I was responding to this statement
‘There isn't even equal pay……..even within a single club’
I know what you mean though…….every contract is individually negotiated, there is no real ‘equal pay’ on a player by player basis in a literal sense.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Football] WALES LEADS THE WAY
- Thread starter rippleman
- Start date
‘There isn't even equal pay……..even within a single club’
I know what you mean though…….every contract is individually negotiated, there is no real ‘equal pay’ on a player by player basis in a literal sense.
I hope those young scamps didn't shoot to early. Fair play to them.
I honestly think you`re trying to either goad me or purposely miss my point , it`s not about taking anything away from the women`s game it`s about the quality and competition of the football , even you must see the chasm .
My missus constantly shouts up the women’s game but whilst she is happy to see the Albions men’s team she has no interest in seeing a women’s game.
I agree with subsidising it to a degree to give it a jump start, but ultimately the women’s game has to stand on its own two feet. If the product is good enough, people will come and if it’s not they won’t. Time will tell.
I actually think switching it to being a summer game for the women’s league would help a lot, and take away the competition it always has with the men’s game for interest. It would give fans a football fix in the summer, a bit like the way rugby league is now instead of the days when Eddie Waring was a commentator. I might go to a well packaged women’s game in the summer, in the winter I go to enough games already and so attending a women’s game is far lower on my list of things to do.
I agree with subsidising it to a degree to give it a jump start, but ultimately the women’s game has to stand on its own two feet. If the product is good enough, people will come and if it’s not they won’t. Time will tell.
I actually think switching it to being a summer game for the women’s league would help a lot, and take away the competition it always has with the men’s game for interest. It would give fans a football fix in the summer, a bit like the way rugby league is now instead of the days when Eddie Waring was a commentator. I might go to a well packaged women’s game in the summer, in the winter I go to enough games already and so attending a women’s game is far lower on my list of things to do.
I have answered your arguments multiple times but you have ignored it or been unable to understand/answer.
So because 15 year old boys team is better you think they get more fans watching than the US women's team? You're a dinosaur. And you're wrong.
- Oct 17, 2008
- 14,359
I think that’s very harsh. Most people objectively accept women's football is of a poorer quality than men’s, and indeed many boys youth levels. What makes any competition interesting as a spectator is two teams of a similar ability competing with everything they’ve got.
I can happily enjoy Seaford Town against Forest Row or England women vs Japan women.
The point about payment is absolutely valid, as the women’s game simply doesn’t generate the same amount of revenue to pay high salaries to the players. It is impossible to pay Beth Mead £100k a week when they are playing to a gate which brings in a total of £75k - at a push - with limited sponsorship and television money.
Why limited sponsorship and television money? Because a fraction of people who watch men’s football will watch women’s football, no matter how hard it is pushed as a credible alternative.
Why won’t they watch? Because the top level of women’s football is vastly inferior to low levels of the men’s game.
The only way it would work would be if each club had a wealthy benefactor sponsoring the club, happy to lose tens of millions of pounds each year, solely to provide equal pay in the women’s game.
Needless to say this can not and will not ever happen.
What is harsh?
It seems like you're agreeing with me
You know we were talking about the US right?
- Oct 17, 2008
- 14,359
Harsh calling him a dinosaur.What is harsh?
It seems like you're agreeing with me
You know we were talking about the US right?
We otherwise agree.
I kind of get this at an international level. Broadly men shouldn't even get paid to represent their country.
You won't get equal pay at club level though that's a ludicrous concept. And most football clubs are run by hard nosed business men so they would simply shut the women's team down.
You won't get equal pay at club level though that's a ludicrous concept. And most football clubs are run by hard nosed business men so they would simply shut the women's team down.
I agree with you.
The issue is there needs to be the new generation of fans just for the Women’s game.
As a women, I want women's football to be a success because it means young girls can grow believing they can become professional football players. I was not allowed that dream. But also, I have invested all my life supporting the Brighton men’s team so that is where I invest my time and money. If Brighton Women are playing and it is on the TV, I will watch it. I prefer the women’s England team over the men’s and have been to and enjoyed going to watch their games.
I do not live close enough to attend Brighton's Men and Brighton's Women’s team. The cost of fuel add that going to a Brighton game is a full day event, not popping out for a couple of hours, so I think a lot of women are like your wife, we have already committed our time to the only thing that was on offer, men’s football, and it is difficult to swap.
The growth in the women’s game will have to come from offering something different, a place where people who are put off with some aspects of the men's game either on the pitch or atmosphere in the stadium as well as a new generation of girls and boys who follow the women’s game from the start.
I think your idea of switch it to a summer game is a great.
Unfortunately while (some, quite a lot) cash rich Premier League clubs make their women play miles away from home, the interest isn't going to grow. That's a bigger issue than whether players get paid the same for the honour of representing their country.
Who knows where it’ll end up though……..the women’s game is very ’new’ compared to the men (no-one was even fantasising about 100m transfers and 350k/week wages even 20 years ago) and developing fast. Standards have gone up enormously even in the last 2-3 seasons. More teams are going full-time pro every season, the setups are becoming more professional etc etc.
- Oct 17, 2008
- 14,359
Absolutely. But the women’s game isn’t ready for everything at once that, as you point out, has taken decades to manifest in the men’s game. It’s in its absolute infancy. The quality is slowly rising but right now it’d be downright patronising to imply the standard is anywhere close to men’s football.
Depends what the ‘standard’ comprises…….women are way behind in terms of speed and strength, less so on technical ability on the ball and tactics. They’re currently miles ahead (but will no doubt ‘evolve’ as the men did) on not rolling around pretending to be hurt, surrounding the ref and timewasting (for example) which often makes for a better watch.
Neville's Breakfast
Well-known member
Footballers’ pay like that in a lot of jobs is determined by the market. When I worked in banking I negotiated my own pay and never knew what others earned. In teaching there are pay scales but these are ranges and are supplemented by earnings from additional responsibilities so there is never entirely ‘equal’ pay. Regardless, I reckon footballers’ pay comes into the first category and as such women would be paid the same amount as men if they had the same negotiating power and that comes from their money generating potential. Just the same as in banking.
Thankyou for putting my thoughts down FAR better than i have managed
Nah.
The standards aren't important in making people watch the game. Most people don't have a f***ing clue about what is really going on on the pitch other than when the ball finds one of the nets.
If quality was the thing drawing people to the sport, stadiums all around the world would be empty as everyone could just stay at home and watch the PL or La Liga.
The hype around it is what really does it: the experience of going to the game with a bunch of friends, the shared suffering and pleasure, the memory, the tradition, the hype, the discussions about it in the workplace... no matter if the team league is shite or not.
Its a matter of hype and attention creating hype and attention. Snowballs itself. The quality of football in itself is higher in FIFA 2022 or Pro Evolution Soccer but very few bothers to sit and watch e-sports just because the ball kicking is better... because the other things (friends, rainy weather, memories, tradition etc) aren't there.
Perhaps best proven by how falling number of people attending and tv viewers in the 80s were reverted in the 90s. The football was not much different in 1993 compared to say 1987 but the framework was (graphical profile and improvement in number of cameras etc on tv, and cleaner & better looking stadiums), and that was enough to revive the game.
Similarly, in Sweden Allsvenskan has never been as shit as now from an international perspective yet it hasn't been this popular since the 1950s. Because it is safe (compared to the 90s...), it gets attention (discussion points that increases interest), TV companies try harder to find good pundits and so forth.
The way attention/interest is created has changed from when men's football first became popular. "My community vs yours" was a big interesting thing in a not particularly interconnected world. Not so much now. If something is going to be popular, interest must be created artificially (as is the case with women's football right now) and then it can become this self-playing piano. But it really needs that pulling power to get anywhere... regardless of how good/bad the ball kicking is.
- Oct 17, 2008
- 14,359
I completely disagree on every level.
Thats a relief.