely, called my reading of your post 'entitled'. I'm not sure I'm the one struggling with other's points of view.

There’s quite an important omission in that summary in that you answered it by saying I was ‘rushing to deny someone’s rights’ I do think that’s odd, yes.

 

[Swansman]

Don't understand why they are playing in the winter at all. Nothing to lose from changing to spring-autumn football seasons. The only reason most leagues are playing in the winter is because of English school teams doing it like that 150 years ago. There is no good reason why they today couldn't play from March to October or something. Would probably solve some injury issues, decrease pitch costs and increase attendences.

 

[drew]

(Trying not to use the word "important" because it sounds so ridiculous in to talk of the importance of a football match in the context of this conversation)

It's a catch-22, isn't it. If you don't treat women's football like it is as relevant as mens football, it won't get the attendances, so won't get the money (sponsorships, tv deals etc) so won't be seen as relevant... So it comes down to whether you want that cycle to end, if you do then you need to take a bit of a loss. Sounds easy when it's someone else's money, I guess.

But is it all that different to someone turning up at a lower league club an pumping a bunch of money into it in an effort to get it further up the leagues? Where would Brighton be if everyone took the attitude 'the crowds at withdean aren't enough to warrant premier league football, so we won't bother changing it, won't invest in better facilities, won't look to investing in improving players, spending the money needed to create an environement that turns the club and everything around it into an entity worthy of premier league attention.

We see with the women's world cup, barcelona v madrid, 2012 olympics - when it is treated as a significant event, the attendance is there. We (the world, I'd be surprised if many of us were around then) saw following the first world war that thriving attendances can be achieved in a woman's league - its success threated men's football so it was banned and is still recovering.

There were also some examples of sporting migration (either in the long or short term) and a lot of ‘curiosity tourism’. Large crowds were drawn to watch women’s football and international ties with France, Belgium and other European teams. This received national broadsheet recognition as evidenced by the illustrated report: ‘Ladies at Football England v France by a Special Correspondent’ The Times 7 May 1920. In 1920 and 1921 the crowds grew, although we cannot be sure how much motivation to attend by paying spectators was down to altruism or enjoyment. The coal disputes of 1921 and 1926 saw more sides develop in response to localized deprivation: teams included the Soup Canteen Ladies; Blaydon Ladies’ FC and the Marley Hill Spankers.​

​

As a result of this success, the FA ‘banned’ women’s teams from playing football on League and Association-affiliated grounds from 5 December 1921. The FA ruled that too much money had been absorbed in expenses by players and the game was ‘unsuitable’ for women. There was no evidence that serious injury had been sustained by a woman, except a report that Florrie Redford (1900-1986) had once been bitten on the ankle by a dog while playing.​

The Story of Women's Football in World War One

Women's football during World War One, written by Dr Jean Williams, author of 'A Game for Rough Girls: A History of Women's Football in England.'

www.footballandthefirstworldwar.org

Who has claimed that women's football isn't as relevant as mens? Just because they don't get to play in the largest stadiums in the country isn't a statement that they are irrelevant. Like it or not it doesn't command the crowds to make it cost effective to play in the largest stadia. That may well change. TB is already spending a massive chunk of money on our women's team. They have great facilities at Lancing which have just been improved. They have a renowned coach leading them.

Also, it is a bit of fatuous argument to mention Withdean because the Albion had a history of success long before that.

 

[Sid and the Sharknados]

Who has claimed that women's football isn't as relevant as mens?

If you can read the OP without getting that subtext, I'd like to spend some time in your head, because it sounds like a lovely warm and fuzzy and innocent place to be.

 

[Acker79]

Who has claimed that women's football isn't as relevant as mens? Just because they don't get to play in the largest stadiums in the country isn't a statement that they are irrelevant. Like it or not it doesn't command the crowds to make it cost effective to play in the largest stadia. That may well change. TB is already spending a massive chunk of money on our women's team. They have great facilities at Lancing which have just been improved. They have a renowned coach leading them.

Also, it is a bit of fatuous argument to mention Withdean because the Albion had a history of success long before that.

I gues I should have been a bit more explicit with that first line about struggling with terminology. I don't believe it undermines the general point about the argument being cyclical.

Yes, Tony Bloom has been investing. An example of what I talk about when I mention someone needing to invest to break the cycle. Part of the reason he is doing it, is the promising position women's football is currently in, and a desire to be part of that resurgence from the start. It's absolutely admirable. Surely you didn't read my post as an attack against him or any club in particular?

Albion do have a history of success long before Withdean. But my post also highlights that women's football has a history of success long before today, too (and in the certain circumstances has huge success in the modern game). So, is it really that fatuous?

 

[drew]

If you can read the OP without getting that subtext, I'd like to spend some time in your head, because it sounds like a lovely warm and fuzzy and innocent place to be.

The OP might have an odd view of the women's game but I don't think that is the general consensus. The game is making rapid progress but surely you can agree that it has not developed enough yet to warrant opening up massive stadia for every single game. Don't forget it's not just about the attendance, it's about the revenue. It's easy to get an over inflated attendance if you only charge a nominal entrance fee. There is no doubt the game is having large amounts of money pumped into it to encourage it's development but it still has a long way to go. It's not yet on an equal footing but that doesn't make it irrelevant.

 

[Sid and the Sharknados]

The OP might have an odd view of the women's game but I don't think that is the general consensus. The game is making rapid progress but surely you can agree that it has not developed enough yet to warrant opening up massive stadia for every single game. Don't forget it's not just about the attendance, it's about the revenue. It's easy to get an over inflated attendance if you only charge a nominal entrance fee. There is no doubt the game is having large amounts of money pumped into it to encourage it's development but it still has a long way to go. It's not yet on an equal footing but that doesn't make it irrelevant.

Well that's a disappointingly reasonable response.
No, there's clearly no need to have every game in PL stadia, but according to the article that was linked to that's not what Hayes asked for. She observed that the solutions they have (covers and heaters) don't always work, and said that the top womens' division needs better solutions if the sport's to grow.

 

[Albion my Albion]

Don't understand why they are playing in the winter at all. Nothing to lose from changing to spring-autumn football seasons. The only reason most leagues are playing in the winter is because of English school teams doing it like that 150 years ago. There is no good reason why they today couldn't play from March to October or something. Would probably solve some injury issues, decrease pitch costs and increase attendences.

MLS plays from February to October in 2023 but it is true that some of the summer matches can be brutal in some of the southern US cities.

 

[portlock seagull]

Emma Hayes angry at the postponement of the EFL game on Sunday after 6 minutes wanting a 'solution' to it:

Solutions needed to stop WSL call-offs - Hayes

The Women's Super League needs to find a solution to prevent games being called off because of frozen pitches, says Chelsea manager Emma Hayes.

www.bbc.co.uk

However tonight in the EFL there are 9 postponements due to frozen pitches, with as far as I can see an acceptance from the clubs involved that it's unavoidable in the present weather and no calls for 'solutions' to it.

What makes Emma Hayes thinks that the women's game deserves 'solutions' to postponments when it generates a tiny fraction of the income the men's game does, even those in the EFL i would imagine.

Until the women can sell out 60-75k values with fans paying the same price as the men's game and they can attract a TV deal / sponsorship at the same level surely basic economic reality dictates they will need to accept frozen pitches and small stadiums.

This kind of rational thinking just won’t do in todays world. Expect to be cancelled within next 24hrs.

 

[dsr-burnley]

We see with the women's world cup, barcelona v madrid, 2012 olympics - when it is treated as a significant event, the attendance is there. We (the world, I'd be surprised if many of us were around then) saw following the first world war that thriving attendances can be achieved in a woman's league - its success threated men's football so it was banned and is still recovering.

​

I've never heard of a women's league after WW1 - there were at least two big gates at friendlies (Dick, Kerr's v St Helens had a gate of over 50k at Goodison Park on Boxing Day, and another match between the same two teams drew 30k+) but not a league that I ever heard of. Have you any links?

 

[dazzer6666]

In the WSL this season, of the top 10 recorded attendances, 7 games were above 28,500, with the highest being 47,367.

The next 3 highest attendances were between 6000-8000, with 2 of the 3 games at the regular ground used by women.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022–23_Women's_Super_League


It's reassuring to see the large attendances, albeit with significantly lower ticket prices compared with men.

(Albion's U18/65+ season ticket is £19 for 11 home games, so £1.72 per game. The full price is £49 - £4.45 per game.)

But it would be misleading to believe the monumental growth narrative across the board. It's a little more nuanced than that.

As an example, only 616 watched Everton v Reading a week ago on Saturday. https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/64201136

And just 303 were there to see Tottenham lose at home to Everton in December. https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/63443687


The point is that more women's games should be played at the main club's ground, like Chelsea who have undersoil heating installed.

And especially those scheduled for the winter months. Attendances would be higher with a smaller chance of postponement.

But Emma Hayes is asking the wrong question to the wrong people. She should really look closer to home.

All of this. Outside the WSL a few more championship (T2) games this season have been played at ‘mens’ stadia this season so far (Sheff Utd have actually decreed all their home games will be at Bramall Lane) but not all teams are associated to EPL/EFL teams so there is no chance of facilities at that level having things like undersoil heating.

Far less excuse for teams like Chelsea who are seemingly awash with cash

 

[A1X]

Professional officials should never have allowed the game to start. Regardless of who is playing, the pitch was clearly unfit and it’s fortunate nobody was seriously injured.

 

[beorhthelm]

Professional officials should never have allowed the game to start. Regardless of who is playing, the pitch was clearly unfit and it’s fortunate nobody was seriously injured.

true, though this isnt the complaint by Emma Hayes. she's saying games should never be cancelled due to pitch conditions, and i wonder if that sort of pressure is why officials allowed the game to start.

 

[Cornwallboy]

The OP might have an odd view of the women's game but I don't think that is the general consensus. The game is making rapid progress but surely you can agree that it has not developed enough yet to warrant opening up massive stadia for every single game. Don't forget it's not just about the attendance, it's about the revenue. It's easy to get an over inflated attendance if you only charge a nominal entrance fee. There is no doubt the game is having large amounts of money pumped into it to encourage it's development but it still has a long way to go. It's not yet on an equal footing but that doesn't make it irrelevant.

What is 'odd' about my 'views of the women's game?'

 

[keaton]

Next time an EFL club goes bust I’ll remember to use the phrase ‘well you should have been sustainable / self sufficient’

Indeed. I imagine despite the crowds and TV deals most women's lose less money than the men's teams do. I'm sure last time I checked the Brighton women's cost less per year that we were paying Locadia