UKC

I really like womens football, I think the standard is high enough to get more tv coverage. Some of them, the goalkeepers in particular could make the England mens team. The problem is where do they advance from now? Without a wider well structured league system with reasonable sponsorship and more media(tv) coverage I think a worthwhile addition to sport will be on a hold. Schools could obviously play a major part.

In reply to Al Evans:

no chance, they are miles behind the blokes. Physiclally she is incomparable to Hart.

It has been on TV numerous times, TV ratings are generally very poor.

In reply to Al Evans:


It hasn't got the historic significance, tradition and the embedded team support that men's football has.

Funny you should mention goalkeepers, because although I haven't watched much women's football, the goalies have always seemed to me like the weakest players in comparison to the men.

In reply to Al Evans:

"Some of them, the goalkeepers in particular could make the England mens team"

The last time we had the UKC womens football debate, the consensus was something like the England Womens team would come mid table in the lowest non league national league.

In reply to Al Evans: I find women's football a bit hit and miss. I've seen the England women's team play at Wembley and they were pretty dire, but I also saw Reading vs Wimbledon at the Madjeski and it was a cracking game!
In all honesty, I only watch the occasional game because my neice has started playing, so it's more to give her something to aspire to than a major interest on my part..

In reply to Al Evans:
I think it's a good game in its own right also. Yes it's football but its a different formulation of the sport. I don't think the two styles can be compared.

I also think to accommodate mixed teams or women in the mens games. The rules of the game will need to be changed to stop or limit such things as 50-50 challenges? phyiscally touching each other?, slide tackles? Tackling? contested headers? contested free kicks and corners? Etc

Talking about the goal keepers do you think the women you have seen play have the physical attributes to come through a crowd of blokes to collect a high ball during a corner or free kick when those blokes are also going for the ball?

In reply to Alan M:


I think this is a little unfair. Currently, you are right that women's teams are behind the men in terms of development but I think calling "a different formulation of the sport" does it an injustice. There are obvious reasons for any disparity. It starts at the grass roots of the sport. It is only fairly recently that the FA have allowed girls to play in mixed leagues up to the age of sixteen. Prior to this they had to find single sex teams. As recently as the 2010/11 season, FA rules allowed only girls of primary school age (under-11s) to play football with boys. The FA raised the age group from under-13s for the following season, before incremental one-year increases for each of the following seasons. As there are are comparatively fewer girls teams to play for this has put them at a massive disadvantage to boys in terms of opportunity and development. Add to this the reticence of some junior managers to play girls (for sexist reasons rather than ability) and you can see a how hard it has been for girls to break into a male dominated sport. By the way, these observations are not woolly assumptions that I'm making here - they are things that I have witnessed after five years coaching junior football.

In reply to Al Evans: Just looking at the Prem league nowadays, it's a bit of a girls sport anyway! lol

On a more serious note... The all girl teams are treated very differently to the boys/mixed teams. They wrap them in cotton wool and don't allow them to get too physical, which puts the girls at a huge disadvantage when playing against other girls that have come up in mixed teams! Also, a lot of local secondary schools have no girls football teams, so they don't get the amount of practice the boys get.

In reply to Morty:


Having watched the WWC I'd say they weren't just behind, the gap is cavernous, the poor quality of the footbsll at the WWC was like the great unmentionable but much of it was desperate.


Apparently not.


I would say the problems kick in at 10 years old and then magnify til the mid 20s by which time it's hopeless.

The problem isn't football and it isn't much to do with what the FA does or doesn't do, the problem is women trying to do something that they don't like doing and starting them early might be part of the problem.

In comparison to the men's game, the development of women's football has failed. If you look at where the men's game was in it's first 50 years and where women's football is now after 50 years then it's apparent that it simply hasn't fired women the way the game energised men.

The Women's FA were unable to stem a decline in participation in the 1980s and then similarly unable to cope when numbers increased after the 1990 Italia men's world cup, so they voted to be taken over by the FA. Although it was quite a bitter situation and the antis forced a review by Blair's government after 10 years but that concluded that the cash and organisational and coaching skill the FA brought in had shown enormous benefits, so women's football became a minor part of the men's game. It's a bit like colonisation, development has been quicker but at cost of an indigenous culture.

It's left women's football totally dependent on the men's game, one of the US women who tried to sue FIFA over the astro turf pitches at the WWC even managed to suggest FIFA should divide their expenditure 50-50 between men and women's football!

But it's not just a football problem, the Women's Sport and Fitness Foundation has found the same across a multitude of women's sports, especially team games. Girls start to leave at an accelerated rate at 10 and 16-24 year old women are 6 times more likely to leave sport than men the same age. They put it down to the way women are 'hard wired' for socialisation, the way girls' priorities change over time is quite shocking. Little girls value their family above just about anything else. By the time they are 16, friends, boyfriends, socialising, shopping and going out are all more important than family. Sports even lower still. So there is a mountain to climb there and the WSFF admitted they really didn't have an answer to it all.

BTW This season mixed teams go up to U18, but the Italians have had mixed football up to U17 (IIRC) for nearly 40 years and it doesn't seem to have done them much good, so it's effect looks like being negligible. Also when the WSFF asked girls if lack of players or lack of opportunity was the problem that made them give up, it wasn't high up the list.

In reply to Al Evans:

I think a major factor is the competition from hockey and netball, which end up with lots of the women who'd otherwise be decent at football. I don't think men's football loses all that many good players to rugby- typically you play both when young then pick the one you're better at. Also unlike the first post I think the standard of women goalkeepers lags far below outfield players, both at high and local club level. E.g. at my old club where some of the womens team players could hold their own against the men they struggled to find a keeper who wasn't dreadful. But at the nearby hockey club there were plenty of goalkeepers who could have be good at football if they'd taken it up. The reverse means that taking up hockey as a second sport as a man you can quickly find yourself playing at reasonably good level, despite still playing like a football keeper.

"the poor quality of the footbsll at the WWC was like the great unmentionable but much of it was desperate."

It sounds obvious but it's worth pointing out that the standard of the men's game is really really high. Once you're used to watching that on tv, it's not really surprising that the womens game looks bad in comparison. Men's conference level football does as well. But, if you found yourself on the pitch during a conference game all the players who looked lumbering and slow and clumsy on tv would suddenly seem a lot more skilled and athletic.

In reply to Al Evans:

I disagree, I really don´t like watching women´s football or, even worse, women´s handball. I find either sport simply not entertaining enough from the spectator´s viewpoint. Can´t really say why, but maybe both sports need a level of aggression and dynamism that is lacking in the women´s version. Also, the technical level on display just does not compare. Funnily even my wife agrees, even though she played handball to a reasonable level.

Still, I very much welcome that these sports have been opened to women, and wish them commercial success when they try to go professional. However, personally I am just not interested enough to watch, and even less prepared to pay for the privilege.

This is nothing special. I also competed in a sport that made crap viewing despite many reforms to make it more watchable (judo in this case, with white and blue suits introduced so non experts could actually spot which leg belonged to whom in a ground fight....) and hence remained resolutely amateur.

My dislike of women´s football also has nothing to do with the level at which a women´s team would compete in the men´s league system. I absolutely love watching women´s athletics, even though men run faster. Same goes for climbing or judo.

CB

In reply to winhill:

So football is an innately male sport? The same with rugby is suppose? Any other sports that women hate but feel forced to compete in?


I think this point misses the fact that this development hasn't taken place on a level playing field - no pun intended.




The same organisation, in Changing The Game For Girls, said:
"This research does bring some good news: it has found that overwhelmingly girls want to be active, to take part in physical exercise, and to stay healthy. What needs to change is not their appetite to get involved, but the type of
opportunities and level of encouragement that society, particularly in education, offers them to do so."

I think this point supports my assertion that is as much down to opportunity as it is down to conditioning and social norms. It also goes on to point out "The research finds that contrary to popular perceptions, girls do like competitive sport" which seems to refute your earlier point that "the problem is women trying to do something that they don't like".

You make some excellent points but the tone of your argument seems defeatist. After reading the report I can see that there are a lot of barriers to women's participation in sport, though these seem largely to do with the opportunities available to girls, conditioning and social pressure rather than some innate "hardwired" reversion. Despite your point that "the WSFF admitted they really didn't have an answer to it all" they do offer a variety of interesting recommendations to improve the situation.

Edit: SPaG

In reply to Morty:

I don't think it is unfair it depends were you want to draw the line between the games. Lets get this bit clear yes I do think women are just as capable as playing football as men, yes I do think some women will become more skillful than some men, yes I do think that some women will be just as good or bad a professional as some men, yes I do think some women will be faster and stronger than some men etc etc. I am not talking about player and skill development.

The reason why I say they are different formulations of the same game is that to accommodate mixed teams or women in the male (adult) game) would require a fundamental change in the rules of what is and isn't acceptable on the pitch this will then change how the game is played.

As an example if you watched any of the games over the weekend you would have seen countless examples. There is currently situations were players will touch each other such as jostling for position in the box, using their body mass to ease an opponent of the ball, when running along side and challenging for the ball hands touching each other, standing a player up, holding on to the ball using your body and arms for defense, defending player pressing their body against the attacking body etc etc etc none of these in their own right are necessarily fouls (they can become so). That is just one part of the game I think that would need to be stopped in the men's game if women/mixed teams developed. All of the above is fine in single sex games but in mixed teams it adds ambiguity as to when does it go too far?

The above list doesn't include all of the illegal touching that are instant fouls and the involuntary touching that just happens when two people are battling in close proximity for the ball.

In reply to Alan M:




My mistake, I misunderstood your first post.

I'm chuckling away at this argument. It's wonderfully paternalistic. These sorts of arguments have been used for centuries to justify barring women from workplaces and spaces that are traditionally all male.

Clearly not something the FA is too worried about in allowing hormonal teenagers to play together. Would you advocate single sex spotting for boulderers? All sorts of untoward touching could go on there!

In reply to Morty:


No problems, its easy to do plus my first post wasn't that clear.

In reply to Snoweider:


Don't be an idiot. You know exactly what I am getting at and if you watch male adult football you will see the huge difference between the teenage game as one example that you pick up on with regards to how players interact.

In reply to Alan M:
Actually, I genuinely don't see the problem and I'm not sure what you are getting at. Your comment of "when does it go too far" made me chuckle. When does what go to far? Are you suggesting that women might be hurt by the physicality (ever watched a game of womens hockey) or are you suggesting that men might accidentally or deliberately cop a feel? Of course there is a difference between teenage football and the adult game, but I think teams should be formed on the basis of ability, and strength. This may mean that unisex adult teams continue long in to the future, but not for fear that a certain type of touching might occur.

In reply to Snoweider:

My posts have been clear I have mentioned mixed teams and women in the ADULT male game. I have said that the Adult male game would need a rule change changing the way the game is played. I have at no point said no to mixed teams or mixed leagues or no to women in football I have been clear that I think some women will be just as good as some men etc.

When does it go too far!!....In the same sense as how extra protection is given to goal keepers over the outfield player. Can this rule be used for some outfield players? leading to the comment below;

I have not said men would deliberately cop a feel, I've been clear in stating how players touch each other I gave examples non of them lead to coping a feel. Massive difference between touching in football to defend your position or winning the ball and sexual assault so lets leave that one out of the discussion. I think the majority of men would always have an advantage over the majority of women in the game using these methods to defend/win the ball back....leading back to the second comment.

I personally think that the two games at the moment are different formulations and can't just be merged. The male game has its way of playing the female game has its way of playing. With the current rules I'm not sure they are compatible.

I'm not sure if they would be hurt by the physicality but taking the OP point about goal keepers etc I'm not sure I have seen any female goalkeeper that has the physical attributes that could go through a group of blokes fighting for the ball, or win a 50-50 challenge on a loose ball against a player like Costa, Nolan, Benteke, Lukaku etc etc etc.

In reply to Snoweider:


I think you're dead right here. I did have to apologise to a climbing partner last week for effectively slapping her **se while spotting her, but she just said - "no, thanks you actually stopped my sideways swing". These days, most grownups and indeed most teenagers, apart from the most woefully maladapted ones in each camp, can deal with this stuff.

As with some of the objections raised in another different but related thread here recently, such arguments, wheter about 'touching' etc. or other largely imaginary risks are usually retrospective justifications for bans and proscriptions that come from deep-seated prejudices on the part of some of the people making the rules and telling the rest of us how to live our lives, and so they can probably be ignored. BUT - just one thing to say in qualification of that...

Those other recent debates here have made me realise that in an area dedicated to a particular form of physical activity, it's possible that in _some_ clubs and organisations, people might rise to pre-eminence purely on the basis of a very narrow set of skills to do with excelling at a physical activity, and then after they pass their physical peak, they might find themselves doing managerial or administrative roles in their sport that they are otherwise entirely unsuited to. That's not my personal experience as nearly all my own climbing friends are also rather wonderful human beings, but some other people's experiences shared here suggest that maybe in some situations you might get people who are utter meatheads, or maybe just a bit simple, or perhaps even socially maladapted who find themselves in a position of power and influence through being good at just one thing, and who go on to tell pregnant women that they should night climb, or tell boys and girls that they should not play football together, or to pontificate about all manner of things that they absolutely don't have a clue about? The problem there is that when such people are in a position of power, it's harder to ignore the stupid things they might say.

In reply to Alan M:

Do you think female outfield players need extra protection? Why?


Good- because I'm still not fully understanding the rationale behind your fears about rule changes.


That may be true at the moment... Times change and the women's game is progressing at a spectacular rate. I'm with the OP on this. The FA's decision to allow mixed sex football up to age 18 is only going to improve things.

In reply to Snoweider:


It doesn't need a good comment as I didn't say it would lead to coping a feel and I didn't allude to it either.


The two points (protection and rule change) above are linked I think as it stands watching both women and men play football that the games are played differently. I think in the current scope of the rules men would have the advantage over women in winning the ball back. Look at the current premier league squads as en example most central defenders are big blokes, same for defensive and central midfielders and many forwards in the current rules they have more legal options to out muscle a smaller opponent, both men and women. The difference being the smaller blokes i.e sterling as an example are still likely to be stronger than many of the female players making the fight for the ball a bit fairer but not totally fair etc. From what I have seen of both styles of football currently I think most female players would be at a disadvantage due to the current style of defensive play and the rules that allow it. Any change in the rules to give protection to outfield players would need to extend to the smaller blokes also.


Same here, I've been clear that I think women can be just as good as men. Whether that extends in to being able to play at professional premier league level only time will tell. The debate is open whether we have a mixed professional league or it all ends up in the premier league I'm not sure what the answer is or were it will end up.

In reply to Alan M:

Whenever I watch prem league football, which admittedly isn't that often nowadays, I find that the merest hint of physical contact results in a player rolling round on the floor like he was hit with a bat! I don't see anything that's too physical for women in today's game. No doubt the game will be too physical for some girls, but then, it's too physical for some boys too...

In reply to Alan M:

Ok so what you are saying isn't about "touching" - its about throwing your weight around when winning the ball back?

It's a normal and acceptable part of either the male or female game. The rules on this for the men's and women's game are the same, but it is less of a feature of the womens game due to different playing styles. I can now see your point, although I do disagree with it fundamentally. Football leagues where mixed football are already played are clear that players should be selected on the basis of their ability, strength and stamina, not gender. I suspect as more girls train and play with boys, the way girls play will change too. Also, nobody is asking for a rule change so that short, light men can play in defence, that would be absurd. If the mixed game is extended to an adult level in the UK we are obviously more likely to see female players in attacking and midfield roles than in defence due to body size. This is a body size thing not a gender thing. I've just been reminded that female swedish striker Hanna Ljungberg was almost signed for Serie A side Perugia. If a woman is good enough, why shouldn't she play along side men?

In reply to ScottTalbot:


You obviously don't watch football that much. Yes some players play for the foul under the slightest of touches (I would like a rule change there also) but there are still many parts of the game were players battle it out using body mass/weight alone to win the advantage and neither player goes down or it goes beyond a fair fight that the ref blows for a foul. It's in these situations I think the majority of male players would have the advantage over their female counterpart.

In reply to Alan M:


This looks to be the kind of argument that is being deployed here most often to justify segregated sports, but to me that just doesn't stack up. The end result of these arguments seem to be that because MOST women would be at a disadvantage when playing with male players, if one particular woman comes along who were able to compete, she would not be judged on her own merits but would be barred from playing because most other women wouldn't be able to, so she shouldn't be able to either, according to whatever weird theory underlies this way of thinking. But in fact we KNOW that really, the only reason an otherwise capable woman wouldn't be able to play is that she ain't allowed to by the people making the rules.

Let's face it, if you applied the same logic to men, most men (the vast majority of us) would not be able to play professional football either, so really, those arguments fall flat on their face when you subject them to an impartial scrutiny.

In reply to Snoweider:


Yes, throwing your body weight around is probably a better way to describe it. However, I used touching as a general way to describe it as it including the examples (for me) also encompasses many of the more subtle ways to win an advantage using your larger body size etc.


I agree it isn't a gender thing no one wants to ban women from football. There isn't also any issues in keeping the main leagues different i.e professional men and professional women as like we agree currently the way men and women play football is different. We could go down the route of a new professional mixed league. There isn't any reason why men and women are not playing together in some capacity however, the mechanism and vehicle required to facilitate that is where the debate is.

I suppose it is all down to how fast people want things to progress. For me to incorporate women in the current adult male game would need rule changes to even up the disadvantages. In 10 or 20 years time who knows maybe we will see our first female premier league striker. Setting up a new league would probably be easier and faster to remove the barriers. who knows what the answer is?

In reply to Andy Morley:
Absolutely, and a little google about and I've found a few examples where women have been signed by male teams, and Fifa have stopped it. If the teams think they are worth the investment...this argument doesn't stack up!

One that illustrates my point is the case of mexican player Maribel Dominguez who was stopped from playing for a Mexican side. The Mexican FA actually approved it. Then Fifa stepped in and even banned her from playing in an exhibition game. Her words "I just wanted to be given the chance to try" She grew up playing boys football- the boys in her neighbourhood thought she was a boy, she cut her hair short and called herself Mario.

Edit- in reply to Alan M:

See my point above, I think if Fifa backed off we'd see women playing for top men's teams a little sooner than you think.

A "special" league for men and women sounds like a cop out. Who would want to play in that? Why not just let the market forces of football (ie clubs) decide?

In reply to Alan M:


I watch girls football every week. The girls that have come from mixed teams play a very physical game, as they've had to learn to be more physical to win the ball... It's all about environment.

In reply to Andy Morley:

Yes and that is why I have mentioned rule changes many many times. I think that in the current rules and how they are policed in the men's game most men would have the advantage meaning most women would not get an opportunity. I have said in one of my posts that there is no reason why men and women are not playing together in some capacity. I have also said in an other post that some women will be better than some men etc etc.

However, for me the current mens game and womens game can't just be merged without a rule change to police the on field actions to a greater extent.


That comment is true, the vast vast vast vast majority of men are not able to play professional football. Also consider the amount of young kids let go by professional team academies due to them thinking they will not be strong enough or big enough to play at professional level.

In reply to Snoweider:



I don't think it is, yes let market forces decide but I would put more money on a professional mixed league leading to women playing in the Premier League or La Liga or in the World cup faster than waiting for a FIFA rule change. Who would play in it....money talks!!....Think MLS.

In reply to Snoweider:

Of course you can see what he's getting at.

It will change the dynamic on a pitch. Personally I wouldnt have enjoyed playing competitive games with women. You do grapple with your opponent you do fly into hefty challenges, if they were female you'd certainly tone down the physical side of your game..

Interestingly I was chatting with a US soldier about women becoming US Rangers and in combat. She was against it. Her view, as a veteran on many tours in Iraq and Afghanistan on the front line, was that men are naturally protective of women and would affect their behaviour, making them more likely to act in a risky way to protect women, and that she had seen that herself.

In reply to Roadrunner5:


I think that phase would last only as long as you were still able to reliably win the ball. Once you started getting beaten I suspect you'd revert to using whatever legitimate means you had available. Of course you might then still get beaten

In reply to Roadrunner5:

Now I don't see what you are getting at! How is the behaviour of people in combat relevent to a game of football?

Are you saying that women on the pitch affect men's behaviour? I'm back to chuckling.

No rule change required except the one that currently bars people of the same ability from competing together.

In reply to Alan M:


I'm sorry Alan, but I think some of your underlying logic is either flawed or requires some further explanation.

Football is a sport, or should be, not an exercise in social engineering. You advanced a similar argument in an earlier post where you said: "to incorporate women in the current adult male game would need rule changes to even up the disadvantages."

I don't know whether these are your own arguments, or ones you have heard being advanced elsewhere in the sport and are relaying here, but to me they look like a way of delaying reform.

To 'even up the disadvantages' would be a mammoth task and maybe even impossible. To introduces this as a goal is simply a way of making the whole process of reform so difficult as to put it off for the next 20 years, which I think was the time-frame you mentioned.

However, you could remove the bar on women football players without any of that. You don't actually _need_ to 'even up the disadvantages' to give talented women a chance, you just need to give them an opportunity to compete.

I don't disagree with you entirely - I think change will take a long time. But I think we should be honest about these things; the only real obstacle to women entering the full-blown game now is the values and beliefs of the people who run the sport, and of many of the spectators too.

In reply to Snoweider:

Then you have no idea. The combat example was of a women talking about how the males changed the behaviour when in a war zone, and that she as a woman was against women becoming rangers (elite special forces)

Of course I am saying that, the men would not be as physical... i.e. they would change their behaviour.

The gap is standard is huge. You see it in Athletics.

Womans WR for a marathon 2:15, one other has ran 2:18?

Many men have ran 2:08 and quicker... the WR is a gap of 13 minutes, 30s per mile.

Endurance and speed it would be a massive gap so why not just have separate leagues.

And you will discourage participation, have separate leagues, separate elite leagues. Its been a success in the US.

In reply to Andy Morley:

So the most talented women can either play as full time professional in the USA, or make £40 a game playing in the Northern Premier or whatever it is now...

I think its more than the beliefs. I think it would reduce participation. From 12-13 years onwards the physical side of the game would push women out of the game, a few may survive and go onto play sub-elite but overall I'm fairly certain we'd say a massively reduced level of participation.

In reply to john arran:

I dont think so.

Men have a higher bone density and are stronger, have more power. It would be dangerous. There are differences between the sexes.

Change the rule and see, I think we will see reduced participation.

In reply to Roadrunner5:

Just because a woman says something that might be considered sexist if a man said it, doesn't make it less sexist. I don't know much about war psychology, so can't say whether her words ring true, but I find no relevance to football in her comments, except maybe... "men don't achieve their potential when asked to work/play alongside women". If that's the case, it's a shame and something society should address, no?

Love your sporting examples. How can I argue with that? I mean, women are so rubbish at sport.

Anyway- did you see the results for the Glencoe Skyline race? A new sport, with no history of inequality... Lo! a woman comes second. Ultra running is obviously quite different to football, but so is marathon running- your example.

In reply to Snoweider:

No never heard of it...

Hold on minority sport woman does well...

What an absolutely incredibly ignorant statement! Jesus christ that is superb. Look at athletics, 100m 200m

There is a huge gap between the sexes in any mass participation.

And do women want to play with men? The OP says it will help? But what do women soccer players want?

Did I say women were rubbish at sport? What a silly comment. They are still a long way behind.

You may think this is sexist. It is just fact. Women have bones which are less dense. On average they are smaller and weaker. The sport would still be dominated by men.

Will a woman eve have made top level athletics if one sex?

By allowing single sex sports you allow women to experience elite level sport, world championships etc. Women can play professional when men of a similar ability cannot. So you want to ban single sex sport?

So no woment at wimbledone.. its all on ability... to ban men from the womens game would be sexist... no role models for female athletes.. or do we separate the sports and allow women to play at their sport at the elite level and get the exposure..

Or are you saying women should be allowed to play in male leagues but not vice versa?


Or just have your cake and eat it...

You are the one being sexist...

You really have not thought this through at all..

In reply to Snoweider:
And lets say you do follow female sky and ultra running you'd actually see what happened this weekend which was yet again disgusting..

Sky running have done it in the past and the UTMB were just as bad. Sexism is alive and well in sport yet only those who participate in these sports know where...

Go and have a look at the podiums..

I'll give you a clue..

https://www.facebook.com/UltraTrailMontBlanc/photos/a.647454285291019.10737...

In reply to Roadrunner5:


There's no way of knowing any of these things without trying them, but for the life of me, I can't see that allowing women to have a go at qualifying for top-class football would result in girls playing less rather than more. I think this is just another of a whole raft of dreadful calamities that people are proposing would result from removing this ban, as a way of avoiding the more real calamity that the people spreading this alarm imagine would befall their game if bars and bans and protectionism of this kind were removed.

I'm afraid everything changes, one way or another and for better or worse and I'm simply not convinced that lifting restrictions on who can play is ever going to be a bad thing, whether it's based on skin-colour, gender, religion or anything else. But to be quite honest, even if lifting the race bar (to take another example) made South African sport 'worse' in some ways, I for one would still want to see the racial segregation removed. Sometimes you just have to take a stand on these things.

In reply to Andy Morley:
"I'm afraid everything changes, one way or another and for better or worse and I'm simply not convinced that lifting restrictions on who can play is ever going to be a bad thing, whether it's based on skin-colour, gender, religion or anything else"

Because if you allow women to qualify for top level sport how can you ban men from qualifying for top level female sport? So we don't get women in top level sport? is that what you want? So we remove the barriers for males in female sport?

Ok so we remove segregation. We just reward the best.

Look at the podium above. We either celebrate the best 10 M and F or just the best 20 of one sex. By recognizing the best of each sex we are segregating based on sex.

To compare separate sex sport with segregation is just absolutely incredible!

Its like allowing women in the final of the mens marathon at the olympics.. it makes no difference, They cannot physically compete. They can at minority sports, thats just basic stats.

In reply to Andy Morley:


We will have to agree to disagree on this one we have many common factors but see some fundamental areas differently.

Men and womens football is the same sport but that doesn't mean they have to be played in the same manner to be appreciated and enjoyed and I think that is the over arching issue. Look at my point about all of the kids that don't make it beyond school boy and academy level due to clubs believing that they are too small, not strong enough etc. The current game and its dynamics require strong physical players or players that can compete and that will not change. The current professional mens game dictates what type of player makes it to the highest level.

As it stands we are decades away from seeing women in something like the premier league as you only have to look at how the big clubs will drop perfectly adequate and highly skillful male players if they are not strong enough to compete with the physicality of the professional game.

So yes you do need a change in the rules for the on field play to make the male professional game change its stance on the type of player required. If they don't think the player can compete with their peers regardless how skillful their feet are they will not get a chance... that goes for both men and women. Unfortunately female football has not got the competitive history to suggest that they will compete at the male professional level. Hence why a rule change is needed to make the professional teams take the chance.

In reply to Snoweider:

See my point above, I think if Fifa backed off we'd see women playing for top men's teams a little sooner than you think.

If you did allow women to play alongside men on an equal footing, would that mean the current top women's teams would be scrapped?
No women's world cup for example.
I personally don't think you'd see a single woman in the Premiership. If you did, then wouldn't that mean that the remaining vast majority of women will never play in the top tiers of the sport. At least at the moment, women have the chance to play in world cups, etc.

In reply to Roadrunner5:


Do you honestly believe that this would happen? I mean _really_? Or is this just another example of the dreadful calamities that traditionalists always propose would be the result of any change to the established order?

In reply to Andy Morley:

Hold on ar eyou arguing that females should play male sports but not vice versa? A woman could take the job of a man in a pro team but he couldnt go and play womens soccer and make that wage?

We started separate sex soccer and basketball, because they were being lost to sport at puberty as male strength out competed them. We can remove the strength/speed component (walking football) but that loses a point of many of these sports which is to combat teen aggression in a controlled safer way. They get to an age where testosterone comes in and sport allows that combat they seek.. you actually dont want to remove the strength and aggression component. By having elite level female only sport we provide role models for young female athletes.

If we didn't divide sports there would be so little chance of them making elite level they wouldn't bother. No woman in the history of running has gone close to male times.

How many 6 ft 9 women do you know?

OH and_doing_this_is_just_silly..

In reply to Roadrunner5:

I'm not holding up ultra running as a paragon of equality. Sadly it seems that sexism exists throughout sport.

If you look at the UTMB results over the years, the top women have not been far behind the elite men with the times they post. I find this interesting, both in terms of what the reasons for this are, and whether some sports favour women's attributes more than others. All this isn't actually relevent to my central point- I used the Skyline race result as an example because I find the "men are stronger than women" argument, which may be true, irrelevant when discussing whether people of the same ability should be allowed to compete together in football.

Your point about segregation providing a platform to showcase women's sport is a valid one. I'm not talking about banning women's leagues. I'm talking about a rule that prevents a group of people from gaining access to an elite level of their sport, that is based on something other than their ability to play football. During my quick google around I found numerous examples of talented players who reached the top of the women's game and were courted by top flight professional men's clubs, before being prevented from playing for them by Fifa.

Some of the arguments presented here are very archaic, and remind me of the reasons our ancestors gave for keeping women off bicycles, or stopping them climbing. The "it could be dangerous" one is laughable. Sports are dangerous, they are also fun, and can be lucrative if you pick the right one, and are both good and ideally male. In 1967 Kathrine Switzer's coach told her a marathon was too far to run for a fragile woman. Times change... Women are capable of things that the establishment and experts deemed physically impossible in recent memory. The biggest bar to women's success is not their physical skills- it is irrefutably the sporting establishment.

I'm signing off now. Got a bike to ride. Both dangerous and fun.

In reply to Roadrunner5:


No

In reply to Al Evans:

My feeling is that if mixed teams were allowed, men would soon get used to tackling women just as hard as men but that it might put some women off and probably decrease participation at grass roots level. Would a woman ever make the Prem on merit rather than a publicity stunt? - maybe - but it would be very rare.

In reply to Chris H:
Do you remember Ljunberg almost signing for Perugia in Serie A? She never did in the end and it was dismissed as a publicity stunt, that's the closest we've had.

In reply to Snoweider:
It would be dangerous.

It is incomparable to women running marathons, although to this day women compete at shorter distances in XC.

Women are on the whole the weaker sex with a lower bone density. It's why when we rank the great athletic records women are way down. That's not sexist, it is just very simple fact. The best female times are often about 10% slower than the male times.

There may be the odd outlier, we've never had it so far in main stream sports, but for that one case I think we'll see many more put off which is why we had single sex sports in the first place.

They are capable of playing football, playing with men at an elite level, I just don't think so. And the best females could probably survive at the lower echelons of the professional game which would give them very little financial reward or status to inspire others.

Its like Serena playing tennis against the men, she'd maybe make the first round at wimbledon but she'd not make the millions she has from playing female only tennis.

In reply to Roadrunner5:




If women are so weak as to be unable to compete with men playing football at a top professional level, why do you need rules to prevent them from even trying when you say that their underlying weakness would prevent them from making the grade in any case?

Surely such weak beings could not possibly be so dangerous as you appear to think! If you really believe in what you say, surely you could scrap these rules because they would not be needed - nature would prevent any woman from being selected on individual merit if what you say is always the case. What is it that you are so afraid of?

In reply to Andy Morley:

If you really believe in what you say, surely you could scrap these rules because they would not be needed - nature would prevent any woman from being selected on individual merit if what you say is always the case. What is it that you are so afraid of?

The rules are there to ensure that women are represented at some level within that particular sport. Take away the women's only teams in the hope that some women would make it into the now integrated teams and that representation would disappear. The only people that might benefit, would be a very minute minority (if any) of women that could compete against their male counterparts.
I would suggest, that the only people that would be afraid of such a move, would be the very people that you are trying to promote!

In reply to FactorXXX:


I'm not trying to promote anyone. But I wonder if anyone has asked the people on whose behalf the football authorities are so solicitous whether they actually want to be protected this way? Maybe they do, but personally, I smell a rat whenever someone tells me "It's for your own good", to which my reply, whether spoken or not, is invariably "b****x, it's for YOUR good not mine".

I'd just like to see people be more honest about these things.

In reply to FactorXXX:

Indeed. Ask the Williams sisters if they'd be enjoying their current levels of wealth if they'd beenplaying on the men's tour...

In reply to Andy Morley:

I'm not trying to promote anyone. But I wonder if anyone has asked the people on whose behalf the football authorities are so solicitous whether they actually want to be protected this way? Maybe they do, but personally, I smell a rat whenever someone tells me "It's for your own good", to which my reply, whether spoken or not, is invariably "b****x, it's for YOUR good not mine".

Alternatively, the women themselves could be demanding an equal playing field by asking for a unisex league.

In reply to FactorXXX:


Fair point. However, drawing on the example of the Williams sisters, no-one who's making a mint of money, or even just getting a lot of attention in a less lucrative sport is likely to rock the boat if they themselves are doing quite nicely thank-you out of any particular current system. I think what's really more important in any sport, area of employment or any other area that has governing bodies and rules is that they should explain the underlying values that drive those rules clearly, consistently and in a way that avoids fudges, untested assumptions and the 'nanny knows best' approach.

That itself is potentially controversial of course. The 'bread and circuses' idea has been around since Roman times at least, but as the recent controversy over Sepp Blatter shows, the intersection between the principle 'whatever pleases the masses and keeps them happy' and the parallel but sometimes divergent one of keeping the vested interests that run those circuses well-oiled and bribed can sometimes lead to a bumpy ride. In situations like that, honesty and clarity are often going to be the last thing you get. I tend to get very skeptical whenever the governing bodies of any of the more lucrative sports attempt to take the moral high-ground on any issue at all.

In reply to Andy Morley:

Fair point. However, drawing on the example of the Williams sisters, no-one who's making a mint of money, or even just getting a lot of attention in a less lucrative sport is likely to rock the boat if they themselves are doing quite nicely thank-you out of any particular current system. I think what's really more important in any sport, area of employment or any other area that has governing bodies and rules is that they should explain the underlying values that drive those rules clearly, consistently and in a way that avoids fudges, untested assumptions and the 'nanny knows best' approach.
That itself is potentially controversial of course. The 'bread and circuses' idea has been around since Roman times at least, but as the recent controversy over Sepp Blatter shows, the intersection between the principle 'whatever pleases the masses and keeps them happy' and the parallel but sometimes divergent one of keeping the vested interests that run those circuses well-oiled and bribed can sometimes lead to a bumpy ride. In situations like that, honesty and clarity are often going to be the last thing you get. I tend to get very skeptical whenever the governing bodies of any of the more lucrative sports attempt to take the moral high-ground on any issue at all.

Nothing controversial in it.
There's men' football and women's football. As simple as that and no need for anyone to have to explain why that is.

In reply to Andy Morley:

Well if you didn't you kill women's soccer

some may play men's, some may play women's.

We'll see, the fact is no women campaign to play because they know they make a better living as a female pro than a male amateur..

I'm afraid of them getting out of sport at 13-14 when male power dominates.

In reply to Andy Morley:


I think we've been honest..

Women won't make the grade. Let's have unisex 100m finals? We'd have no female athletes to inspire the next generation, no Jess Ennis.. We'd also have girls pushed away from sport with only the very elite surviving at a male decent (not great level).

If women want to disband their leagues and play unisex football then fair enough.. I don't think we'll see any demand.


We divided up the sexes in almost every sport for a very sound reason.

In reply to Roadrunner5:

Lots of very sexiist replies tothis thread, mostly not addressing the point, is womens football good and worth watching. I think it is.

In reply to Al Evans:


How are they sexist?

It is ludicrous to say anyone who said women can't compete physically at the elite level is sexist. This is just very basic biology and is backed by ALL world records at endurance and strength events.

You may think women's football is worth watching. Millions don't. People always say how they prefer to watch it but don't. It is quite simply not backed by viewing figures. I watched some of the world cup and it was OK but way behind the men's world cup.

In reply to Al Evans:

Not sure most people are being sexist per se Al and some might have found the OP a bit patronising. Most have addressed yr points - but don't agree with you. We could do with some input from women footballers really.

In reply to Chris H:

Ha! Not sure you lot would last 5 minutes if you took some of these comments to a women's football forum! I only commented as I take an active interest in football (which I doubt most women on here do, being too busy with the dangerous business of climbing (still can't believe he said that). Got bored by some of the dinosaurs on here and moved on....

In reply to Snoweider:

Dinosaur.. who's a dinosaur?

Do you deny that there is a physical strength discrepency?

I dont know about you but I volunteer and also coach professionally. I put shed loads of hours into youth participation in sports and just drove 1 hour each way and spent 1 and a half hours convincing a female student not to quit the sport... so if you are calling me a dinosaur you've made me chuckle..

In reply to Al Evans:

They are very far off even Leaugue 1/2 standard. A legacy of the London Olympics that we must now cover every sport on BBC whether it be Netball/Wms Football or disabled swimming.

In reply to Snoweider:

Not sure you lot would last 5 minutes if you took some of these comments to a women's football forum!

If they're proper football fans, with a pragmatic and realistic attitude to all things relating to football, then they'd probably agree that women are nowhere near the same level as their male counterparts.

In reply to Al Evans:


Much less lying around on the ground pretending to be injured. Also much less getting paid colossal sums of money to lie around, pretending to be injured.

In reply to Princess Bobina:


Which is a huge none of contention if you know anything about women's soccer.. The amount of money in it is minimal because people don't pay to watch it.

If you want to support it pay to watch it.. Watch it when it's on tv.. Cliche sound bites don't pay women..

In reply to Roadrunner5:

It is hardly ever on TV!

If it was then we would watch it more and it would gain more attention. Look how many more were watching Women's football after the World Cup - it needs to be on TV to gain attention.

In reply to Princess Bobina:


It was and noone watched it. The FA cup was always on TV. Seriously this just shows how little you take an interest...

So hold on.. you watch it so much you dont actually realise it's on TV? Pay for BT sport and you'll get it..

http://www.live-footballontv.com/live-womens-football-on-tv.html

This is the problem, many say they will watch it but put no effort into following it so there is no money in the sport.

In reply to Roadrunner5:

You don't know how much I take an interest in a sport I regularly participate in.

By TV we generally mean terrestrial services rather than Sky or BT or optional extras.

If it was on regular/freeview TV then more people might take an interest and appreciate women's football and that there is more to women's sport than being pin ups for teenage boys.

In reply to Al Evans:

I watched some of the women's world cup a few years' back and the standard was so risibly bad (football down your local park bad) that I avoided it for some time. I was genuinely impressed at the improvement in standards this world cup. However, with female goalkeepers falling short of men in stature, I think the goals could be smaller as any shot towards the outer limits of the goal has a disproportionate chance of success. Or are you going to tell me they shrunk the goals already and in fact the goalies are just useless?

In reply to Al Evans:

The problem is that, if the women's game actually achieved similar popularity to the men's game, then the money would mean the players turn into the sort of whining, cheating, prima-donnas (oh, the irony) that fill the premier league.

In reply to BnB:

No, goals are the same size as in man's game.

What next? We can't chest a ball? Believe it or not, we can do that too.

In reply to Princess Bobina:

You seem quick to take offence. I said that the goals, relatively large as they are taking into account the stature of female players, unfairly advantage the shooter over the goalie. It's a valid observation. If the goals were shrunk by say 5%, shooting standards would have to improve further, thus shrinking the gap between the men and women's game even more. Would that not be beneficial in any way?

In reply to BarrySW19:


Well, Hope Solo the US keeper called the world's number 1 (Bardsley's number 2!) seems to be doing her best, even without the riches of the male game. Charges dropped for assault after the (family) victims refused to give evidence (although it may still go ahead on appeal), caught with her husband who was DUI in a US Soccer minivan, apparently undroppable for the WWC.

An advocate of equal pay for women's football, prima donna is the exact phrase.

In reply to BnB:

Apparently women can't kick a ball very hard so the size of the goal is offset by this.

In reply to winhill:


Could we have a translation please?

In reply to Princess Bobina:

I did try and introduce mixed football in a school I once worked in but the (female) Head stopped it on the grounds that it would "damage the girls breasts". I did point out that being hit in the chest with a hockey (actively encouraged for girls) stick was far more damaging but to no avail.

In reply to winhill:



What do you mean?

In reply to Princess Bobina:

you do realise womens football is on TV?

you just dont pay for it presumably.. typical..

In reply to Roadrunner5:



Yes I do realise there is some women's football on TV, but my point is it isn't on very often. If it was it would raise awareness, just like the World Cup did.

It seems typical that people snipe from the armchair rather than actually participate in sport.

In reply to Princess Bobina:
It's on a lot now.. Check the schedule.

You obviously don't watch it. You e got to put your money where your mouth is and pay into the sport. Very few do which is why the female professional game is struggling in England.

In reply to Roadrunner5:

Its difficult for teenage girls to put "money where their mouth is" as they cannot afford Sky or BT packages. They are the ones who need to be targeted to get more participation in the sport.

I think the best way is to promote the sport by terrestrial television.