It's not fair or equitable to apply normal commercial considerations to wages in womens' football when the same does not apply to wages in the mens' game.
For that reason if no other Gordon Taylor is right to stick out for more.
Anyone who posts on here regularly will know that I am hardly Mr Political Correctness but I find the attitude expressed to the womens' game by some on this thread disappointing and patronising.
It's hardly a major revelation that men and women have physical differences. In football this manifests itself mostly by indifferent goalkeeping at times. In tennis it is speed and potency of service. Neither stop both games being a good spectacle as exemplified by the Womens' World Cup comparatively recently.
In my view a lot of womens' football is technically very good. I watched England v Netherlands at The Valley with my 3 daughters a few years back and the crosses Karen Carney was putting in were better than anything "Dracula" Rommedahl produced that same season!
Good luck to them. They are at the top of their profession and deserve what rewards they can negotiate.
But Len, they are Semi-Professional. They are allowed to work part time elsewhere.
The sport doesnt have many followers (Olympics cant really be used as any half decent sport involving GB at Wembley would have sold out) which is highlighted with 500 attendances for the Premier League games.
Thats without looking at the standard.
£375p/w is very good to play a sport you enjoy and play part time!
But Len, they are Semi-Professional. They are allowed to work part time elsewhere.
The sport doesnt have many followers (Olympics cant really be used as any half decent sport involving GB at Wembley would have sold out) which is highlighted with 500 attendances for the Premier League games.
Thats without looking at the standard.
£375p/w is very good to play a sport you enjoy and play part time!
Gary, my point is that it is wrong to apply normal commercial considerations to women when we don't men.
The Conference, league 2 and a good chunk of league 1 should also be semi pro by commercial considerations. Attendances of 2K or less hardly justify 20 odd full time professionals and the debt endemic throughout football clubs bears that out.
I'd agree with you if the same standards were applied to men as I've attempted to illustrate but they are not so I don't.
But Len, they are Semi-Professional. They are allowed to work part time elsewhere.
The sport doesnt have many followers (Olympics cant really be used as any half decent sport involving GB at Wembley would have sold out) which is highlighted with 500 attendances for the Premier League games.
Thats without looking at the standard.
£375p/w is very good to play a sport you enjoy and play part time!
Exactly. I wonder if the non-league players who represent England get paid 18 grand a year to do so? Probably not, because they aren't generating the money in gate or tv revenue to warrant it.
I have never read viz and i am not from the 1930s but i cant see how women footballers could merit any more (given their sports commercial appeal and their relative ability)
It does piss me off when people don't read what I put properly. I used the word SOME. I did not say I disagreed or agreed with what had been written, just the way SOME people had chosen to express themselves on the matter.
But Len, they are Semi-Professional. They are allowed to work part time elsewhere.
The sport doesnt have many followers (Olympics cant really be used as any half decent sport involving GB at Wembley would have sold out) which is highlighted with 500 attendances for the Premier League games.
Thats without looking at the standard.
£375p/w is very good to play a sport you enjoy and play part time!
Exactly. I wonder if the non-league players who represent England get paid 18 grand a year to do so? Probably not, because they aren't generating the money in gate or tv revenue to warrant it.
A somewhat disingenuous comparison in my opinion.
Is it fair to compare the Womens' 1st X1 with the Mens 3rd X1? I use the term 3rd X1 as Nicky Bailey, who played for England's non-league X1, was described as representing England C.
Female tennis players play only 3 sets as opposed to the 5 sets played by the men in grand slam tournaments yet are equally remunerated on the grounds that both sexes are at the top of their sport. If one did an analysis of demand for matches the chances are that male matches would usually have a greater spectator demand yet both sexes are paid equally.
Applying the same logic to football the Womens' 1st X1 must surely be worth more than the mens' 3rd X1. I would not yet go as far as to say that the England womens' 1st X1 should be paid in line with the England mens' 1st X1 (although they generally display a lot more commitment) as womens' football in England is still a developing game as distinct to tennis which is long established.
I have never read viz and i am not from the 1930s but i cant see how women footballers could merit any more (given their sports commercial appeal and their relative ability)
It does piss me off when people don't read what I put properly. I used the word SOME. I did not say I disagreed or agreed with what had been written, just the way SOME people had chosen to express themselves on the matter.
Not reading other posts and replying in a derogatory fashion is almost de rigeur for some on here.
I have never read viz and i am not from the 1930s but i cant see how women footballers could merit any more (given their sports commercial appeal and their relative ability)
It does piss me off when people don't read what I put properly. I used the word SOME. I did not say I disagreed or agreed with what had been written, just the way SOME people had chosen to express themselves on the matter.
Not reading other posts and replying in a derogatory fashion is almost de rigeur for some on here.
is it fair to compare individual sports with team sports?
is it fair to talk about commitment, when the men are full time commited professionals for their clubs?
Niky Bailey was playing for Barnet (conference at the time) when he represented England C, probably earning no more than £500p/w, so dont really understand your point there.
is it fair to compare individual sports with team sports?
is it fair to talk about commitment, when the men are full time commited professionals for their clubs?
Niky Bailey was playing for Barnet (conference at the time) when he represented England C, probably earning no more than £500p/w, so dont really understand your point there.
The comparison is not so much between individual and team sports as men and women who are the best at their chosen sport.
If you represent your country you should be proud and committed so yes it is fair. Anyway it was a flippant aside rather than directly backing up my case.
I mentioned Nicky Bailey purely to explain where I derived the phrase England 3rd X1. The Charlton Life nitpickers would have had my guts for garters had I not! :-)
Len, the logic in women tennis players getting the same prize money as men at Wimbledon is that the same number of people pay the same price to watch them, not because they are the best in their gender.
Len, the logic in women tennis players getting the same prize money as men at Wimbledon is that the same number of people pay the same price to watch them, not because they are the best in their gender.
I'm not sure that's a fair observation Bryan.
At Wimbledon and other tennis tournaments you buy a ground ticket or tickets for a specific court. You don't necessarily know who you are going to see as it's a random blend of singles (men and women), doubles (men, women and mixed) so whilst your statement is true in one sense the element of "choice" for the punter is removed so it is difficult to discern for sure who the biggest "draws" are (and I don't mean underwear :-) ).
Your comparison would be fair if the England male and female football teams played their internationals at the same time in my view.
If we want a great women's football team - and judging from the Olympics and World Cup -there is an apetite for this, we do need to make it attractive and possible for the best players to devote themselves. The FA claims to be about football, not just Man Utd and Arsenal - so it is a no brainer that the women's FA funded contracts need to be a bit more genrous.
Muttley, I contest that the general public wants anything of the sort. I also doubt the FA wants anything other than to wring every last drop of money from it's cash cow the Premier League, to allow it to maintain the status quo, of bloated self important self promotion.
I hope all these people singing the praises of womens football and saying they deserve more are making the effort to get down and watch the women play. Myself couldn't give a monkeys and would never attend a game that is of a poorer standard than the top division in my sunday league, might as well go down and watch them play for nothing.
The goalkeepers should get paid double any of the others just due to their comedy value
This is so true.
With all due respect if I was getting paid enough money to live on or at least greatly subsidise my income whilst playing football I would bite their hands off.
And on a serious note they are worse than welling. I think that when I was at school our first team would beat them and our second team would give them a decent run for their money and my point here is this. I am a football fan who likes to watch good football. This could be played by men, women, or cats. I don't watch women play football because quite frankly they are crap and if I want to support an underdog I will support a team I really like, Welling :-)
Until the standard of women's football significantly increases I don't think it will become viable. And I'm not sure if it can increase...
If we want a great women's football team - and judging from the Olympics and World Cup -there is an apetite for this, we do need to make it attractive and possible for the best players to devote themselves. The FA claims to be about football, not just Man Utd and Arsenal - so it is a no brainer that the women's FA funded contracts need to be a bit more genrous.
I'll be honest, I wouldn't pay any amount of money to watch women play football cause they ain't good enough! Just like I wouldn't pay to watch a blokes game over Charlton Park!
I agree, the England women's cricket team is so strong because they all play for men's teams at a decent level.
I'm sure somebody will say the a physically weaker/lighter/smaller, but I imagine the average height of the England women is taller than Solly, Zola and messi.
It seems rather condescending to have separate sports. Evolutionary biologists believe that in a few hundred years women will be faster than men, by then I imagine they will back on our time as some bizarre form if sexist segregation.
Also, the isolation women's football has can't be good for the development of the sport. Most other sports you will find men and women trading together if they can't compete together.
I say it as I see it - the standard of women's football (bar the keepers) has gone up massively. In my younger days I played some fun 7 a sides for a short while with a group that included a couple of women England internationals and they were not up to most of us technically. And we were pretty run of the mill, decent Sunday league standard. Actually fitness wise and physically they weren't bad!!! Now I look at players like Kelly Smith and one or two others and they are very strong in this respect.
I'm not saying that they should get 100k a week, but decent central contracts for the best players and we can push on more and win things. We spend money in other Olympic events- why neglect football when success is genuinely possible. Doesn't mean I have to go and watch women's footy as I don't go and watch athletics but I like it when Ennis and FArah do well. 30K a year for a top woman player on a central contract seems affordable for the FA to me!
A bit chicken and egg - £18k a year is too low a wage and many will simply give up the game in favour of earning more doing other jobs.
We've just had a successful Olympics with record medal hauls which was based around lottery funding to give our best athletes the opportunity to stay in their chosen sport and train just as full-time professionals would rather than compete on a part-time basis and hold down a job. In cricket our best players from a few years ago would knacker themselves out playing County cricket which led to injuries and meant they missed too much Test cricket. Well funded central contracts enable them to rest between games and prepare properly, the same holds for women's football, but only if they are paid properly.
If the increase in wage would allow us to keep the best talent in this country and for them to be able to focus on just Football and no other career, then it is money well spent to hopefully develop and win trophies.
Not hugely related but Shan Massey got a massive call absolutely spot on when she was lines(wo)man during the Hull v Wednesday game last night. That must be a very difficult job for a woman
Not hugely related but Shan Massey got a massive call absolutely spot on when she was lines(wo)man during the Hull v Wednesday game last night. That must be a very difficult job for a woman
Agreed. My missus takes forever to make a decision.
Not hugely related but Shan Massey got a massive call absolutely spot on when she was lines(wo)man during the Hull v Wednesday game last night. That must be a very difficult job for a woman
Agreed. My missus takes forever to make a decision.
Mine doesn't. It's always "No". Takes no time at all.
Not hugely related but Shan Massey got a massive call absolutely spot on when she was lines(wo)man during the Hull v Wednesday game last night. That must be a very difficult job for a woman
Agreed. My missus takes forever to make a decision.
Comments
For that reason if no other Gordon Taylor is right to stick out for more.
Anyone who posts on here regularly will know that I am hardly Mr Political Correctness but I find the attitude expressed to the womens' game by some on this thread disappointing and patronising.
It's hardly a major revelation that men and women have physical differences. In football this manifests itself mostly by indifferent goalkeeping at times. In tennis it is speed and potency of service. Neither stop both games being a good spectacle as exemplified by the Womens' World Cup comparatively recently.
In my view a lot of womens' football is technically very good. I watched England v Netherlands at The Valley with my 3 daughters a few years back and the crosses Karen Carney was putting in were better than anything "Dracula" Rommedahl produced that same season!
Good luck to them. They are at the top of their profession and deserve what rewards they can negotiate.
The sport doesnt have many followers (Olympics cant really be used as any half decent sport involving GB at Wembley would have sold out) which is highlighted with 500 attendances for the Premier League games.
Thats without looking at the standard.
£375p/w is very good to play a sport you enjoy and play part time!
The Conference, league 2 and a good chunk of league 1 should also be semi pro by commercial considerations. Attendances of 2K or less hardly justify 20 odd full time professionals and the debt endemic throughout football clubs bears that out.
I'd agree with you if the same standards were applied to men as I've attempted to illustrate but they are not so I don't.
Is it fair to compare the Womens' 1st X1 with the Mens 3rd X1? I use the term 3rd X1 as Nicky Bailey, who played for England's non-league X1, was described as representing England C.
Female tennis players play only 3 sets as opposed to the 5 sets played by the men in grand slam tournaments yet are equally remunerated on the grounds that both sexes are at the top of their sport. If one did an analysis of demand for matches the chances are that male matches would usually have a greater spectator demand yet both sexes are paid equally.
Applying the same logic to football the Womens' 1st X1 must surely be worth more than the mens' 3rd X1. I would not yet go as far as to say that the England womens' 1st X1 should be paid in line with the England mens' 1st X1 (although they generally display a lot more commitment) as womens' football in England is still a developing game as distinct to tennis which is long established.
; )
is it fair to talk about commitment, when the men are full time commited professionals for their clubs?
Niky Bailey was playing for Barnet (conference at the time) when he represented England C, probably earning no more than £500p/w, so dont really understand your point there.
If you represent your country you should be proud and committed so yes it is fair. Anyway it was a flippant aside rather than directly backing up my case.
I mentioned Nicky Bailey purely to explain where I derived the phrase England 3rd X1. The Charlton Life nitpickers would have had my guts for garters had I not! :-)
At Wimbledon and other tennis tournaments you buy a ground ticket or tickets for a specific court. You don't necessarily know who you are going to see as it's a random blend of singles (men and women), doubles (men, women and mixed) so whilst your statement is true in one sense the element of "choice" for the punter is removed so it is difficult to discern for sure who the biggest "draws" are (and I don't mean underwear :-) ).
Your comparison would be fair if the England male and female football teams played their internationals at the same time in my view.
With all due respect if I was getting paid enough money to live on or at least greatly subsidise my income whilst playing football I would bite their hands off.
And on a serious note they are worse than welling. I think that when I was at school our first team would beat them and our second team would give them a decent run for their money and my point here is this.
I am a football fan who likes to watch good football. This could be played by men, women, or cats. I don't watch women play football because quite frankly they are crap and if I want to support an underdog I will support a team I really like, Welling :-)
Until the standard of women's football significantly increases I don't think it will become viable. And I'm not sure if it can increase...
Well I never!
What sort of crowds do they get?
I'm sure somebody will say the a physically weaker/lighter/smaller, but I imagine the average height of the England women is taller than Solly, Zola and messi.
It seems rather condescending to have separate sports. Evolutionary biologists believe that in a few hundred years women will be faster than men, by then I imagine they will back on our time as some bizarre form if sexist segregation.
Also, the isolation women's football has can't be good for the development of the sport. Most other sports you will find men and women trading together if they can't compete together.
I'm not saying that they should get 100k a week, but decent central contracts for the best players and we can push on more and win things. We spend money in other Olympic events- why neglect football when success is genuinely possible. Doesn't mean I have to go and watch women's footy as I don't go and watch athletics but I like it when Ennis and FArah do well. 30K a year for a top woman player on a central contract seems affordable for the FA to me!
We've just had a successful Olympics with record medal hauls which was based around lottery funding to give our best athletes the opportunity to stay in their chosen sport and train just as full-time professionals would rather than compete on a part-time basis and hold down a job. In cricket our best players from a few years ago would knacker themselves out playing County cricket which led to injuries and meant they missed too much Test cricket. Well funded central contracts enable them to rest between games and prepare properly, the same holds for women's football, but only if they are paid properly.