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

Stephen Seagull said:

I think her complaints are more to do with the fact the game actually started. Arguably the"mens" games would've been called off before a ball was kicked

Click to expand...

Cornwallboy said:

Not that I can recall but I'm sure in the long history of the men's game the odd game has been called off shortly after the k/o/ .

Click to expand...

Cornwallboy said:

Not that I can recall but I'm sure in the long history of the men's game the odd game has been called off shortly after the k/o/ .

Click to expand...

Springal said:

I guess she has a point - while the men’s team have spent £400M since the summer, as a top flight women’s team (that has been very successful) it’s a bit embarrassing they are like a L2 side I guess

Click to expand...

TugWilson said:

Boreham Wood v Torquay was called off 3/4 of an hour before K.O. on Saturday - such is life

Click to expand...

Neville's Breakfast said:

She has a point if attendances warrant it. How do they compare with League 2 ? A quick google gives me the impression they aren’t dissimilar but I may be wrong.

Click to expand...

Springal said:

Depends if it’s driven by attendances or club. In her shoes I’d be a bit annoyed on the spending on the men’s team on players they don’t really need while they can’t get a game on

Click to expand...

Springal said:

Depends if it’s driven by attendances or club. In her shoes I’d be a bit annoyed on the spending on the men’s team on players they don’t really need while they can’t get a game on

Click to expand...

Cornwallboy said:

But the men's game generates millions more in revenue than the women's game. Until there is some sort of parity in terms of revenue generation, largely the women won't enjoy the same infrastructure as the men's.

Click to expand...

Acker79 said:

(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

Click to expand...

Neville's Breakfast said:

But who are you asking to spend this money and why should they ? Clubs are privately owned and no particular team within them has a right to expect anything

Click to expand...

Sid and the Sharknados said:

What, and they're not allowed to ask for anything either?
Whether it's a men's or women's team, if there's a lack of infrastructure that's going to impact on the quality which will impact on the attendances. And the managers and players are quite right to complain about it.
Have you never heard a non league player or amateur sportsman complain about their shit ground?

Click to expand...

Neville's Breakfast said:

But who are you asking to spend this money and why should they ? Clubs are privately owned and no particular team within them has a right to expect anything.

Click to expand...

Acker79 said:

I'm not specifically asking anyone, but it's interesting your response to a broad point about the cyclical nature of the attendance of women's football v investment leads to you rushing to deny anyone the right to highlight the need to invest.

Click to expand...