Manchester United refuse to launch female team

[Grande]

Yeah, we used to have one. Glazers scrapped it.

We still have girls teams. They have to go to other clubs, when they get older, though.

This is the point. Not the quality of female football compared to tennis. Not the popularity of womens premiership vs league one. Not how many here would follow MUFC ladies relative to men (or FCUM for that matter).

Football is a culture and a family, and for a club called
Manchester United Football Club (taste that name for a while, all of it) not to have an option for its adult members based on sex, not to be a football club per definition for half of it's citizens is plain wrong.

Stating how it's traditionally been is beside the point, or rather exactly the point - discriminant traditions need active overturning. MUFC/Glazer's passivity in this is part of such a tradition. My daughter should have no more right to play for Manchester United Football Club than my son, but that only one of them has a right to even dream of it ... To my mind that is not just reactionary, it's counter to the club's traditions of openness, progressiveness but more importantly ... just plain wrong.

 

[SteveJ]

Typical of the Mail to lead the fight against sexism.

 

[DOTA]

Aren't there any independent/local women's teams to support?

Yep. Having a team to watch on tele would be preferable, though, and it's a bit hard to randomly pick as Women's Super League team to support.

 

[SteveJ]

My daughter should have no more right to play for Manchester United Football Club than my son, but that only one of them has a right to even dream of it ... To my mind that is not just reactionary, it's counter to the club's traditions of openness, progressiveness but more importantly ... just plain wrong.

*applauds*

 

[Rowem]

You are kind of missing the whole point really. You are too busy concentrating on "supposed feminists" and "femnazis" to see the wood for the trees.

No, you're missing the point. You're too busy concentrating on my terminology to see what I'm saying. It's such a lazy response to try and invalidate my post by picking out terminology and implying that because I have used those terms I must be really bitter or chauvinistic when in fact the opposite is true. People are blinded. Open your eyes and think, it won't hurt.

 

[Stack]

No, you're missing the point. You're too busy concentrating on my terminology to see what I'm saying. It's such a lazy response to try and invalidate my post by picking out terminology and implying that because I have used those terms I must be really bitter or chauvinistic when in fact the opposite is true. People are blinded. Open your eyes and think, it won't hurt.

Sadly you are so blind you have absolutely no clue at all. Lazyness is whining about Femnazis etc when with a little effort you would understand why girls and womens football is a great thing to have an involvement with.

 

[Rowem]

Yep. Having a team to watch on tele would be preferable, though, and it's a bit hard to randomly pick as Women's Super League team to support.

Bristol Academy, Durham Women's and London Bees are all in the WSL and have no official affiliation to male clubs if you want a side to support but don't want to support Arsenal/City/Chelsea etc.

 

[Stack]

This is the point. Not the quality of female football compared to tennis. Not the popularity of womens premiership vs league one. Not how many here would follow MUFC ladies relative to men (or FCUM for that matter).

Football is a culture and a family, and for a club called
Manchester United Football Club (taste that name for a while, all of it) not to have an option for its adult members based on sex, not to be a football club per definition for half of it's citizens is plain wrong.

Stating how it's traditionally been is beside the point, or rather exactly the point - discriminant traditions need active overturning. MUFC/Glazer's passivity in this is part of such a tradition. My daughter should have no more right to play for Manchester United Football Club than my son, but that only one of them has a right to even dream of it ... To my mind that is not just reactionary, it's counter to the club's traditions of openness, progressiveness but more importantly ... just plain wrong.

Nicely said.

 

[DOTA]

Bristol Academy, Durham Women's and London Bees are all in the WSL and have no official affiliation to male clubs if you want a side to support but don't want to support Arsenal/City/Chelsea etc.

Yeah but I have no connection to any of them. I'd instantly have that with a Manchester United women's team.

 

[Rood]

I think so. It seems so inevitable that I don't really know why we're delaying. It's a sport that is constantly gaining popularity and particularly so just now in this country, after a good world cup showing.

Historically the womens game has not been well run in this country and it is only very recently that interest is growing (but in fact attendances are still pitifully low) so the club probably didnt even consider relaunching a ladies team until relatively recently.

info about Womens Super League here for anyone who is interested: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FA_WSL

 

[Grande]

It's sexist of Manchester United not to patronizingly set up a womans team under the guise of the male teams that have made the name successful?

Why should there be womens versions of male teams? Why can't women establish their own teams? I am in no way disrespecting womens football here, I just think that I would have much more respect for a club called Manchester Ladies Football Club who made their own way, than I would for one which is leaching off the success of another club in the name of equality.

Sexual equality is about equality. Not handouts.

You're just claiming here that the football clubs are not for all, they're 'men's clubs' according to you. But they're not. They're football clubs for people, with a varying degree of tradition for including all people, regardless of gender, race, religion etc.

It's not called Manchester United Men's Football Club. Should it be?

 

[Rowem]

Sadly you are so blind you have absolutely no clue at all. Lazyness is whining about Femnazis etc when with a little effort you would understand why girls and womens football is a great thing to have an involvement with.

Where have I suggested it wasn't? Because I haven't. You've concentrated so much on my terminology that you've made a massive assumption that has no truth what so ever. I'm guessing your projecting on to me past experiences with sexism towards women's football yet that couldn't be further from the truth.

 

[Archie Leach]

Arsenal Ladies won the Champions League! Legends.

 

[Rowem]

It's sexist of Manchester United not to patronizingly set up a womans team under the guise of the male teams that have made the name successful?

Why should there be womens versions of male teams? Why can't women establish their own teams? I am in no way disrespecting womens football here, I just think that I would have much more respect for a club called Manchester Ladies Football Club who made their own way, than I would for one which is leaching off the success of another club in the name of equality.

Sexual equality is about equality. Not handouts.

Agree completely.

 

[Conrad]

I think we've done well to avoid criticism over it for this long, really. It's a bit incredible that one of the most popular teams in the entire world doesn't give women any chance to represent them. Also, it's not like we never had a team. We had one but then pretty unceremoniously dumped them in around 2005. Always seemed like it would make an easy target for the press but I guess it had to wait for women's football to get more exposure before they went for it.

 

[Rowem]

It's not called Manchester United Men's Football Club. Should it be?

No, and that's exactly the point! Manchester United Ladies, Chelsea Ladies, Arsenal Ladies - they sound bloody ridiculous. An independent club wouldn't NEED to put Ladies in their title - see London Bees and Bristol Academy. That's the way it should be. Women's football can be huge, it doesn't need to be subsidiary to the men's game.

 

[...aka Las Cortinas]

The things I would say about women football would think I am sexist, so I will not delve to deeply into this topic, all I will say about womens football, who cares? some may care, its just a meh

Same here. Quiet though, about a million people will be quick to tell you how fantastically feminist they are if you say too much.

 

[711]

Seconded, Rowem.

 

[NinjaFletch]

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the story of the Manchester United Ladies team something like this:

In 2000 we took over a club, Corinthians I think, renamed them Manchester United and then disbanded them in 2005.

That's it, it's not some tragic story about a once great women's football powerhouse that was taken away by the Glazers we were never much of a relevancy in the women's game to start with

Lets not forget, too, the stink caused when Manchester City did what we -apparently- should be doing and entered a women's team. They were parachuted into the top division and in the process one of the most successful, storied and historical teams in the women's game, The Doncaster Belles, were unceremoniously chucked out of the top league to make way.

At the end of the day it's a nonsense story, what women's football needs is not Manchester United half arseing a team to tick some boxes. It needs its own stories, its own history and its own teams. I've been watching the women's cricket on sky recently and the female commentators are always at pains to state that lazy comparisons between the men's and the women's games only hinder women's sport. Forcing Manchester United to field a women's team for the sake of having a women's Manchester United does nothing to help their game stand on its own two feet.

 

[Stack]

It's sexist of Manchester United not to patronizingly set up a womans team under the guise of the male teams that have made the name successful?

Why should there be womens versions of male teams? Why can't women establish their own teams? I am in no way disrespecting womens football here, I just think that I would have much more respect for a club called Manchester Ladies Football Club who made their own way, than I would for one which is leaching off the success of another club in the name of equality.

Sexual equality is about equality. Not handouts.

Well Man Utd isnt a male only club. More and more of its fans are female and also all across the globe more and more females are now playing the game. All around the world at grass roots level the vast majority of clubs have a mens section to the club and a female section to the club. We already have a female section of the club, we simply dont have a senior womens side. So we already have a female version of some of our male youth teams.

I have said this before which pisses people off but the people most likely to have objections to a senior Man Utd womens team are those who's only real involvement in football is being a fan and spectator. People who are involved at grassroots football, be it coaching their own kids, following their own kids or relatives playing, be it playing at a local amateur club etc, those people generally dont have any objection to their clubs having a womans section. People who play, have close connections to people who play generally dont have any objections to clubs having a womens team.

As to the question " Why cant women establish their own teams?." They do, they have, in Manchester alone there are a ton of womens teams, the majority associated with their local amateur clubs and a couple that are women only clubs.

The bigger question is "Why cant we have a womens team under the Manchester Utd Club?" After all there are a ton of fans who are female, there are a ton of girls who play who idolise utd.

I just dont understand the sometimes angry objection to having a womens team at Utd, I would have thought it would be one of those things that helps make us a more connected club with the fan base.

 

[noodlehair]

It's sexist of Manchester United not to patronizingly set up a womans team under the guise of the male teams that have made the name successful?

Why should there be womens versions of male teams? Why can't women establish their own teams? I am in no way disrespecting womens football here, I just think that I would have much more respect for a club called Manchester Ladies Football Club who made their own way, than I would for one which is leaching off the success of another club in the name of equality.

Sexual equality is about equality. Not handouts.

Well in fairness, they did try doing exactly that, but then the FA and powers that be decided to push women's football into the spotlight, but also decided that to do so the teams had to be popular brands (i.e. they needed to be associated with popular men's football teams). So teams like Manchester City were mysteriously promoted despite finishing mid table in their league, while Doncaster Belles were told they would be relegated to the second division only one game into their season.

This is what's laughable about it to me. They so desperately want us to take women's football seriously, that in doing so they've removed its integrity and turned it into an actual joke. I would have been vaguely interested in a women's United team, but why would I be interested at all in watching a brand of football that is openly crookid?

 

[Rowem]

@Stack - I'm not against United having a women's team, and although I can't speak for others you have addressed in this thread I assume the same goes for them. I'm against the attempted shaming for not having one. I also think the women's game would be far better off creating it's own identity, creating it's own idols, it's own status, it's own history, rather than sticking a badge of a Premier League side on a shirt and calling themselves Arsenal/Chelsea/United. I think it holds the women's game back. I also think it's rather crass to be honest - same goes for City's branding of teams in Australia and America, nothing to do with gender.

 

[diarm]

@Stack - I'm not against United having a women's team, and although I can't speak for others you have addressed in this thread I assume the same goes for them. I'm against the attempted shaming for not having one. I also think the women's game would be far better off creating it's own identity, creating it's own idols, it's own status, it's own history, rather than sticking a badge of a Premier League side on a shirt and calling themselves Arsenal/Chelsea/United. I think it holds the women's game back. I also think it's rather crass to be honest - same goes for City's branding of teams in Australia and America, nothing to do with gender.

I'm replying to another post but just wanted to quickly agree with this.

I'm definitely not angrily against the idea of setting up a ladies team. If it happened tomorrow I'd think "grand so" and have forgotten it by Monday morning.

I'm just against the idea that it is sexist not to have one.

 

[Stack]

Well in fairness, they did try doing exactly that, but then the FA and powers that be decided to push women's football into the spotlight, but also decided that to do so the teams had to be popular brands (i.e. they needed to be associated with popular men's football teams). So teams like Manchester City were mysteriously promoted despite finishing mid table in their league, while Doncaster Belles were told they would be relegated to the second division only one game into their season.

This is what's laughable about it to me. They so desperately want us to take women's football seriously, that in doing so they've removed its integrity and turned it into an actual joke. I would have been vaguely interested in a women's United team, but why would I be interested at all in watching a brand of football that is openly crookid?

What a BS copout of an argument that is. You wouldnt have any interest in watching womens football which isnt a problem. However we have a pretty sizeable and knowlegable female fanbase and they I am pretty sure would appreciate a womens senior team. People are simply ignoring the fact that part of our core fanbase are female and that part has been growing considerably over the last 20 years in no small part to the fact that the female game has had a massive growth in that time. We arent simply a male only club. If we were we wouldnt already have a female youth academy in place thats funded by the club.

Here you go, a couple of bits out of Man Utds involvement in the female game.

"There are two aspects to girls’ football at the Manchester United Foundation; managing the FA Centre of Excellence and developing grassroots girls’ football in Manchester, Trafford and Salford."

"Established in 2009, weprovide opportunities for girls to play football at the highest level, with the aim of developing them into international players. Players who are selected for the Centre receive intensive training and support, along with the chance to compete against other Centres of Excellence teams from the North West. "

From the Man utd Foundation which is run by the club and part of the club.

 

[sullydnl]

I don't think there's any shame in us not having one, it's more that common sense suggests having one would be a good idea. In fact I can't think of any good reason not to have one, I would have assumed we did.

Can't see how being part of the same club as the men's team would hold women's football back either. Realistically I'd imagine a young girl would be more excited by the idea of playing for Manchester United than for some new brand.

Basically it seems like other clubs are providing something for their fans that we're not. Probably a good idea to change that.

 

[The Mitcher]

United can do what they want, they shouldn't be forced to make one just because we want them to. Besides how can we be stopping the progress of the women's game when its had such a meteoric rise without us anyway? Would a halfarsed, badly funded team be good enough to satisfy these types of people want this team? No, they will not be satisfied.

 

[diarm]

You're just claiming here that the football clubs are not for all, they're 'men's clubs' according to you. But they're not. They're football clubs for people, with a varying degree of tradition for including all people, regardless of gender, race, religion etc.

It's not called Manchester United Men's Football Club. Should it be?

As much as I'm sure you'll enjoy being all dramatic and painting me as some sort of sexist neanderthal, it's worth pointing out that the "club" aspect of Manchester United is based largely around the first team and the millions of people who support the club - men, women and children, do so ultimately because of the history of that first team.

There are no women forced into supporting Manchester United and then denied the right to a ladies team. If there are millions more people waiting until there is a ladies team before they choose to support the club then the club is missing a trick. I'm not convinced they are.

Our "club" is a business which revolves around a team. It is not a members club like a golf club or country club which is refusing entry to women at the door and unless the rules change to allow ladies compete alongside men in the competitions in which that team compete, the club cannot be called sexist simply for not allowing another team to access instant gains by associating itself with their name and resources.

 

[diarm]

"There are two aspects to girls’ football at the Manchester United Foundation; managing the FA Centre of Excellence and developing grassroots girls’ football in Manchester, Trafford and Salford."

"Established in 2009, weprovide opportunities for girls to play football at the highest level, with the aim of developing them into international players. Players who are selected for the Centre receive intensive training and support, along with the chance to compete against other Centres of Excellence teams from the North West. "

From the Man utd Foundation which is run by the club and part of the club.

This part is interesting. When were these sides set up @Stack ?

If the girls who are coming through this system are still kids then it's ok and would suggest we are planning towards a ladies team in the future. If they are reaching 18/19/20 and then heading off to other clubs then I think that's strange and we should be offering them the opportunity to represent the club they developed through.

 

[Stack]

@Stack - I'm not against United having a women's team, and although I can't speak for others you have addressed in this thread I assume the same goes for them. I'm against the attempted shaming for not having one. I also think the women's game would be far better off creating it's own identity, creating it's own idols, it's own status, it's own history, rather than sticking a badge of a Premier League side on a shirt and calling themselves Arsenal/Chelsea/United. I think it holds the women's game back. I also think it's rather crass to be honest - same goes for City's branding of teams in Australia and America, nothing to do with gender.

Look I agree on the shaming aspect, in fact we already have a female youth academy. I would love to see a ladies team but dont view the fact we dont have one as major criticism of the club. We are already doing things with respect to the womens game.

the biggest problem which i am poorly articulating is that the female side of the game has had massive growth in the last 20 years. Its an awesome thing because i can now have football conversations with girls and women where they understand the game and sometimes understand it more than I do. I couldnt do that 30 years ago. I like women, awesome people. I think more women involved in the game and the club I have supported all my life is a fantastic thing. I think we should have a womens team simply because I think its a great thing to have. We are not a male only club. Our fan base is no longer 99% male at games as it was in the 70's and earlier. The majority of clubs around the world at grassroots level have female sections to their clubs. Its only natural that we do. ( In fact we already do, just no senior womens team)

 

[Stack]

This part is interesting. When were these sides set up @Stack ?

If the girls who are coming through this system are still kids then it's ok and would suggest we are planning towards a ladies team in the future. If they are reaching 18/19/20 and then heading off to other clubs then I think that's strange and we should be offering them the opportunity to represent the club they developed through.

2009 it says in the quote.

 

[Sir Matt]

Surprised we don't have a women's team tbh. Probably should if nearly all the other clubs have one. We're Manchester United after all, without us women's football is missing a massive brand. Sort of thing I'd have thought we'd be all over.

There's no money in women's sports, outside of maybe tennis and the Olympics. The WWC got Fox $17m in ad revenue compared to $529 ESPN got in 2014. That's in the biggest market in the world for women's football. For United, it would be good PR for the club, but I guess the question for them is if the cost of the PR of a women's team wouldn't achieve better results for the club spent elsewhere. It's ultimately a business decision. There's little market on TV for the matches, which some will attribute to the differences in treatment/spending on women's sports, but it's impossible to ignore the differences in the games for the viewer.

It would be nice, but the average attendance for women's football in England is tiny. A few hundred show up to matches. In the US, it's a few thousand. The only team in the US that draws numbers is in Portland, which is a huge outlier. It's probably the only women's team in the world that draws over 10k on average.

 

[Stack]

I don't think there's any shame in us not having one, it's more that common sense suggests having one would be a good idea. In fact I can't think of any good reason not to have one, I would have assumed we did.

Can't see how being part of the same club as the men's team would hold women's football back either. Realistically I'd imagine a young girl would be more excited by the idea of playing for Manchester United than for some new brand.

Basically it seems like other clubs are providing something for their fans that we're not. Probably a good idea to change that.

Well said.
One of the girls I coached for a number of years played for NZ's schoolgirls team and also the NZ U20 womens team, scored on her debut. Biggest Utd fan I know, just a couple of months ago she visited Old Trafford and did the tour. Her dream is to one day be a pro player. She is currently on a US football scholarship in Miami.
I dont think a lot of people understand whats going on right now with respect to girls and womens football. The upward curve and trend is very positive. I dont think the womens game will ever get the sorts of crowds the male game does but having womens football more visible to the fans can only be a good thing. I fail to see how it couldnt be of benefit.

 

[Stack]

There's no money in women's sports, outside of maybe tennis and the Olympics. The WWC got Fox $17m in ad revenue compared to $529 ESPN got in 2014. That's in the biggest market in the world for women's football. For United, it would be good PR for the club, but I guess the question for them is if the cost of the PR of a women's team wouldn't achieve better results for the club spent elsewhere. It's ultimately a business decision. There's little market on TV for the matches, which some will attribute to the differences in treatment/spending on women's sports, but it's impossible to ignore the differences in the games for the viewer.

It would be nice, but the average attendance for women's football in England is tiny. A few hundred show up to matches. In the US, it's a few thousand. The only team in the US that draws numbers is in Portland, which is a huge outlier. It's probably the only women's team in the world that draws over 10k on average.

tell that to Nike etc who supply womens sports apparrel to millions and millions of girls and women.

I am not sure if you have checked US college football numbers but a player I mentioned in an earlier post recently played in front of 12,000 people. She is playing for a US college and college sport in the US gets some pretty impressive crowds.

 

[diarm]

2009 it says in the quote.

Ha sorry I'm an idiot for missing that!

So we started this 6 years ago and having a quick look online we have an U9 side so take girls at least as young as 8.
Seems quite likely to me that at the very best (and taking into consideration that we have probably taken on a few talented 12-16 year olds in that time), we would only now be seeing the benefits of development start coming through.

It suggests that the club is planning to introduce a ladies team but is doing it in the same way as the club has always approached the game. By developing young talent and establishing a culture in the womens team.

In complete contrast to being sexist, I would find that a far better approach than simply setting up a womens team on the spot and throwing a load of money earned by the mens team at signing established players. This shows much more respect and investment into womens football.

 

[Dargonk]

Personally I don't care either way if we don't have a women's team. I don't really see the point of creating one for the sake of it, or as a PR exercise and then either under funding, or having the men's team effectively pay for the women's team. If we did create one, other than the initial burst of cash to set it up, I would want it to be run entirely on its own funds and not draw money away from the main team.

In the end I'm here to watch and support the current team, and I'm sure all of us want that team to be the best it can be. I'm not about to start closely following a women's team just because it has a United badge on it, simply because the level of play isn't as enjoyable to watch as the premier league itself.

 

[Rowem]

Look I agree on the shaming aspect, in fact we already have a female youth academy. I would love to see a ladies team but dont view the fact we dont have one as major criticism of the club. We are already doing things with respect to the womens game.

the biggest problem which i am poorly articulating is that the female side of the game has had massive growth in the last 20 years. Its an awesome thing because i can now have football conversations with girls and women where they understand the game and sometimes understand it more than I do. I couldnt do that 30 years ago. I like women, awesome people. I think more women involved in the game and the club I have supported all my life is a fantastic thing. I think we should have a womens team simply because I think its a great thing to have. We are not a male only club. Our fan base is no longer 99% male at games as it was in the 70's and earlier. The majority of clubs around the world at grassroots level have female sections to their clubs. Its only natural that we do. ( In fact we already do, just no senior womens team)

I agree with you on women's football in general just disagree the best route for women's football to take. It's certainly interesting hearing your points about the social impact at grassroots level though, hadn't considered that too much.

A couple posters earlier said they wanted a women's team in the WSL to support but couldn't because the only local one was City - so City Ladies will always be restricted in their fan base by their affiliation to the men's side, just as United Ladies would be restricted too. Surely it would have been better to create a single Manchester side for the WSL, and even if it was affiliated/backed by City, they should have branded it separately. By having female teams as subsidiaries to male teams the problem of "Ï can't support them" would continue nationwide until every professional football club had a professional women's team too, which just won't happen. It's short term thinking to create instant profile and attract a few fans, but in the long run it's restrictive rather than beneficial.

 

[11101]

I didn't even realize other clubs had women teams. Are they taken seriously in England? Genuine question as clearly not much is said about them.

Nope. Id be surprised if anyone on here could name a single female footballer.

The BBC made its usual effort to promote minority sport over the Women's WC but its been forgotten as quickly as it began.

I think the club should do what it wants. If it feels it can support a female team, then so be it. If not, noone should be pressuring them to start one.

 

[MarkC]

I don't see that we have to have a ladies team and I very much doubt we lose out on much by not having one. Man City ladies had an average attendance of 948(highest in the league) last season which tells me there is not a great deal of interest.

If it doesn't make us money we are unlikely to want to subsidize it, despite what people say most females that watch us watch us because they like the mens game and I think most that i've ever asked think much the same of ladies football as most guys do.

 

[AR87]

tell that to Nike etc who supply womens sports apparrel to millions and millions of girls and women.

I am not sure if you have checked US college football numbers but a player I mentioned in an earlier post recently played in front of 12,000 people. She is playing for a US college and college sport in the US gets some pretty impressive crowds.

A lot of women's sports get support at the college level in the US because their games are free and sometimes it's fun to get drunk and go watch some shite like that.

I went to school at the University of Michigan and we had a great women's softball team and a relatively mediocre men's baseball team at the time. Both teams played at the same stadium with a capacity of about 4000 which could be more if they were allowing standing room for bigger games. Both teams were able to fill the stadium, the difference being the men could do it while charging for tickets while the women's games were free.

Also Nike supplying apparel to women and girls means nothing except that they make money off of it. At the college level Nike, Adidas, Under Armor, etc. negotiate apparel deals with the university for ALL teams with the primary factor in overall dollar value coming from the popularity and monetary gain to be had in men's sports (usually football of the American kind and basketball and in some cases hockey and baseball). So while Adidas is the current apparel maker for Michigan the only reason they're providing women's teams with apparel is because they make a ton of money off of their sales from Michigan men's football and basketball teams. This is the case around the country.

Long story short I don't believe that Nike making money off of women's apparel means anything with regards to the popularity, in terms of viewership, of women's sports. Fact is the only time in America at least where people care about women's sports seems to be for the women's soccer team during the WWC and Olympics, but women's professional leagues in the interim period of time have struggled massively to simply make enough money to justify operating let alone turn a profit and that even includes after the 1999 and 2011 WWC's and the 2012 Olympics all of which were huge sucesses.

Point being that Manchester United would be unlikely to reap any benefit from fielding a women's team monetarily which unfortunately is probably the basis for the decision not to have one. If they made one it'd be nice, but I don't particularly think it's sexist for them to not have one, just a bit money hungry and greedy.

 

[ChaddyP]

I agree with women having their own league. With own names. Own history and their own fans. Would mean much more in my opinion and I think would be taken more seriously.