[Albion] Women’s Football

[jcdenton08]

I follow the women’s national team and watch the occasional Albion women’s game.

This is going to be a very bland take I’m afraid, which has been repeated to death but doesn’t make it any less true.

It’s a standalone sport. Women’s football is women’s football. Comparisons to the men’s game are unhelpful (I include the media in this, pushing the sport as being as being of equal billing to men’s football) and actually hurt what women’s football is trying to achieve - legitimacy as its own sport.

The problem comes when hype and unrealistic exaggeration of ability comes from within the media, which is frankly an agenda to legitimise female athletes as being equal in ability to males, at times when they basically aren’t.

For example, when Rhonda Rousey in UFC was battering all her competition left, right and centre, the likes of Joe Rogan were saying nonsense like she could legitimately beat male champions who in reality would squish her within seconds. Hype is very dangerous in building unrealistic comparisons between athletes and their relative levels.

Every few years, a women’s team will take on a men’s seniors/male youth side and get absolutely spanked. Again, what does this prove? We all know men’s football is a much higher standard. Trying to equate the two sports as being of equal standard benefits absolutely nobody. Examples:





I enjoy women’s football for what it is - a stand-alone sport.

 

[timbha]

I follow the women’s national team and watch the occasional Albion women’s game.

This is going to be a very bland take I’m afraid, which has been repeated to death but doesn’t make it any less true.

It’s a standalone sport. Women’s football is women’s football. Comparisons to the men’s game are unhelpful (I include the media in this, pushing the sport as being as being of equal billing to men’s football) and actually hurt what women’s football is trying to achieve - legitimacy as its own sport.

The problem comes when hype and unrealistic exaggeration of ability comes from within the media, which is frankly an agenda to legitimise female athletes as being equal in ability to males, at times when they basically aren’t.

For example, when Rhonda Rousey in UFC was battering all her competition left, right and centre, the likes of Joe Rogan were saying nonsense like she could legitimately beat male champions who in reality would squish her within seconds. Hype is very dangerous in building unrealistic comparisons between athletes and their relative levels.

Every few years, a women’s team will take on a men’s seniors/male youth side and get absolutely spanked. Again, what does this prove? We all know men’s football is a much higher standard. Trying to equate the two sports as being of equal standard benefits absolutely nobody. Examples:





I enjoy women’s football for what it is - a stand-alone sport.

Good post. It’s a sport I can’t get interested in but like any sport have to admire the talent, sacrifice and effort it takes to get to the top, and to be the best a person can be.

What annoys me is the over inflated platform women’s football and women’s ex players are getting.

When I hear a female ex footballer pundit talking about her records (150 goals in 250 internationals, I exaggerate) career and ability whilst commentating on a men’s football match I find it no value at all.

 

[Silverhatch]

I'm not a blazer-wearing-misogynist, and I've never condoned banning women from playing football if they want to. If they want to, and people want to watch them, that's absolutely fine. Your implication that as I'm male (blazer-wearing-misogynist or not) I should just the f*** up is, frankly, sexually discriminating and offensive.

I don't dislike it or like it. I'm just not interested. For 60 years of my life I've followed football. For those 60 years, it was mainly a men's sport - OK, Doncaster Belles were apparently good, and Leasowe something from the Merseyside area too. I just followed the Albion - and yes, the Albion team I followed was made up of blokes.

Yes, absolutely agree. But if I'm not interested, don't ram it down my throat - I have an absolute right to be interested in what I want to be interested in, and not to be interested if I'm not. And don't you dare to question my right to decide what I want to be interested in or not, or criticise my personal choice.

The sentiment is not directed at you personally. It’s directed at men homogeneously. I’m not a blazer wearing misogynist - but I know the damage that men did to women’s professional football for over 50 years and that it took until 2011 to establish the WSL and until 2018 for fully professional football to land. It’s a young sport, trying to develop and find its way. As I said, the OP’s point had some merit - but blokes telling women what to do has NEVER gone down well.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

What annoys me is the over inflated platform women’s football and women’s ex players are getting.

I have just taken a look at The Telegraph, The Times, The Guardian and the BBC. They all report women’s football. Different papers, different politics, why do they all report the women’s game?

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

 

[timbha]

View attachment 180961

That’s great. Sadly some had Chelsea kits foisted on them too

 

[amexer]

With the money TB has put in to Womens team he must believe this game has incredible growth in future and wish him all the best. From what I have seen huge difference at top club and international level. PB is right that it needs a new audience because doubt many mens game followers will enjoy what is on offer.
Without doubt the best thing that has happened it has now become the norm for young girls to play football so hopefully more will in future be available at senior level. I first watched Albions team 3/4 years ago and big difference is they are now much fitter which as a spectator never give much credit for. After watching Everton game passing ,tackling and first touch is still so poor I am amazed players that cant do these things well consistently are earning a full time living. And to hear many women in game moan about pay is a joke. My father told me Brighton men used to be paid according to attendances Maybe that is the way so players gain from big international crowds and Arsenal players at home games at moment.
The media coverage is way above the level of interest at the moment. Very minor point but do get cheesed of to open Albion website and see headline of signing an international play and then see it is for Womens team I suppose may not be PC but why dont they have own site which could be monitored to see that hopefully interest is increasing.

 

[Sorrel]

I've only been to one women's game - another of those times that the BHA women's team played at the Amex. It was ok, the atmosphere was ok. The crowd seemed quite different to the men's game and it seemed a younger audience.

I think there is a generational difference here. My daughter was talking about the Rugby six nations the other day and I said I thought it had finished. But she was talking about the women's rugby, as if it was part of the same continuum. I think of the men's game in most sports as entirely a separate thing to the women's game - but I think more recently generations do not see this distinction. I'm sure the women's game in team sports - football, cricket, rugby - will only increase over the next 20 years.

I'm not really interested in watching it, but then there are plenty of other sports I'm also not interested in (ice hockey, basketball etc) and they seem to be doing fine without my interest and I'm sure women's football will be the same.

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

Watching the Albion's womens team is a bit like watching the Albion's REMF team used to be. You may go and watch them for any one of a number of different reasons, but none of those reasons is/was based on the quality of football on display

 

[sparkie]

If you go to a game and can´t enjoy it because the size of the goal, which has been the same since 1863, maybe find a different activity.

Which is exactly what the OP said they'd do.

Lol.

 

[StonehamPark]

It's interesting reading the English/British perspectives, as to the opinions of women's football in the UK, and comparing those perspectives to the general opinions and 'zeitgeist' over here in the US & Canada. Attitudes are very different, as far as I can tell.

First off, I don't enjoy watching Women's football. I've tried, but it's not for me - but I'm 1000% all for it.
Second, I play mixed/co-ed football every week, alongside both guys 'n gals, and I love it.
Third, my very firm position is that the sport is exactly the same, they aren't two entirely seperate sports like some argue for. Direct comparisons should be made in order to best progress the women's game, imo.

I think men's/traditional football is so so embedded in English/British culture, over many generations, that watching the rise of women's football in combination with being given over-proportionaly media coverage and promotion might look out of place, and to be frank, a bit silly. I can see that and I personally agree with that viewpoint, to some extent, in the UK.

However, comparing that the general opinions of sports enthusiasts in the US & Canada, we are (generally) very much in favour and all for watching and encouraging the rise of women's football here, and the media coverage seems genuine, unforced and generally proportional. In fact, women's football here is the fastest* growing sport in the US & Canada comapred to all other sports, including men's sports. And that's including monetarily, attendance-wise and participation/playing (rising/increasing at the fastest rate*).

That's not at all to say one viewpoint is better than the other, it's just an interesting observation in my opinion between two cultures at different stages in sporting history/culture.
I think the US & Canada has far more oppurtunity to get into sports at all levels, ages and sexes, which is possibly a huge contributor as to why.

 

[amexer]

Although football and cricket are my first choices I tend to be drawn to watching any sport bar a few like darts basketball and boxing. These include many womens sports and enjoy a day at tennis in Eastbourne most years. (not the brute force of mens game but very entertaining). I would go as far as saying I prefer watching womens rugby because far more running with ball. Unfortunately lack of muscle power takes something away from football and cricket

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

The media coverage is way above the level of interest at the moment.

I do question this. First, how is this measured? Second, if it was just the “woke” handwringing BBC and The Guardian “ramming this down our throats” I would be able to understand it. But it isn’t, it’s widespread. BBC and Sky cover the women’s game extensively, as do The Times, The Telegraph, The Guardian etc. Why are so many different outlets covering it, and covering it allegedly above the true level of interest? Surely the can’t all be pushing a PC agenda?

 

[hans kraay fan club]

I think the US & Canada has far more oppurtunity to get into sports at all levels, ages and sexes, which is possibly a huge contributor as to why.

Is this true? As in, true for everyone?

In the UK any kid, of either sex, of almost 'any' ability level, can find a local team at their age group desperate for new players. They'll be welcomed in, and their participation will cost their parents a fiver a game in subs.

In the US, middle-class kids are invited to 'try out' for a soccer team, and IF they are selected, their parents need to find upwards of $1,000 per season in fees. Very much not open to all.

 

[El Presidente]

Absolutely. I obviously thought a few times before posting it. At one point I wasn’t going to because I felt it was mean to the women. Then I remembered the absolute bollocks that the men constantly have written about them and decided it would be sexist not to.

This isn’t meant to be a criticism of the women, and I’m not saying women shouldn’t play football, before the woke brigade jump on me. I’m saying their version of the game is crap, because it hasn’t been thought through properly. It could, and should, be much better. We gave up playing in full size goals and pitches with kids long ago, so there is clearly logic in it.

I suggest you don't go and watch non league football either then too, as the standard is poor compared to the Premier League and the atmosphere is crap...and certainly don't watch football in Scotland apart from a handful of teams.

If the crapness of the football was an issue, I would not have attended the final match at the Goldstone or bothered going to Hereford, yet both matches still live long in the memory.

The atmosphere is different at a Women's game, but is also different at many large sanitised stadiums too, including watching England at Wembley.

Women's cricket uses a 22 yard wicket, women's tennis has the same courts as that of men, as does basketball, and the women's 100m is the same length as the men's. Does not devalue the sport.

In terms of the media coverage, there is no equivalence between the men's and women's game.

 

[JBizzle]

I thought the gulf between the top half teams with young international regulars, and bottom half teams like us and Everton, is huge.

But i enjoyed it last night despite the low level standard.

Of course the atmosphere will be crap with 5k, mainly kids in a 30000 stadium.

I agree with this wholeheartedly. Watching Brighton 1 -2 Everton and decrying the whole sport is like watching Burnley 1 - 1 Brighton and saying men's football is crap.

The fact is, the two teams on display aren't very good teams. It's really as simple as that. If you happened to watch any of the Barcelona v Chelsea game the following day the standard was orders of magnitude better.

In terms of the crowd, a lot of people on this thread seem to forget that the atmosphere at the Amex is library-esque for the men's team when fully at capacity. There was a decent noise for a stadium less than 20% filled.

 

[Steve in Japan]

I suggest you don't go and watch non league football either then too, as the standard is poor compared to the Premier League and the atmosphere is crap...and certainly don't watch football in Scotland apart from a handful of teams.

If the crapness of the football was an issue, I would not have attended the final match at the Goldstone or bothered going to Hereford, yet both matches still live long in the memory.

The atmosphere is different at a Women's game, but is also different at many large sanitised stadiums too, including watching England at Wembley.

Women's cricket uses a 22 yard wicket, women's tennis has the same courts as that of men, as does basketball, and the women's 100m is the same length as the men's. Does not devalue the sport.

In terms of the media coverage, there is no equivalence between the men's and women's game.

But Women's cricket is played with smaller boundaries and a lighter ball, and I would argue is a much better watch as a result.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

Women's cricket uses a 22 yard wicket, women's tennis has the same courts as that of men, as does basketball, and the women's 100m is the same length as the men's. Does not devalue the sport.

I was reading the first few pages of this debate, and thinking of athletics - and almost replied to raise the example of the 100m.

Male athletes run 100m, and the good ones do it in under 10sec.

Female athletes also run 100m, and the good ones do it in under 11 sec.

Even though the two are very easily compared in simple quantifiable terms (the woman is clearly 10% 'worse' than the man) nobody DOES. They see fast men's times, and they see fast women's times, and both are given merit. Nobody suggests that the women should run 90m, so that their times become equivalent to the men's.

So you could use athletics as an example of why @Commander is 'WRONG'.

Until you consider that women use a lighter shot, a lighter, shorter javelin, and are asked to jump lower sprint hurdles...

 

[WATFORD zero]

I was reading the first few pages of this debate, and thinking of athletics - and almost replied to raise the example of the 100m.

Male athletes run 100m, and the good ones do it in under 10sec.

Female athletes also run 100m, and the good ones do it in under 11 sec.

Even though the two are very easily compared in simple quantifiable terms (the woman is clearly 10% 'worse' than the man) nobody DOES. They see fast men's times, and they see fast women's times, and both are given merit. Nobody suggests that the women should run 90m, so that their times become equivalent to the men's.

So you could use athletics as an example of why @Commander is 'WRONG'.

Until you consider that women use a lighter shot, a lighter, shorter javelin, and are asked to jump lower sprint hurdles...

Congratulations. You have managed a post that whatever way anyone answers, they are going to upset someone

 

[El Presidente]

Yes, absolutely agree. But if I'm not interested, don't ram it down my throat - I have an absolute right to be interested in what I want to be interested in, and not to be interested if I'm not. And don't you dare to question my right to decide what I want to be interested in or not, or criticise my personal choice.

Out of interest, how is it being 'rammed down your throat'? Here is the front page of the BBC Football Website, not a single mention of the women's game. I'm not interested in F1, so I don't watch it, but I don't accuse BBC/Sky and Co of ramming it down my throat. I'm happy to respect other people's views that they do enjoy it and fair play to them.