Manchester United refuse to launch female team

rcoobc said:
Thats ridiculous. It depends on the disability, obviously, but people with disabilities already play in the Premier League
Click to expand...

Obviously I'm talking about levels of disability whihc would qualify you for disabled sport. Eg show me a professional T42 footballer. :rolleyes:

rcoobc said:
Chicken and the Egg. No club will taken on a young girl and spend money training her to the highest level, when they know there is no return.

Are you saying that no female player would be good enough to play in one of the top 5 divisions EVER. Even though you have female F1 drivers (which same say are the toughest athletes in the world).
Click to expand...

Yes, I am saying that - top 5 divisions is arbitrary, I've already said I don't know what the celing level would be. But they would never be at the very top level... eg I'd be pretty confident in saying not Premier League.

None of those F1 drivers ever actually get a seat, btw - and this in a sport which, while it may be physical, is massively down to circumstance and training over natural physicality. F1 drivers train very hard to stay super-fit, but a quick look at the list of father and son drivers tells you that the biggest factor in being a good racing driver is being give the chance to drive racing cars.

rcoobc said:
All I'm saying is that it shouldn't be a piece of paper that discriminates that stops you playing for a club. Either you have both male and female teams, or you allow women to compete alongside men. #simples.
Click to expand...

No. It's not "either/or" at all.

I agree that it shouldn't be a piece of paper that discriminates - the "no women rule" should absolutely go. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't also have women's teams.
Just as we still have paralympics even though paralympians are allowed to compete in able bodied sport. Or, just as we still have U-16 level football, even though U-16s are allowed to play in the Premier League.

Which of your "either/or" scenario do you favour, btw?
 
rcoobc said:
I'd say F1 is closer to football than track is. Obviously the physical demands of football have never been more pronounced than they are now (thanks offside rule!) But you still have crocks like Ledly King, and older stewards like Scholes, Pirlo, and even Yorke playing the game at a high level.

Players like Bale and Ronaldo might all be about their physical ability, but others base their game on their technical skills.
Click to expand...

This is all very confused.

You have to have a very high level of endurance (as well as some specifics such as strong neck muscles) to be an F1 driver, so that contradicts the last part. There are no lazy / unfit F1 drivers who base their game on technical skill instead - the car will not give them a break.

That said, the levels of stamina etc required are not super-human - they can be attained by plenty of people with enough work, and are not ultimately the deciding factor in who is the best driver. No F1 driver ever got into it because at a young age somebody spotted them excelling at an endurance sport and suggested they'd be suited.
Which is why there is a chance for women to drive at the top level if they can match the skill, whihc they quite possibly can. I'm pretty sure Serena Williams or Lizzie Armitstead coudl deal with the physical side.

rcoobc said:
At some point we go from saying that women are physically built differently, to saying something else entirely.
Click to expand...

Which is what?
 
As an aside, I wonder what it would be like if they tried compulsory mixed football at the top level... ie you have to have, say, at least 5 players of each gender. I think similar rules apply in some minority sports such as softball or rounders.

Where would you play the women if you were the manager?
 
rcoobc said:
I'd say F1 is closer to football than track is. Obviously the physical demands of football have never been more pronounced than they are now (thanks offside rule!) But you still have crocks like Ledly King, and older stewards like Scholes, Pirlo, and even Yorke playing the game at a high level.

Players like Bale and Ronaldo might all be about their physical ability, but others base their game on their technical skills.

At some point we go from saying that women are physically built differently, to saying something else entirely.
Click to expand...

You are basically wrong though. Women can't compete with men at football. I think it was posted in the women's World Cup thread that the German men's U17 beat the women's senior team in double figures.

F1 is not close to football physically at all. In football you need linear speed, you need speed on the turn, speed of pass from power, power of shot, spring into the air for heading and goalkeeping. Which of these physical attributes in which women lag far behind men in do you see in F1 exactly?

Simply put, women cannot compete with men close to a high level in sports that have an emphasis on physical speed and power.
 
I am unclear on the club's reason not to have a woman's team, but if the owners deem it unprofitable, then that's a good enough reason. As a club we are (sadly) driven by profit margins, and no-one should bully us into doing something which has little positive impact on our margins.

As far as women's football goes, I find it very dull and difficult to watch, and it's generally due to the lack of athleticism and power female athletes have. I watched the FA Cup final the other week and it was dire.

They are really trying to push women's football at the moment, but I can't help feeling that this is just riding the coat-tail of the men's game. Why not push hockey or netball more. Certainly hockey is a good spectator sport, and these sports are traditionally marketed to girls in schools.

The endless striving for absolute equality in everything is idiotic, just like the desire to have women's football taken as seriously as men's. Look at the women's Six Nations for an example of this - the six teams represented are the same as the men's teams, regardless of their ability. Is the Italian women's rugby team really one of the six best women's teams in Europe? I doubt it, and yet they need to follow the men's game, or else it wouldn't be equality.
 
Sir A1ex said:
As an aside, I wonder what it would be like if they tried compulsory mixed football at the top level... ie you have to have, say, at least 5 players of each gender. I think similar rules apply in some minority sports such as softball or rounders.

Where would you play the women if you were the manager?
Click to expand...
Thats a pretty interesting question, could be its own thread. I play summer 7 aside footy and one sise is a mixed team. We end up having 1 of each in each position effectively. So if we have 2 defenders its one of each. However that hasnt been by design, its simply happened.
 
Gopher Brown said:
I am unclear on the club's reason not to have a woman's team, but if the owners deem it unprofitable, then that's a good enough reason. As a club we are (sadly) driven by profit margins, and no-one should bully us into doing something which has little positive impact on our margins.

As far as women's football goes, I find it very dull and difficult to watch, and it's generally due to the lack of athleticism and power female athletes have. I watched the FA Cup final the other week and it was dire.

They are really trying to push women's football at the moment, but I can't help feeling that this is just riding the coat-tail of the men's game. Why not push hockey or netball more. Certainly hockey is a good spectator sport, and these sports are traditionally marketed to girls in schools.

The endless striving for absolute equality in everything is idiotic, just like the desire to have women's football taken as seriously as men's. Look at the women's Six Nations for an example of this - the six teams represented are the same as the men's teams, regardless of their ability. Is the Italian women's rugby team really one of the six best women's teams in Europe? I doubt it, and yet they need to follow the men's game, or else it wouldn't be equality.
Click to expand...

Well we better shut down our girls academy setup as well as our deaf team and other parts of our organisation which involves non profit
 
Watching women's athletics is as enjoyable as watching men's. The same will apply to football as the women's game becomes more popular and the quality improves. It may not be as powerful as the men's game, but there is no reason it can't be as skillful, or as entertaining to watch. It would certainly be a weird experience for most to suddenly find they have 'the hots' for their team's centre-forward!

The annoying thing is that in the long run, as the women's game becomes more popular, Manchester United will probably have to cave-in and start a team; and when that happens we will have to endure endless taunting because we will be so far behind our rivals in terms of honours/titles won that we will never catch up. Reason enough for me to think we should bite the bullet and start building a team now.
 
I'm assuming - with great ignorance, that Chelsea and Man City ladies don't make a profit. There is a big difference between the owners of those clubs and ours though. Fair enough, if lower football league clubs can afford a female team it does make us look a bit tight, but if we formed a team and didn't subsidize it to the extent of Chelsea and City, we'd be criticized for that. I suspect nobody really cares, but it's a nice stick to bet us with, a bit like how we're the most sexist club on the planet for allowing Adidas to produce an optional female version of our shirts. Maybe we should just put a statue of Germaine Greer next to to the holy trinity to cover our backs a bit.

As a side note, I wonder how many of those City fans who abused Toni Duggan for having a photo with van Gaal actually bother watching their women's team..
 
Michael T said:
Watching women's athletics is as enjoyable as watching men's. The same will apply to football as the women's game becomes more popular and the quality improves. It may not be as powerful as the men's game, but there is no reason it can't be as skillful, or as entertaining to watch. It would certainly be a weird experience for most to suddenly find they have 'the hots' for their team's centre-forward!

The annoying thing is that in the long run, as the women's game becomes more popular, Manchester United will probably have to cave-in and start a team; and when that happens we will have to endure endless taunting because we will be so far behind our rivals in terms of honours/titles won that we will never catch up. Reason enough for me to think we should bite the bullet and start building a team now.
Click to expand...

The more money thats put into Womens football the better it will get. Id watch and follow the Womens team if the matches were on MUTV. Its an odd decision by the club to not have one.
 
Classical Mechanic said:
You are basically wrong though. Women can't compete with men at football. I think it was posted in the women's World Cup thread that the German men's U17 beat the women's senior team in double figures.

F1 is not close to football physically at all. In football you need linear speed, you need speed on the turn, speed of pass from power, power of shot, spring into the air for heading and goalkeeping. Which of these physical attributes in which women lag far behind men in do you see in F1 exactly?

Simply put, women cannot compete with men close to a high level in sports that have an emphasis on physical speed and power.
Click to expand...
That's a team of women vs a team of men though. Completely different.

Wayne Rooney at 16 got in the Everton mens team. But Everton mens would still beat Everton under 16s

So your analogy is basically wrong
 
Last edited:
matt23 said:
I'm assuming - with great ignorance, that Chelsea and Man City ladies don't make a profit. There is a big difference between the owners of those clubs and ours though. Fair enough, if lower football league clubs can afford a female team it does make us look a bit tight, but if we formed a team and didn't subsidize it to the extent of Chelsea and City, we'd be criticized for that. I suspect nobody really cares, but it's a nice stick to bet us with, a bit like how we're the most sexist club on the planet for allowing Adidas to produce an optional female version of our shirts. Maybe we should just put a statue of Germaine Greer next to to the holy trinity to cover our backs a bit.

As a side note, I wonder how many of those City fans who abused Toni Duggan for having a photo with van Gaal actually bother watching their women's team..
Click to expand...

If we and Southampton are the only PL clubs without womens' teams, there must be 15 of them with business models very different from Chelsea and City. We're not just talking about "lower football league clubs". Having said that, if we had a team of course we would want it to be the best - and that means having the best players. At that level the justification becomes the favourable impact on the brand - another winning team to carry the name. Wouldn't have much of an effect on the average Caf denizen but, to a teenage girl in Guangzhou, it might make a connection.

One of the other arguments for a womens' team is simply to broaden the clubs' impact in the community. At the time of the takeover (and since) much was made of the club no longer being part of its community. One way to rebuild that connection would be to have something similar to what we see in many of the leading European clubs - a full service sporting club with community facilities and supporting teams in a range of sports. No one thinks it strange that Bayern or Wolfsburg or Real or Barcelona should have womens' teams - its assumed that they should as part of the sporting club. In this United could be a leader - in this country at any rate.
 
Sir A1ex said:
Yes, I am saying that - top 5 divisions is arbitrary, I've already said I don't know what the celing level would be. But they would never be at the very top level... eg I'd be pretty confident in saying not Premier League.

None of those F1 drivers ever actually get a seat, btw - and this in a sport which, while it may be physical, is massively down to circumstance and training over natural physicality. F1 drivers train very hard to stay super-fit, but a quick look at the list of father and son drivers tells you that the biggest factor in being a good racing driver is being give the chance to drive racing cars.



No. It's not "either/or" at all.

I agree that it shouldn't be a piece of paper that discriminates - the "no women rule" should absolutely go. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't also have women's teams.
Just as we still have paralympics even though paralympians are allowed to compete in able bodied sport. Or, just as we still have U-16 level football, even though U-16s are allowed to play in the Premier League.
Click to expand...
Im at work so can't reply to your question completely and we are closer to agreeing now. It would be an incredible, innccreddible achievement if a women was ever good enough to play in the premier league...

And even if they could, they'd be at a huge disadvantage as no youth team is going to spend resources on developing a young girl, however promising, when they are likely going to be too small. For me, that's the biggest argument for having women's and men's football separate, not because no women could ever compete in a mens team at some level, but because they would be at a huge disadvantage at youth level.

And the thing about the F1 is, yes they don't get a seat and don't take part in races, but F1 is insanely competitive. The fact that they have got that far is amazing.

The good thing about F1 of course is that it's not subjective. (Well, less so anyway). Put two drivers in a car and see which one is faster.
 
rcoobc said:
That's a team of women vs a team of men though. Completely different.

Wayne Rooney at 16 got in the Everton mens team. But Everton mens would still beat Everton under 16s

So your analogy is basically wrong
Click to expand...

Women would not get selected on merit alongside men in a mixed team.

Venus Williams in her prime was trashed by something like the men's number 300.
 
Women's football is about as interesting to me as watching the most boring man in the world slowly count to a million.

So glad the club doesn't buy into this politically correct liberal crap. Because that's all this is, no one other than people involved in women's football are crying out for it. The public simply doesn't give a shit and the club knows it.
 
rcoobc said:
And the thing about the F1 is, yes they don't get a seat and don't take part in races, but F1 is insanely competitive. The fact that they have got that far is amazing.
Click to expand...

I would say the opposite about F1 - hence my post about the level of nepotism.

While nobody can give an accurate assesment of nature vs nurture, there are sports out there like football and running in which we can be pretty confident that those at the top are amongst the most naturally talented in the world. So many people take part that statistically the very best get a chance and are spotted. It's by no means 100% - the most naturally gifted footballer to have lived may have been born in an undiscovered tribe in the Amazon, or Liverpool, and never kicked a ball. But I think it's safe to say that Messi is in the top 0.01% of footballers ever born, in terms of natural talent.

At the other end of the spectrum you have tiny minority sports. It's possible that with the right training, I could be awesome at dressage or curling, but we'll never know, and the same is true for 99.9% of people ever born. And F1 fits very much into that end of the spectrum. Very few people ever get the chance to even give it a go.

If you want to make a child into a world champion, and have the opportunity to give them the very best coaching etc to get them there, you'd be mad not to pick F1 ahead of football. Their chances of success in F1 are massively higher... ie it is not as competitive.
 
Cristiano Jonaldo said:
So glad the club doesn't buy into this politically correct liberal crap. Because that's all this is, no one other than people involved in women's football are crying out for it. The public simply doesn't give a shit and the club knows it.
Click to expand...

And besides, who is going to cook the men's meals and wash their clothes if the women are playing football?
 
The "secret" - and it's no secret - to enjoying womens' football (or, indeed, any womens' sport) is to stop thinking that it should look like its men' equivalent. Highly trained female athletes develop between 10 and 20% less power (depending on the muscle sets being utilised) that their male counterparts. Jessica Ennis-Hill is a magnificent athlete - but she doesn't produce performances at the level of a male decathlete, nor should we expect her to. Football is no different. Womens' football is great to watch - as long as you don't expect it to be mens' football. On a technical level male and female players are not that different - the difference is in the ability to combine power and technique. The funny thing is that in most sports, and football is no exception, the level of the womens' game is much closer to the capabilities of the average male sitting watching on TV than would be the male equivalent. When I watch male golf I'm fantasizing about being able to hit the ball like Bubba Watson knowing it could never happen; when I watch female golf I identify with the sort of shots they play - they're better than me but the physical level is something I can associate with.
 
Cristiano Jonaldo said:
Women's football is about as interesting to me as watching the most boring man in the world slowly count to a million.

So glad the club doesn't buy into this politically correct liberal crap. Because that's all this is, no one other than people involved in women's football are crying out for it. The public simply doesn't give a shit and the club knows it.
Click to expand...
I don't understand how you've reached this conclusion. Obviously there will be much less interest but I would, for example, definitely follow the team.
 
United have the PL's largest marketing and financial base, of course they're outraged.
 
Cristiano Jonaldo said:
How is the reality that not enough of the public care to make it commercially viable sexist?
Click to expand...

Dismissing women's football as "politically correct liberal crap" could be read as being marginally sexist.

And btw, though they may not make anybody a millionaire at the moment, other WPL teams seem to manage to be commercially viable. So I'm not sure your point is even correct there.
 
As has been said, in no way should the club be pressured to make a womens team again.

And from a personal perspective, I've tried to watch women's football and struggle. It's just bad, the general goalkeeping is horrific.
 
Sir A1ex said:
I would say the opposite about F1 - hence my post about the level of nepotism.

While nobody can give an accurate assesment of nature vs nurture, there are sports out there like football and running in which we can be pretty confident that those at the top are amongst the most naturally talented in the world. So many people take part that statistically the very best get a chance and are spotted. It's by no means 100% - the most naturally gifted footballer to have lived may have been born in an undiscovered tribe in the Amazon, or Liverpool, and never kicked a ball. But I think it's safe to say that Messi is in the top 0.01% of footballers ever born, in terms of natural talent.

At the other end of the spectrum you have tiny minority sports. It's possible that with the right training, I could be awesome at dressage or curling, but we'll never know, and the same is true for 99.9% of people ever born. And F1 fits very much into that end of the spectrum. Very few people ever get the chance to even give it a go.

If you want to make a child into a world champion, and have the opportunity to give them the very best coaching etc to get them there, you'd be mad not to pick F1 ahead of football. Their chances of success in F1 are massively higher... ie it is not as competitive.
Click to expand...
Agreed...agreed, I do agree. You are right, the number of people taking part in F1 is a tiny percentage of those taking part in Football.

But you know, we shouldn't confuse "taking part" in football with having proper training. I drive my car every single day, many people will probably clock in the 10,000 hours required to be an expert in a subject. And yet those people are not going to be able to compete with an F1 driver... not even in a Citroen C5.

Likewise in football, we may all think that we did nothing but play football as kids, but that doesnt mean we had actual training. That doesnt mean we had a proper exposure to it.

The point about F1, again, it's insanely competitive. Yes, there are the hundreds of thousands of kids who think they can make it every year, it's not like that. But the money and the training required is otherworldly. No one is ever going to put a women in on merit, yet they are competing.
 
rcoobc said:
..
Click to expand...

If your argument is built around the belief that "even a man with an artificial leg can play for Man United", then I think you need to re-evaluate.

I'd love to see your argument in a courtroom DDA case. "we weren't discriminating against his disability, we asked him to climb up the stairs to our offices, he couldn't because he was in a wheelchair, so he wasn't suitable for the position".
 
Sir A1ex said:
Dismissing women's football as "politically correct liberal crap" could be read as being marginally sexist.

And btw, though they may not make anybody a millionaire at the moment, other WPL teams seem to manage to be commercially viable. So I'm not sure your point is even correct there.
Click to expand...

It's the shield of choice for anyone these days that says something intolerant without any reason aside from their own blind prejudice.

"Don't ask me why I don't want it! I don't give in to political correctness!"

Some in the thread might be offering explanations but I can't see a single good one bar the argument that it makes no money.

I don't watch women's football myself and wouldn't pretend just to make a point. However, the odd bit that I did see at the last WC there, I can clearly see the women's game is improving all the time.

To repeat what I said before, there is no doubt that is bizarre to most people that United (given their stature) stand alone without a women's team to compete.
 
rcoobc said:
But you know, we shouldn't confuse "taking part" in football with having proper training. I drive my car every single day, many people will probably clock in the 10,000 hours required to be an expert in a subject. And yet those people are not going to be able to compete with an F1 driver... not even in a Citroen C5.

Likewise in football, we may all think that we did nothing but play football as kids, but that doesnt mean we had actual training. That doesnt mean we had a proper exposure to it.
Click to expand...

Not sure that quite holds - you don't (presumably) drive your car competitively, there is no opportunity whatsoever for you, or anybody else to think "hang on, you're pretty good at this" and suggest seeing if you can take it to the next level.
Conversely, Max Verstappen (I think) is yet to pass his driving test.
Normal driving and racing are almost nothing to do with each other. It's like trying to spot the next Ussain Bolt based on ability to walk across the room.

Whereas even at the youngest / lowest level, it was obvious who was better at footy and who wasn't. And of those who were pretty good at it, a decent number will have taken a further step and tried out for some kind of team... from where on there is a well laid-out path all the way to the top for the very select few.
 
Women's Football is definitely not as good as men's obviously that does not mean it is not worthwhile for the club to support a women's Football team.
 
Sir A1ex said:
Dismissing women's football as "politically correct liberal crap" could be read as being marginally sexist.

And btw, though they may not make anybody a millionaire at the moment, other WPL teams seem to manage to be commercially viable. So I'm not sure your point is even correct there.
Click to expand...
He isn't referring to women's football as politically correct liberal crap, it's the outrage that Manchester United doesn't have a team. Being commercially viable doesn't mean it makes financial sense, just because it can be marginally profitable doesn't mean it's worth it. I'm sure the club finds investing in youth football or first team football far more rewarding.
 
ravelston said:
If we and Southampton are the only PL clubs without womens' teams, there must be 15 of them with business models very different from Chelsea and City. We're not just talking about "lower football league clubs". Having said that, if we had a team of course we would want it to be the best - and that means having the best players. At that level the justification becomes the favourable impact on the brand - another winning team to carry the name. Wouldn't have much of an effect on the average Caf denizen but, to a teenage girl in Guangzhou, it might make a connection.

One of the other arguments for a womens' team is simply to broaden the clubs' impact in the community. At the time of the takeover (and since) much was made of the club no longer being part of its community. One way to rebuild that connection would be to have something similar to what we see in many of the leading European clubs - a full service sporting club with community facilities and supporting teams in a range of sports. No one thinks it strange that Bayern or Wolfsburg or Real or Barcelona should have womens' teams - its assumed that they should as part of the sporting club. In this United could be a leader - in this country at any rate.
Click to expand...

Fair points. I suppose it's a balancing act between tokenism, and gaining traction in the community. It is frustrating to see United being painted as the big corporate bully, next to City and their very generous owners of late. (the irony of UAE money being used to subsidize the womens' game is almost painful) I think most local people without affiliation to either club would agree that City seem to be making a hell of an effort to change the community for the better, and it's certainly not going unnoticed, but there's only so much you can do when you are primarily a self sustaining football club, neighbored by a club who'll let kids in for £10 now and again, just because they can.

Overall I do think we should have a female team at some level, I just don't think we should be compelled to plow money into something so unprofitable, 2 months after a World Cup has generated a bit of noise. Maybe when the dust has settled on all the Daily Mail outrage, we should have a look at it again.
 
finneh said:
If your argument is built around the belief that "even a man with an artificial leg can play for Man United", then I think you need to re-evaluate.

I'd love to see your argument in a courtroom DDA case. "we weren't discriminating against his disability, we asked him to climb up the stairs to our offices, he couldn't because he was in a wheelchair, so he wasn't suitable for the position".
Click to expand...
On the one legged man, I was more referencing the likes of Oscar Pistorius in track, that making a genuine example. What a tragedy that was for disability athletics.

And not really. It would hold up fine. And it holds up fine every single day because thats how it works.

"We asked the guy to climb a ladder, and he couldn't, so we couldn't hire him."
"We asked the women to climb the ladder, and she could, but she's got ovaries, so we couldn't hire her".
 
Unlikely lad said:
I don't understand how you've reached this conclusion. Obviously there will be much less interest but I would, for example, definitely follow the team.
Click to expand...

So what's your thinking here, that in 2005 Manchester United shut down a profit making women's football team, and now, faced with evidence that if they started it up again it would be a profitable worthwhile endeavour, are now just refusing to do so because they don't like making money?

If there was money in this then Manchester United would do it, no question. They aren't because it's a loser.
 
Sir A1ex said:
Dismissing women's football as "politically correct liberal crap" could be read as being marginally sexist.

And btw, though they may not make anybody a millionaire at the moment, other WPL teams seem to manage to be commercially viable. So I'm not sure your point is even correct there.
Click to expand...

So you're saying that Manchester United are just refusing to make money because they are ideologically opposed to women's football or something?

One thing Manchester United are good at is making money, and if this was a winner we'd have a women's football team, no question.
 
Cristiano Jonaldo said:
So you're saying that Manchester United are just refusing to make money because they are ideologically opposed to women's football or something?

One thing Manchester United are good at is making money, and if this was a winner we'd have a women's football team, no question.
Click to expand...

No, as I say, nobody's going to get rich off this. But that doesn't mean it's not financially viable.
 
Minimalist said:
It's the shield of choice for anyone these days that says something intolerant without any reason aside from their own blind prejudice.

"Don't ask me why I don't want it! I don't give in to political correctness!"

Some in the thread might be offering explanations but I can't see a single good one bar the argument that it makes no money.

I don't watch women's football myself and wouldn't pretend just to make a point. However, the odd bit that I did see at the last WC there, I can clearly see the women's game is improving all the time.

To repeat what I said before, there is no doubt that is bizarre to most people that United (given their stature) stand alone without a women's team to compete.
Click to expand...

It has nothing to do with prejudice. Who's calling for a women's football team again? People involved in women's football, people involved in sponsorship of women's football, feminists and other people interested in pushing women's causes. How about a sufficient number of fans to make women's football a worthwhile endeavour? Nope, they don't give a shit.

So if you're being asked to back a loser in the face of commercial realities, the reason for it in this case can only be political.
 
Sir A1ex said:
So we're specifically accusing the Daily Mail of politically correct liberal crap, are we?
Click to expand...

The daily mail will publish ANYTHING that is in any way contentious and increases page views and therefore ad revenue. If this thread demonstrates anything it's that women's football certainly qualifies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.