Something really needs to be done about the disparity in pay between men's and women's international football. It's ridiculous that one team gets so much more than the other, despite representing the same country.
For example, the England women's team won the Euros and gained prize money of approximately £1.8m for winning all their group stage matches, the whole knockout stage and winning the final. Whereas the men had to share a paltry £22,000 for winning the World Cup in 1966.
It's absolutely unfair.
I know you're attention seeking, but it is interesting the difference in prize money from Sunday compared to the Mens competition last year.
As runners up we got €30.25m last year, and for winning this year it's €2.045m
Ticket pricing. Most expensive ticket I think was £50 on Sunday. Compared to £950 for the final last year.
Sponsorship along with Corporate sales will probably be the biggest factor in the prize money - Would like to know how much money gets made from each of the European Championships.
Something really needs to be done about the disparity in pay between men's and women's international football. It's ridiculous that one team gets so much more than the other, despite representing the same country.
For example, the England women's team won the Euros and gained prize money of approximately £1.8m for winning all their group stage matches, the whole knockout stage and winning the final. Whereas the men had to share a paltry £22,000 for winning the World Cup in 1966.
It's absolutely unfair.
I know you're attention seeking, but it is interesting the difference in prize money from Sunday compared to the Mens competition last year.
As runners up we got €30.25m last year, and for winning this year it's €2.045m
Ticket pricing, sponsorship, GLOBAL TV numbers etc
17m watched the final on Sunday in the UK which was great, but the audience have been far smaller if it had been Spain vs Germany in the final, whereas if Spain had played Germany in the final of the men's Euros, it would still have got a massive audience.
I imagine the same applies to all the other countries, where people watch their national team, but the numbers for 3rd party games are far lower, how many people in France or Spain watched the final after they got knocked out?
The gap will close over time, as women's football is a much better spectacle than it used to be, thanks to leagues going professional, and the standards of training and facilities much improved.
I don't think it is healthy to keep regurgitating this women v men debate. if you want to, I will tell you that there is no better passer than Walsh at our club and we are quite happy to watch Charlton. Why do we not insist on watching only Premier League teams. Men are stronger than women and that is a fact of life but if you are looking for entertainment and skill, you will find it in the women's game in spades.
Something really needs to be done about the disparity in pay between men's and women's international football. It's ridiculous that one team gets so much more than the other, despite representing the same country.
For example, the England women's team won the Euros and gained prize money of approximately £1.8m for winning all their group stage matches, the whole knockout stage and winning the final. Whereas the men had to share a paltry £22,000 for winning the World Cup in 1966.
It's absolutely unfair.
The market will dictate it.
When women's football gets crowds and television audiences and interest consistently near or on par with top flight men's football the sponsorship, endorsements and salaries will follow.
There's a reason Adele and Ed Sheeran command more money than other talented professional musicians who captivate vastly smaller audiences.
It's nothing to do with fairness or inequity.
If the attendances and viewing figures were identical and there was disparity in pay then that would be hugely unfair.
The real silly money didn't enter the men's game until the explosion of sky football post Italia 90 in the UK and lucrative Serie A in Italy in early to mid 90s.
If the women's game generates the interest and attendances it will have that trajectory.
It gets a huge amount of publicity and the triumph is the perfect springboard to kick-start it on a mass market level.
But it is completely rationale that there is still a material disparity between pay because of the economics of how commercially attractive the game is at present.
It's the first time I've watched it, not going to lie, but it has quite a story:
👉 Women's football hit a peak in World War 1. Female factory workers put together football teams to raise money for wounded soldiers.
👉 Shortly after WW1, women were forced to leave the factories and end their football games.
👉 On December 5th, 1921 the FA banned all women from taking part in official games on all football grounds. This was kept in place until 1971.
👉 1972, the first official women's international game was played between Scotland and England at Ravenscraig Stadium.
👉 2022, the Lionesses brought it home, winning Euro 2022.
From charitable roots to misogynistic bans and then winning Europe 51 years later... 🔥🔥🔥
7 of the Lionesses are LGBT.
They were paid £2,000 per match, so if they played all matches, they'd have pocketed £67k + any bonuses.
That doesn't feel like a lot of money for inspiring young girls, uniting a country in such a bleak time and working their arses off for the equivalent of 2 days as Ronaldo.
Men's football is fraught with bigotry and strongly tied to domestic violence, which explains the amount of misogynistic comments by sweaty troglodytes, since they won.
Lionesses > sweaty trogs
Insecurity...constantly having to knock down others or compare with others.
Rugby fans done it for years.
If you don't like men's football don't watch it. Millions if not billions of us live for it.
It's not a binary choice. You can still enjoy or go to women's football with or without liking the men's game if you want.
No need to constantly compare both to give one or the other the edge.
The women's game will continue to flourish and improve and grow without the need to knock the men's version.
Something really needs to be done about the disparity in pay between men's and women's international football. It's ridiculous that one team gets so much more than the other, despite representing the same country.
For example, the England women's team won the Euros and gained prize money of approximately £1.8m for winning all their group stage matches, the whole knockout stage and winning the final. Whereas the men had to share a paltry £22,000 for winning the World Cup in 1966.
It's absolutely unfair.
The market will dictate it.
When women's football gets crowds and television audiences and interest consistently near or on par with top flight men's football the sponsorship, endorsements and salaries will follow.
There's a reason Adele and Ed Sheeran command more money than other talented professional musicians who captivate vastly smaller audiences.
It's nothing to do with fairness or inequity.
If the attendances and viewing figures were identical and there was disparity in pay then that would be hugely unfair.
The real silly money didn't enter the men's game until the explosion of sky football post Italia 90 in the UK and lucrative Serie A in Italy in early to mid 90s.
If the women's game generates the interest and attendances it will have that trajectory.
It gets a huge amount of publicity and the triumph is the perfect springboard to kick-start it on a mass market level.
But it is completely rationale that there is still a material disparity between pay because of the economics of how commercially attractive the game is at present.
I've gone back and edited my post to make sure it's clear that it was a joke
Typical Germans,moaning about a non existant penalty,and dragging up the"phantom goal of 1966".Tactfully omitted the biggest traversty of all when Lampards shot went two foot over the line and was not given.
I’ve seen a few people mention that they’d go to watch our women's team if they played at The Valley more.
Well the club has tweeted out about their game next month, September 18th, vs Birmingham City. £10 for adults, £5 for concessions. My son and niece have expressed an interest so might see if we can make a day out of it.
Charlton finished 5th last year, whilst Brum were relegated from the WSL. Should be a good game.
Typical Germans,moaning about a non existant penalty,and dragging up the"phantom goal of 1966".Tactfully omitted the biggest traversty of all when Lampards shot went two foot over the line and was not given.
Criticises Germans for complaining about past refereeing errors
Something really needs to be done about the disparity in pay between men's and women's international football. It's ridiculous that one team gets so much more than the other, despite representing the same country.
For example, the England women's team won the Euros and gained prize money of approximately £1.8m for winning all their group stage matches, the whole knockout stage and winning the final. Whereas the men had to share a paltry £22,000 for winning the World Cup in 1966.
It's absolutely unfair.
I know you're attention seeking, but it is interesting the difference in prize money from Sunday compared to the Mens competition last year.
As runners up we got €30.25m last year, and for winning this year it's €2.045m
Ticket pricing. Most expensive ticket I think was £50 on Sunday. Compared to £950 for the final last year.
Sponsorship along with Corporate sales will probably be the biggest factor in the prize money - Would like to know how much money gets made from each of the European Championships.
European Championship Finals Club Wembley guff last year was telephone numbers to see the mens semis (ooooerrrrr)and finals . Supply and demand I suppose and with capacity reduced that added to it I suppose
Some interesting figures in this article. Womens football will now grow exponentially in this country and things like new TV and sponsorship deals will increase significantly to reflect that. That said i can't ever see it getting close to the numbers in the men's game (both in terms of consistent crowds and turnover). Man City's men's teams turnover is almost 200 times that of the women's team!
It is better that the game grows naturally. It might grow in a better way in the mens as I know I am not particularly happy with that. It has received a massive nudge which is part of the natural growth and it doesn't have to be compared to the men's game. And the women's national team has taken its place as one of the World's best so that bit seems to be very satisfactory.
It is better that the game grows naturally. It might grow in a better way in the mens as I know I am not particularly happy with that. It has received a massive nudge which is part of the natural growth and it doesn't have to be compared to the men's game. And the women's national team has taken its place as one of the World's best so that bit seems to be very satisfactory.
Agree with everything there. The fact Man City's men's team turnover is £571m isn't necessarily a good thing. It's been driven by rampant greed and the fact men's football sold it's soul a long time ago.
I don't understand this. Literally not seen one negative post anywhere about this great achievement. All there's been is post after post, making incorrect comparisons between the success of the women's team and lack of success of the mens in two very different competitions (possibly four, come the WC), and of how women have had to come in and do what men couldn't.
Before people start no platforming and shouting "woke", it's got nothing to do with wokeness and more to do with acknowledging the fact that the women haven't won the men's Euro Championship, they've won the women's equivalent and brilliantly so 🏴🏴🏴🏴🏴🏴🏴
There has been Rob, especially after the Spain game. It is also supposed to be light hearted.
"Spain lost their top scorer Hermoso and Ballon d'or winner Putellas to injury just before the tournament. Both play for Barcelona and i think last night might have different had they played. Also that sub (Sarriegi?) looked decent when she came on, no idea why they left her on the bench so long."
"I won't say we didn't deserve it - we scored more goals than they did. But that was poor, and Spain for me had more quality overall. But hey, into the semis, and that should keep our feet on the ground for whoever we meet next."
"Hearing the confidence drain out of the commentary team as it becomes slowly clear Spain are (so far) the better team is quite something."
*Edit* Reading the article again and your comments again, I genuinely don't understand what you are getting at mate. The whole point of the article is that they can't slag off the women's team the way they slag off the men's, despite the men having probably the best team (over a sustained period of time) they have ever had, because the women won the tournament. They desperately want failure so they can say "I told you so", even when they have said pre-tournament "anything bar a semi-final will not be good enough" losing in the final is still "not good enough" after the event.
This is about negative English fans, not men v women. That's how I read it, anyway?
PS - I am not saying that any of the people whose posts I quoted are among the permanently negative, theirs were just the easiest to find...
In 20 games England ladies have scored 106 and conceded 5. I think that says a fair bit about the level of their opposition. They can only beat what’s put in front of them. But, it is a bit like putting the top 4 sides in the Premiership in the National league and then getting all excited that they finish in the top 4. They play mostly teams who are nowhere near their professional WSL level.
In 20 games England ladies have scored 106 and conceded 5. I think that says a fair bit about the level of their opposition. They can only beat what’s put in front of them. But, it is a bit like putting the top 4 sides in the Premiership in the National league and then getting all excited that they finish in the top 4. They play mostly teams who are nowhere near their professional WSL level.
The group stage was a given, but after that they beat the favourites, the world no 2 team and then the 8 times winners in the final. Not a bad effort.
Some interesting figures in this article. Womens football will now grow exponentially in this country and things like new TV and sponsorship deals will increase significantly to reflect that. That said i can't ever see it getting close to the numbers in the men's game (both in terms of consistent crowds and turnover). Man City's men's teams turnover is almost 200 times that of the women's team!
Leah Williamson seems to have earned 200k last season. Obviously a fraction of what the vastly overpaid top male players earn, but that's still a decent salary, and one which will continue to grow.
Some interesting figures in this article. Womens football will now grow exponentially in this country and things like new TV and sponsorship deals will increase significantly to reflect that. That said i can't ever see it getting close to the numbers in the men's game (both in terms of consistent crowds and turnover). Man City's men's teams turnover is almost 200 times that of the women's team!
Leah Williamson seems to have earned 200k last season. Obviously a fraction of what the vastly overpaid top male players earn, but that's still a decent salary, and one which will continue to grow.
I suspect the majority of that £200k is from Nike, Pepsi and Gucci
European champions England are set to face World Cup holders the USA at Wembley on 7 October.
The first meeting between the teams at Wembley is subject to Sarina Wiegman's side securing World Cup qualification in September's final two group games.
England, who beat Germany 2-1 in the final in front of an all-time Euros record crowd of 87,192 at Wembley on Sunday, have already sold more than 20,000 tickets for their final World Cup qualifier against Luxembourg at Stoke's Bet365 Stadium."
20k+ for a womens qualifier v Luxembourg is incredible. We won the reverse fixture 10-0 so everyone going will likely see as easy a win as they ever will.
I don't understand this. Literally not seen one negative post anywhere about this great achievement. All there's been is post after post, making incorrect comparisons between the success of the women's team and lack of success of the mens in two very different competitions (possibly four, come the WC), and of how women have had to come in and do what men couldn't.
Before people start no platforming and shouting "woke", it's got nothing to do with wokeness and more to do with acknowledging the fact that the women haven't won the men's Euro Championship, they've won the women's equivalent and brilliantly so 🏴🏴🏴🏴🏴🏴🏴
There has been Rob, especially after the Spain game. It is also supposed to be light hearted.
"Spain lost their top scorer Hermoso and Ballon d'or winner Putellas to injury just before the tournament. Both play for Barcelona and i think last night might have different had they played. Also that sub (Sarriegi?) looked decent when she came on, no idea why they left her on the bench so long."
"I won't say we didn't deserve it - we scored more goals than they did. But that was poor, and Spain for me had more quality overall. But hey, into the semis, and that should keep our feet on the ground for whoever we meet next."
"Hearing the confidence drain out of the commentary team as it becomes slowly clear Spain are (so far) the better team is quite something."
*Edit* Reading the article again and your comments again, I genuinely don't understand what you are getting at mate. The whole point of the article is that they can't slag off the women's team the way they slag off the men's, despite the men having probably the best team (over a sustained period of time) they have ever had, because the women won the tournament. They desperately want failure so they can say "I told you so", even when they have said pre-tournament "anything bar a semi-final will not be good enough" losing in the final is still "not good enough" after the event.
This is about negative English fans, not men v women. That's how I read it, anyway?
PS - I am not saying that any of the people whose posts I quoted are among the permanently negative, theirs were just the easiest to find...
That first comment is mine and to be honest i think it's a pretty fair observation rather than a negative comment given the 2 players missing were the best player in the world and their top scorer.
It's like a team saying we beat Man City but Haaland and De Bruyne were missing so it might have been different had they played.
It doesn't take anything away from England at all, they still have to beat what's in front of them.
European champions England are set to face World Cup holders the USA at Wembley on 7 October.
The first meeting between the teams at Wembley is subject to Sarina Wiegman's side securing World Cup qualification in September's final two group games.
England, who beat Germany 2-1 in the final in front of an all-time Euros record crowd of 87,192 at Wembley on Sunday, have already sold more than 20,000 tickets for their final World Cup qualifier against Luxembourg at Stoke's Bet365 Stadium."
20k+ for a womens qualifier v Luxembourg is incredible. We won the reverse fixture 10-0 so everyone going will likely see as easy a win as they ever will.
Luxembourg?! 10 nil in the away game. I don't understand why people would want to watch that? if it was the mens i would feel the same.
European champions England are set to face World Cup holders the USA at Wembley on 7 October.
The first meeting between the teams at Wembley is subject to Sarina Wiegman's side securing World Cup qualification in September's final two group games.
England, who beat Germany 2-1 in the final in front of an all-time Euros record crowd of 87,192 at Wembley on Sunday, have already sold more than 20,000 tickets for their final World Cup qualifier against Luxembourg at Stoke's Bet365 Stadium."
20k+ for a womens qualifier v Luxembourg is incredible. We won the reverse fixture 10-0 so everyone going will likely see as easy a win as they ever will.
Luxembourg?! 10 nil in the away game. I don't understand why people would want to watch that? if it was the mens i would feel the same.
First home game since the Euro's, people up north who couldn't get down to London wanting to go and congratulate them? Tickets are only 15 quid for adults and 2.50 for kids, so pretty affordable for a family to go.
But yes the game will be a non-contest, depending how seriously they push it, they might even get close to the 20-0 we had v Latvia.
Comments
17m watched the final on Sunday in the UK which was great, but the audience have been far smaller if it had been Spain vs Germany in the final, whereas if Spain had played Germany in the final of the men's Euros, it would still have got a massive audience.
I imagine the same applies to all the other countries, where people watch their national team, but the numbers for 3rd party games are far lower, how many people in France or Spain watched the final after they got knocked out?
The gap will close over time, as women's football is a much better spectacle than it used to be, thanks to leagues going professional, and the standards of training and facilities much improved.
When women's football gets crowds and television audiences and interest consistently near or on par with top flight men's football the sponsorship, endorsements and salaries will follow.
There's a reason Adele and Ed Sheeran command more money than other talented professional musicians who captivate vastly smaller audiences.
It's nothing to do with fairness or inequity.
If the attendances and viewing figures were identical and there was disparity in pay then that would be hugely unfair.
The real silly money didn't enter the men's game until the explosion of sky football post Italia 90 in the UK and lucrative Serie A in Italy in early to mid 90s.
If the women's game generates the interest and attendances it will have that trajectory.
It gets a huge amount of publicity and the triumph is the perfect springboard to kick-start it on a mass market level.
But it is completely rationale that there is still a material disparity between pay because of the economics of how commercially attractive the game is at present.
Rugby fans done it for years.
If you don't like men's football don't watch it. Millions if not billions of us live for it.
It's not a binary choice. You can still enjoy or go to women's football with or without liking the men's game if you want.
No need to constantly compare both to give one or the other the edge.
The women's game will continue to flourish and improve and grow without the need to knock the men's version.
Supply and demand I suppose and with capacity reduced that added to it I suppose
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-62378095
"Spain lost their top scorer Hermoso and Ballon d'or winner Putellas to injury just before the tournament. Both play for Barcelona and i think last night might have different had they played. Also that sub (Sarriegi?) looked decent when she came on, no idea why they left her on the bench so long."
"I won't say we didn't deserve it - we scored more goals than they did. But that was poor, and Spain for me had more quality overall. But hey, into the semis, and that should keep our feet on the ground for whoever we meet next."
"Hearing the confidence drain out of the commentary team as it becomes slowly clear Spain are (so far) the better team is quite something."
*Edit* Reading the article again and your comments again, I genuinely don't understand what you are getting at mate. The whole point of the article is that they can't slag off the women's team the way they slag off the men's, despite the men having probably the best team (over a sustained period of time) they have ever had, because the women won the tournament. They desperately want failure so they can say "I told you so", even when they have said pre-tournament "anything bar a semi-final will not be good enough" losing in the final is still "not good enough" after the event.
This is about negative English fans, not men v women. That's how I read it, anyway?
PS - I am not saying that any of the people whose posts I quoted are among the permanently negative, theirs were just the easiest to find...
European champions England are set to face World Cup holders the USA at Wembley on 7 October.
The first meeting between the teams at Wembley is subject to Sarina Wiegman's side securing World Cup qualification in September's final two group games.
England, who beat Germany 2-1 in the final in front of an all-time Euros record crowd of 87,192 at Wembley on Sunday, have already sold more than 20,000 tickets for their final World Cup qualifier against Luxembourg at Stoke's Bet365 Stadium."
20k+ for a womens qualifier v Luxembourg is incredible. We won the reverse fixture 10-0 so everyone going will likely see as easy a win as they ever will.
It's like a team saying we beat Man City but Haaland and De Bruyne were missing so it might have been different had they played.
It doesn't take anything away from England at all, they still have to beat what's in front of them.
But yes the game will be a non-contest, depending how seriously they push it, they might even get close to the 20-0 we had v Latvia.
Pretty unlikely!
bodes well if good interest even without knowing England were on verge of getting there
Only hospitality seats left apparently.