Manchester United refuse to launch female team

Cristiano Jonaldo said:
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.
Click to expand...
I've always said that getting rid of the womens team was the worst thing United have done in my time. They never cared about it, it wasn't "really" United (they were Corinthians before), but killing it was such a horrible thing to do.
 
soap said:
Not really. Men naturally have better spacial awareness and coordination.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's been entirely proven that that is in-built rather than learnt.

I remember hearing one slightly bizarre theory that the way we piss leads to us being able to judge a parabolic trajectory better than women. Who knows, eh?
 
Sir A1ex said:
No, as I say, nobody's going to get rich off this. But that doesn't mean it's not financially viable.
Click to expand...
Again, you seem to be confusing financially viable and financially worthwhile. Opening a restaurant that makes a profit of £10 a week is financially viable, the returns certainly don't justify the effort put in though. In United's case our first team is our cash cow, investing money in it as opposed to creating a women's team makes much more sense.
 
A female team costs nothing, you can have the best team in the league with Rooney's wage. And with a female team Woodward will find new deals to finance it partially.
 
ivaldo said:
Again, you seem to be confusing financially viable and financially worthwhile. Opening a restaurant that makes a profit of £10 a week is financially viable, the returns certainly don't justify the effort put in though. In United's case our first team is our cash cow, investing money in it as opposed to creating a women's team makes much more sense.
Click to expand...
If what we do has to be financially worthwhile then why do we already spend money on a girls academy?
 
Cristiano Jonaldo said:
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.
Click to expand...
How to you think a team like Bournemouth justify throwing money away with their women's team then?
 
However well intentioned this media crusade to get Manchester United to have a women's team is, as someone who has no knowledge of women's football in England, it just gives off the impression that women's football isn't worth a damn until the great Manchester United have a club. All they're doing is devaluing the women's competition and other clubs who do have a team. They should celebrate what they have and not make it seem like a Manchester United not having a women's team is holding back women's football which quite clearly it isn't based off the last World Cup.
 
manutddjw said:
However well intentioned this media crusade to get Manchester United to have a women's team is, as someone who has no knowledge of women's football in England, it just gives off the impression that women's football isn't worth a damn until the great Manchester United have a club. All they're doing is devaluing the women's competition and other clubs who do have a team. They should celebrate what they have and not make it seem like a Manchester United not having a women's team is holding back women's football which quite clearly it isn't based off the last World Cup.
Click to expand...

Actually they are right, in France Women football gained a lot of importance when Montpellier with Nicollin took an interest to it, but when Lyon with Aulas developed the team, it got a lot bigger. Finally PSG made it worthy of live broadcasting.
 
ivaldo said:
Again, you seem to be confusing financially viable and financially worthwhile. Opening a restaurant that makes a profit of £10 a week is financially viable, the returns certainly don't justify the effort put in though. In United's case our first team is our cash cow, investing money in it as opposed to creating a women's team makes much more sense.
Click to expand...

I'm not confusing anything. In fact it's you and @Cristiano Jonaldo that appear to be confusing those terms.

JC specifically said the team would not be financially viable - ie it would lose money and not be sustainable / would be a drain on resources. I am arguing that this is not the case, it would cover its own costs.

Would it be financially worthwhile? No, this is not something the club would do directly in order to make money. But there are less tangible ways this sort of thing can add value.

Your last line implies that setting up a women's team would drain money from the club that could otherwise be used to improve the first team. I wold argue this is not the case, it would have no impact, especially given the scale of our finances.
 
Stack said:
If what we do has to be financially worthwhile then why do we already spend money on a girls academy?
Click to expand...
Public image, I'd imagine it's significantly cheaper to run an academy than it is to have a women's first team.

Sir A1ex said:
I'm not confusing anything. In fact it's you and @Cristiano Jonaldo that appear to be confusing those terms.

JC specifically said the team would not be financially viable - ie it would lose money and not be sustainable / would be a drain on resources. I am arguing that this is not the case, it would cover its own costs.

Would it be financially worthwhile? No, this is not something the club would do directly in order to make money. But there are less tangible ways this sort of thing can add value.

Your last line implies that setting up a women's team would drain money from the club that could otherwise be used to improve the first team. I wold argue this is not the case, it would have no impact, especially given the scale of our finances.
Click to expand...
So if it's not financially worth while then why would a business do it? If it doesn't make any difference why did the club disband it in first place, certainly not because they're sexist or spiteful.
 
I couldn't even name one one female footballer. I don't really care if we have a women' s team or not.
 
ivaldo said:
So if it's not financially worth while then why would a business do it?
Click to expand...

There are all sorts of reasons - have you ever got involved in any corporate responsibility work, for example? Not that I'm saying this counts as CSR, but it has parallels - Not everything a buiness does can be linked directly to making a profit.

In the case of the football club, there is a much bigger onus than for a normal business on them to take into account their wider impact and the local community and beyond. Whether the owners of our club (or a lot of others) think this way is a different matter, but I firmly believe they should do.
 
Last edited:
Sir A1ex said:
There are all sorts of reasons - have you ever got involved in any corporate responsibility work, for example? Not that I'm saying this counts as CR, but it has parallels - Not everything a buiness does can be linked directly to making a profit.

In the case of the football club, there is a much bigger onus than for a normal business on them to take into account their wider impact and the local community and beyond. Whether the owners of our club (or a lot of others) think this way is a different matter, but I firmly believe they should do.
Click to expand...
If you don't think everything a business does of this magnitude is linked with profit then you are naive, whether directly or indirectly it's all about increasing profit.

Why do you think it was disbanded.
 
The use of the word refuse is harsh and unjustified. More like the club has it's reservations about forming a senior level women's team.
 
The Daily Mail: champions of women's rights ~

(From Football365)

Doctor Love

As you read each of the excerpts below, ask yourself whether this would have been mentioned should Eva Carneiro have been male?

'Dressing up as a sexy Cleopatra and getting soaked in the ice bucket challenge: How the alluring Chelsea doctor Eva Carneiro became the most talked-about woman in football'

'Football fans took to Twitter to deride the Blues boss with the hashtag #TeamEva, while others simply focused on Gibraltar-born Carneiro's looks, with user Michael Hackney describing her as "one of the highlights of the Premier League"'

'Her pre-Raphaelite curls and toned figure have attracted the attention of many a fan but little is known about her love life'

'While her presence online is low-key - her Twitter account has no posts and her Facebook profile is private'

'Profile pictures posted on Twitter and Facebook reveal a less serious side to Carneiro; in one she is pictured tucking into an iced cupcake while another shows her love of horse-riding as she canters in what looks like a safari setting'

She's a female medical professional, you see. So the important thing is whether she likes horse-riding and in what style she wears her hair.


The Inside Track

The football may be back underway, but don't think that that means the MailOnline's commitment to sporting soap opera has finished. Oh no.

'Chelsea goalkeeper Thibaut Courtois accused of cheating on Spanish girlfriend with Miss Belgium hopeful', reads their headline.

Weirdly, despite the story being about Chelsea's goalkeeper, four of the first five images don't include him at all. Instead they are provocative shots of the real subject of the story. Yet it's labelled as sports news.

Don't worry though, because there is a video too. Courtois' best bits? No. The rise of the Belgian national team? No. 'Get to know the stunning 'Miss Earth Belgium' Emily Vanhoutte'? Indeed.
Click to expand...
 
ivaldo said:
If you don't think everything a business does of this magnitude is linked with profit then you are naive, whether directly or indirectly it's all about increasing profit.
Click to expand...

I don't think you're appreciating how people with repsonsibilituy for such things often think. There are some pretty obscure thought processes in even the largest corporations that can lead to plenty of time being spent on things which are never expected to return a profit. There's a veryb blurred line between what may indirectly help the bottom line (eg through good PR) and wht is being purely because it is felt to be the right thing to do.

That's not to say all organisations are like this, I'm sure it varies wildly. And clearly Man Utd are currently not very interested in that side of things.

ivaldo said:
Why do you think it was disbanded.
Click to expand...

I have no idea, but I'd guess that it's precisely because it wasn't making money. If all you're interested in is making money, then why bother with somethng that is neutral to your P&L?
 
diarm said:
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.
Click to expand...
So much this.

You don't see anyone complaining that we have no basketball team or rugby team.

But it's just the modern day of people being entitled to everything. You should do this, cause I want it so.
 
Sir A1ex said:
I don't think you're appreciating how people with repsonsibilituy for such things often think. There are some pretty obscure thought processes in even the largest corporations that can lead to plenty of time being spent on things which are never expected to return a profit. There's a veryb blurred line between what may indirectly help the bottom line (eg through good PR) and wht is being purely because it is felt to be the right thing to do.

That's not to say all organisations are like this, I'm sure it varies wildly. And clearly Man Utd are currently not very interested in that side of things.



I have no idea, but I'd guess that it's precisely because it wasn't making money. If all you're interested in is making money, then why bother with somethng that is neutral to your P&L?
Click to expand...
We massively disagree there then. Perhaps I'm cynical, I just think im a realist.
 
Stack said:
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.
Click to expand...

It's not a BS copout at all. It'd be the same as UEFA letting us into the CL last season and turfing someone else out, on the basis United bring them in more revenue. Why not just hand out the trophy to whichever club puts the most money in your bank?

I was interested in the world cup because I wanted the England team to do well. The same as I would under normal circumstances be interested in a United women's team doing well, so would therefore take an interest in it. This is how supporting a football team works, actually.

Relegating and promoting teams based on how much money they make you, rather than how well they do, removes this interest. Unless you are suggesting people should not give a crap about that sort of thing completely undermining the entire idea of it being a competitive sport.

Do you think you'd be as interested in the Premier League if the FA changed the rules so that if a small team finished in the top four they'd be replaced by one of the bigger clubs regardless? Or started relegating teams based on how marketable they were as a brand?

What annoys me is this sudden attempt to be ramming everything about women's football down everyone's throats, but at the same time pulling shite like this and then trying to sweep it under the carpet. If you want it to be accessable as a legitimate competitive sport, you kind of have to make sure that's what it actually is.

The rest of your post has nothing to do with mine so I'm unsure if you're talking to me or making a general point. If it's the former I'm not sure which part of it I'm supposedly disputing.
 
I do think it is a crying shame that Manchester United do not see this as a chance to promote women, women's soccer, feed childhood dreams, improve communities through promoting sport. Maybe the riches aren't there, but sometimes doing good is just 'a good thing'. Why the hell not?
 
Is women's football any good? I'm not talking about the very elite level e.g. the World Cup. I mean your average game. I saw bits in the past and thought it was a bit shite, but the quality could easily have improved since then.
 
Grande said:
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.
Click to expand...
Not true, nothing in the rules to say someone needs to be male to play for Manchester United in the PL or CL, just that no female is good enouhg.
 
rcoobc said:
If you find yourself born English, Scottish, Welsh, Irish, French, Dutch, German, Spanish, Italian, Norwegian, Austrian, Hungarian, Polish, Russian, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Mexican, American, Canadian, Brazilian, Argentinan, Uruguayan, South African, Nigerian, Ghanaian or from any other country, you can hope for and work towards playing for man utd.

But if you find yourself born female, you can't.
Click to expand...

If you're a homosexuell, transgender jewish black male with a double sided calf amputation and red sideburns you can't swim for Chelsea's ballet dance squad either if it doesn't exist. But if you want it so much, sort it out yourself.
 
RedFish said:
I do think it is a crying shame that Manchester United do not see this as a chance to promote women, women's soccer, feed childhood dreams, improve communities through promoting sport. Maybe the riches aren't there, but sometimes doing good is just 'a good thing'. Why the hell not?
Click to expand...

Yeah I find it amazing that some people here think the club should only do things that will create a huge profit.
 
Fener1907 said:
Is women's football any good? I'm not talking about the very elite level e.g. the World Cup. I mean your average game. I saw bits in the past and thought it was a bit shite, but the quality could easily have improved since then.
Click to expand...
No.
 
Sad Chris said:
If you're a homosexuell, transgender jewish black male with a double sided calf amputation and red sideburns you can't swim for Chelsea's ballet dance squad either if it doesn't exist. But if you want it so much, sort it out yourself.
Click to expand...
Dreaming of playing for your favourite sports club should be a fundamental children's right. Young girls should have that dream as well as young boys.
 
Cal? said:
Not true, nothing in the rules to say someone needs to be male to play for Manchester United in the PL or CL, just that no female is good enouhg.
Click to expand...

Exactly LVG has let RVP go because he no longer believes he is good enough to play for Man Utd. There isn't a female player out there better than he is.
 
rcoobc said:
Dreaming of playing for your favourite sports club should be a fundamental children's right. Young girls should have that dream as well as young boys.
Click to expand...
Dreaming to compete in any Olympic sports should be a fundamental children's right, etc, etc...

Synchronized swimming and rhythmic gymnastics are women only in the Olympics.
 
ivaldo said:
We massively disagree there then. Perhaps I'm cynical, I just think im a realist.
Click to expand...

I think you're right when it comes to United. I'm just saying that a lot of successful businesses think differently. And a lot of football clubs with less money than us seem able to run a women's team without it affecting their first team.

I mean, seriously, it's peanuts. If we wanted (and I don't think we should) we could spend like 1% of our transfer budget on women one year, and probably win the league for a decade off the back of it. I think City have been trying something similar, actually.
 
Cal? said:
Not true, nothing in the rules to say someone needs to be male to play for Manchester United in the PL or CL, just that no female is good enouhg.
Click to expand...
Errr Are you joking?

There are indeed rules that stipulate Women can't play in the Premier League or Champions League

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/4110845.stm
http://theconversation.com/footballs-unnoticed-scandal-men-only-competitions-43162
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20111003005821AAe0A0f

My dad ran an youth football team at one point, and the kids turned from 10 to 11 year olds. Now back then, four things happened... the offside rule was introduced, the pitches got bigger, the number of players per team increased and girls were banned from playing alongside boys.

Now this wasn't a very good team, one of the worst around, and they suddenly lost the two young girls (two of the best players funnily enough), they needed an extra few players because the squad was getting bigger anyway, and they lost another player to other teams looking for more players.

So they folded. But my point is, I can't believe you think there aren't rules stopping women playing in mens football.
 
Sir A1ex said:
I think you're right when it comes to United. I'm just saying that a lot of successful businesses think differently. And a lot of football clubs with less money than us seem able to run a women's team without it affecting their first team.

I mean, seriously, it's peanuts. If we wanted (and I don't think we should) we could spend like 1% of our transfer budget on women one year, and probably win the league for a decade off the back of it. I think City have been trying something similar, actually.
Click to expand...

Some on here are acting like we would need to put 100 million into the Woman's team.
 
rcoobc said:
Dreaming of playing for your favourite sports club should be a fundamental children's right. Young girls should have that dream as well as young boys.
Click to expand...
Absolutely! What's to stop them? If a girl steps forward with the skillset required, I'm all for it. The dream is not the problem. People limiting their possibilities are just as much the problem as people asking for extra chances based on gender.
 
rcoobc said:
Errr Are you joking?

There are indeed rules that stipulate Women can't play in the Premier League or Champions League

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/4110845.stm
http://theconversation.com/footballs-unnoticed-scandal-men-only-competitions-43162
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20111003005821AAe0A0f

My dad ran an youth football team at one point, and the kids turned from 10 to 11 year olds. Now back then, four things happened... the offside rule was introduced, the pitches got bigger, the number of players per team increased and girls were banned from playing alongside boys.

Now this wasn't a very good team, one of the worst around, and they suddenly lost the two young girls (two of the best players funnily enough), they needed an extra few players because the squad was getting bigger anyway, and they lost another player to other teams looking for more players.

So they folded. But my point is, I can't believe you think there aren't rules stopping women playing in mens football.
Click to expand...
I stand corrected, just thought some Serie A team did sign some woman ages ago as a stunt...

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/jul/25/football.italy
 
Cal? said:
Dreaming to compete in any Olympic sports should be a fundamental children's right, etc, etc...

Synchronized swimming and rhythmic gymnastics are women only in the Olympics.
Click to expand...
And that's not right either, but (probably) more to do with there being the right quality for both levels. The Olympics adds and removes different events all the time, and actively tries to improved the competition at all levels.
 
rcoobc said:
Errr Are you joking?

There are indeed rules that stipulate Women can't play in the Premier League or Champions League

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/4110845.stm
http://theconversation.com/footballs-unnoticed-scandal-men-only-competitions-43162
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20111003005821AAe0A0f

My dad ran an youth football team at one point, and the kids turned from 10 to 11 year olds. Now back then, four things happened... the offside rule was introduced, the pitches got bigger, the number of players per team increased and girls were banned from playing alongside boys.

Now this wasn't a very good team, one of the worst around, and they suddenly lost the two young girls (two of the best players funnily enough), they needed an extra few players because the squad was getting bigger anyway, and they lost another player to other teams looking for more players.

So they folded. But my point is, I can't believe you think there aren't rules stopping women playing in mens football.
Click to expand...

Can men play in women's sports? I mean If Murray wanted to win more Grand slams could he just move over to the Women's side of the draw and dominate for years?

Why is it wrong for women to not be able to play for a man's team when men can't play in women's?
 
Sad Chris said:
Absolutely! What's to stop them? If a girl steps forward with the skillset required, I'm all for it. The dream is not the problem. People limiting their possibilities are just as much the problem as people asking for extra chances based on gender.
Click to expand...

Oh come on, "extra chances"? Really?

A chance would be just fine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.