Is womens sport comparable to mens sport?

[Bar BS3]

1 minute ago, Eddie Hitler said:

 

Sport is entertainment so what sports stars recieve is not a salary which somehow has to be "fair" but a share of the income they bring in.   If I practised really really hard for twenty years and got on stage to sing and play guitar I wouldn't be paid as much as Bruce Springsteen despite my having put in just as much effort because I wouldn't draw the paying crowds to see my performance; or anybody come to that.

I find women's tennis more entertaining than men's tennis so on that basis (if everybody thought teh same) the women should be paid more than the men however many sets they play; its about entetrtaining people not the effort put in.

That is a very cock eyed analogy. 

Women are the ones who demand equality. Surely they should speak up and say “hang on, it’s not fair we are getting paid more per hour than the men. Let’s address this and make it fair” 

Yeah right!

[Alan Dicks' Barmy Army]

To me watching Women's football is like watching grown up boys football

They all look the part

They have been tactically trained well

They have all the posture and posing down to a tee

They don't have explosive strength or speed 

[Bar BS3]

3 minutes ago, Sturny said:

Good point but guess you could say the women's hockey team is more successful. I've watched both mildly and thought women's were better but i'm no huge hockey fan. Has there ever been a male vs female hockey match? 

More successful..? yes. 

Better than men..? I doubt it. 

 

[Eddie Hitler]

1 minute ago, Bar BS3 said:

That is a very cock eyed analogy. 

Women are the ones who demand equality. Surely they should speak up and say “hang on, it’s not fair we are getting paid more per hour than the men. Let’s address this and make it fair” 

Yeah right!

They're not though; it's loons like these claiming to be speaking for all women when they're not.  I'm a man but I don't think that any of the men's rights peopel speak for all men.

 

 

[Sturny]

This thread is taking a turn, can see it getting locked 

[Bar BS3]

2 minutes ago, Eddie Hitler said:

They're not though; it's loons like these claiming to be speaking for all women when they're not.  I'm a man but I don't think that any of the men's rights peopel speak for all men.

 

 

Which “men’s rights” people are those..?

[Eddie Hitler]

4 minutes ago, Bar BS3 said:

Which “men’s rights” people are those..?

Take your pick:

https://mensrights.com/

https://goodmenproject.com/ethics-values/the-top-10-issues-of-mens-rights/

http://news.mensactivism.org/

[cider-manc]

The thing that i find incredible about this thread is that people can't comprehend that womens football is still very much in it's infancy in this country. 

Mens football has 150 years head start. In fact the majority of female players are still part time. It's catch 22- people say no one watches because the standard is poor... Yet without the coverage it is never going to get any better. I'm not saying it will ever get to the levels of the mens game (it probably won't) but there is no reason why they can't improve freefold on where the game is now if more of them could go pro.

Am i interested in womens football? Not particularly. But for the first time there are young girls in this country believing they can have a career in football and that is what matters. Not the opinion of a bunch of blokes chatting on an internet forum.

For what it's worth... The only thing i find annoying about the whole thing is that their supporters only ever compare womens sport to mens if it shows it in a positive light. For instance if you say the mens game is quicker, more powerful and skillful you are normally met with a response that you can't compare the two. But as soon as they have the chance they throw in "women don't dive like men", "the womens team showing the men how it should be done" etc 

[Sturny]

10 minutes ago, cider-manc said:

The thing that i find incredible about this thread is that people can't comprehend that womens football is still very much in it's infancy in this country. 

Mens football has 150 years head start. In fact the majority of female players are still part time. It's catch 22- people say no one watches because the standard is poor... Yet without the coverage it is never going to get any better. I'm not saying it will ever get to the levels of the mens game (it probably won't) but there is no reason why they can't improve freefold on where the game is now if more of them could go pro.

Am i interested in womens football? Not particularly. But for the first time there are young girls in this country believing they can have a career in football and that is what matters. Not the opinion of a bunch of blokes chatting on an internet forum.

For what it's worth... The only thing i find annoying about the whole thing is that their supporters only ever compare womens sport to mens if it shows it in a positive light. For instance if you say the mens game is quicker, more powerful and skillful you are normally met with a response that you can't compare the two. But as soon as they have the chance they throw in "women don't dive like men", "the womens team showing the men how it should be done" etc 

Agree with most of this. I believe the popularity is in it's infancy and therefore creating a smaller talent pool.

[cider-manc]

18 minutes ago, Eddie Hitler said:

 

Sport is entertainment so what sports stars recieve is not a salary which somehow has to be "fair" but a share of the income they bring in.   If I practised really really hard for twenty years and got on stage to sing and play guitar I wouldn't be paid as much as Bruce Springsteen despite my having put in just as much effort because I wouldn't draw the paying crowds to see my performance; or anybody come to that.

I find women's tennis more entertaining than men's tennis so on that basis (if everybody thought teh same) the women should be paid more than the men however many sets they play; its about entetrtaining people not the effort put in.

Well you can't apply this logic to football as most clubs run at huge loses to cover the players wages.... 

[Eddie Hitler]

5 minutes ago, cider-manc said:

Well you can't apply this logic to football as most clubs run at huge loses to cover the players wages.... 

Of course you can.  Revenues in the Pemier league are massively above those in the Championship so the wages in the Premiership are similarly much higher.

That clubs don't balance their books is a separate issue.

[Eddie Hitler]

1 hour ago, Trueredsupporte said:

What channels and where do you get you get your figures from?

I confess that I made them up.

Possibly if I was to take a few days off work and start ploughing my way through the last year's TV schedules then I would be able to find out the actual hours.

[cider-manc]

Just now, Eddie Hitler said:

Of course you can.  Revenues in the Pemier league are massively above those in the Championship so the wages in the Premiership are similarly much higher.

That clubs don't balance their books is a separate issue.

It was tongue in cheek/jest as i actually agree.

But the arguement was that they justify being paid more by the revenue they generate. 

Well.. There are an awful lot of players not justifying their wages by not creating enough revenue to keep their clubs afloat/out of debt! 

[Coxy27]

7 hours ago, Eddie Hitler said:

Absolutely.  If a sport is not a popular spectator sport in the first place then it is only going to attract a tiny audience on TV so why should a broadcaster put it on other than in a general sports highlights round up?

What, in your view, constitutes a 'tiny audience'?

[Bar BS3]

21 minutes ago, Eddie Hitler said:

Take your pick:

https://mensrights.com/

https://goodmenproject.com/ethics-values/the-top-10-issues-of-mens-rights/

http://news.mensactivism.org/

Largely appear to be championing men’s rights to parental access of their children and raising awareness of Male related cancer/illnesses. 

Not quite the same as shouting loudly about wages, broadcasting & job roles. 

[Eddie Hitler]

3 minutes ago, cider-manc said:

It was tongue in cheek/jest as i actually agree.

But the arguement was that they justify being paid more by the revenue they generate. 

Well.. There are an awful lot of players not justifying their wages by not creating enough revenue to keep their clubs afloat/out of debt! 

Or "robbing a living" as the parlance has it!

Just now, Coxy27 said:

What, in your view, constitutes a 'tiny audience'?

Whne measured in hundreds of thousands rather than millions for league games.

[Nogbad the Bad]

12 minutes ago, Trueredsupporte said:

Isnt football the biggest sport for women and girls now? one big minority that.

In what way is it?

Do you mean they're being pushed to play football in schools?

In my day we had 1 girl who wanted to play football, in those days she was affectionately known as a tomboy.

None of the other girls were at all interested in football - many didn't like any sort of sport but others enjoyed netball, hockey and rounders.

They weren't built for the physicality of football, didn't have the stamina or skill, and had zero aptitude for it.

Are you telling me the average girl has changed so much in the intervening decades that they suddenly all want to play football, or are they simply being (over) encouraged to play football when in fact the majority might well rather be playing something else?

What percentage of girls are choosing to play football over other more traditional sport options like hockey and netball?

 

 

[phantom]

40 minutes ago, Sturny said:

This thread is taking a turn, can see it getting locked 

That's why I split it from the original thread

[Coxy27]

15 minutes ago, Eddie Hitler said:

Or "robbing a living" as the parlance has it!

Whne measured in hundreds of thousands rather than millions for league games.

Do you actually know the figures though, or are you basing your view on pure conjecture?

in 2017 - more than 4 million people watched England's women in the Euro semi-final, more than 3 million in the quarters, 2.4 million for matches in the world cup in 2015.

For comparison, 1.6 million watched England v Spain last weekend, and only 819000 on average watch premier league games on SKY, which sort of contradicts your argument.

[RedM]

24 minutes ago, Nogbad the Bad said:

In what way is it?

Do you mean they're being pushed to play football in schools?

In my day we had 1 girl who wanted to play football, in those days she was affectionately known as a tomboy.

None of the other girls were at all interested in football - many didn't like any sort of sport but others enjoyed netball, hockey and rounders.

They weren't built for the physicality of football, didn't have the stamina or skill, and had zero aptitude for it.

Are you telling me the average girl has changed so much in the intervening decades that they suddenly all want to play football, or are they simply being (over) encouraged to play football when in fact the majority might well rather be playing something else?

What percentage of girls are choosing to play football over other more traditional sport options like hockey and netball?

 

 

As I said before I would have loved the opportunity to play football at school, maybe I could have be taught the rules and other technical stuff rather than figuring it for myself. My PE and games lessons would have been looked forward to not dreaded. I’m sure allowing me (and others) would have done so much more for me physically and mentally than netball ever did, hate that game with a passion even now it brings back bad memories. 

Girls aren’t built for the physicality of football? Well against other girls we are! Stamina and skill can also be coached and practiced, so I’m finding this arguement a bit weak. 

Maybe the majority of girls do not want to play football, but I’m sure the majority of girls would like the opportunity to at least try and the opportunity to decide if they do or not, that’s the important thing here I think.

[Eddie Hitler]

2 minutes ago, Coxy27 said:

Do you actually know the figures though, or are you basing your view on pure conjecture?

in 2017 - more than 4 million people watched England's women in the Euro semi-final, more than 3 million in the quarters, 2.4 million for matches in the world cup in 2015.

For comparison, 1.6 million watched England v Spain last weekend, and only 819000 on average watch premier league games on SKY, which sort of contradicts your argument.

I specifically said league; the bread and butter of the sport.

Showpiece events put on in prime time will always get an artificially high audience.

As mentioned upthread the Scottish women's curling team had a high audience when they had a successful run a few years back.  Nobody uses that to suggest that curling results should be on the news every weekend.

[Eddie Hitler]

1 minute ago, RedM said:

As I said before I would have loved the opportunity to play football at school, maybe I could have be taught the rules and other technical stuff rather than figuring it for myself. My PE and games lessons would have been looked forward to not dreaded. I’m sure allowing me (and others) would have done so much more for me physically and mentally than netball ever did, hate that game with a passion even now it brings back bad memories. 

Girls aren’t built for the physicality of football? Well against other girls we are! Stamina and skill can also be coached and practiced, so I’m finding this arguement a bit weak. 

Maybe the majority of girls do not want to play football, but I’m sure the majority of girls would like the opportunity to at least try and the opportunity to decide if they do or not, that’s the important thing here I think.

Absolutely.  I know that we're all individuals on this thread but there seems to be a reading of an objection to having women's football conflated and deliberately confused with men's football and having disporportionate media coverage - which is my position - as saying women shouldn't play football because they're not as good as men.  I'm not saying this and most also aren't.  I like that women's football has grown as a participant sport and that more girls have the oppportunity to take it up - that's great.  However until and unless it becomes a major spectator support drawing decent crowds it should not be receiving the level of media attention that it does.  

[Silvio Dante]

7 minutes ago, RedM said:

As I said before I would have loved the opportunity to play football at school, maybe I could have be taught the rules and other technical stuff rather than figuring it for myself. My PE and games lessons would have been looked forward to not dreaded. I’m sure allowing me (and others) would have done so much more for me physically and mentally than netball ever did, hate that game with a passion even now it brings back bad memories. 

Girls aren’t built for the physicality of football? Well against other girls we are! Stamina and skill can also be coached and practiced, so I’m finding this arguement a bit weak. 

Maybe the majority of girls do not want to play football, but I’m sure the majority of girls would like the opportunity to at least try and the opportunity to decide if they do or not, that’s the important thing here I think.

And to add to this (I’ve banged on here about how women’s football is a good thing before), my daughter attends a mixed junior school, only one class in each year so if girls want to play, it has to be with the boys.

On at least a weekly basis I get told of her frustrations how the boys won’t pass the girls the ball because “girls don’t play football”. Whether intentional or not, some responses on this thread show why some boys have this attitude, and frankly, it’s a bit sad. 

That as many girls as they do play football is great, it’s growing, and even if your wife/kid/aunt doesn’t care for it, there is no way we should create a culture that girls football is not worthwhile

[RedRock]

1 hour ago, Eddie Hitler said:

They're not though; it's loons like these claiming to be speaking for all women when they're not.  I'm a man but I don't think that any of the men's rights peopel speak for all men.

 

 

Bet Kate Silverton is getting paid the same as men in Come Dancing so she can shut the **** up. 

The other one demonstrates no gender. Bravo. Now go do something useful with your life down the mine or deep sea fishing.

[Coxy27]

8 minutes ago, Eddie Hitler said:

I specifically said league; the bread and butter of the sport.

Showpiece events put on in prime time will always get an artificially high audience.

As mentioned upthread the Scottish women's curling team had a high audience when they had a successful run a few years back.  Nobody uses that to suggest that curling results should be on the news every weekend.

Fine, however, the average viewing for a Premier League game on SKY is still 819000.

By your very own definition, a tiny audience. Cancel coverage of the premier league too shall we?

I'm being facetious there, of course, and I understand your point, but I think something you're missing is the potential of the sport. The average viewing for a Women's Super League game on BT Sport more than doubled for the 17/18 season, compared with the 16/17 season. It's obviously got massive potential, you only need to look at the men's game for that, perhaps the increased coverage has something to do with that, it might not be warranted now, but it certainly could be in the future.

[Eddie Hitler]

Just now, Coxy27 said:

Fine, however, the average viewing for a Premier League game on SKY is still 819000.

By your very own definition, a tiny audience. Cancel coverage of the premier league too shall we?

I'm being facetious there, of course, and I understand your point, but I think something you're missing is the potential of the sport. The average viewing for a Women's Super League game on BT Sport more than doubled for the 17/18 season, compared with the 16/17 season. It's obviously got massive potential, you only need to look at the men's game for that, perhaps the increased coverage has something to do with that, it might not be warranted now, but it certainly could be in the future.

Maybe.  I view women's soccer in England as being similar to men's soccer in the US as having no natural audience and lots of relaunches and false dawns as a consequence but I could of course be wrong. It has been known

 

[joe jordans teeth]

1 hour ago, BS4 on Tour... said:

Women can compete with men at table tennis - we have a very successful, high ranking female table tennis player in Bristol, a very good friend of mine, she regularly beats male players...

That maybe true but like I said in another post what stops women from being able to beat men in darts,pool,snooker etc,no physical advantage 

[054123]

The point is women on general don’t really like football.

my mum thinks she’s s bit of a feminist and always bangs on about the jack of coverage etc. Yet when England or the women’s World Cup is on, she doesn’t watch as she doesn’t Like football!!!

Just because I Like to watch Bristol city’s men team, why is of my shoulders to support women’s football? 

People will like what they like.

Men’s football isn’t popular in this country because Sky created the premier league and shoved it down our throats 

[Port Said Red]

2 hours ago, redapple said:

Do we have to be liberal of thought ? Can we not have minds of our own and trust our own judgement on what we see with our own eyes ? 

If you don't like womens football/sport then that's fine, don't watch it. But some of the posts on this thread have only just fallen short of the "what are they doing out of the kitchen, anyway?" type of comments that used to get bandied about in the past. Saying that ex is crap at what she does because it wouldn't cut the mustard in a man's game is complete bollox. I'll bet Paula Radcliffie in her prime could run rings around 99% of men for example, so what if she couldn't beat an elite male athlete, it's irrelevant. 

[Bar BS3]

5 minutes ago, Port Said Red said:

If you don't like womens football/sport then that's fine, don't watch it. But some of the posts on this thread have only just fallen short of the "what are they doing out of the kitchen, anyway?" type of comments that used to get bandied about in the past. Saying that ex is crap at what she does because it wouldn't cut the mustard in a man's game is complete bollox. I'll bet Paula Radcliffie in her prime could run rings around 99% of men for example, so what if she couldn't beat an elite male athlete, it's irrelevant. 

You raise a very good point there....

.... when are they getting time to do the housework..?