It has everything to do with there being nearly no interest in men performing synchronized swimming or rhythmic gymnastics.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.
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?
It has everything to do with there being nearly no interest in men performing synchronized swimming or rhythmic gymnastics.
Until the women football game can be a sustainable business in its own right, there is no reason to run one just to be politically correct.
So are you saying that women are children or disabled?Damn right, and they should let adults play in the U14s and able bodied people compete in the paralympics too.
No they can't, just like women can't play in men's sports.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?
It has everything to do with there being nearly no interest in men performing synchronized swimming or rhythmic gymnastics.
Until the women football game can be a sustainable business in its own right, there is no reason to run one just to be politically correct.
No he's not. Reductio ad absurdum, or something that applies better.So are you saying that women are children or disabled?
So are you saying that women are children or disabled?
I explicitly pointed out that's not what I'm saying earlier in the thread, I'm not going to repeat it in every post.
But I'm not denying the fact that the reason they should have their own competition is because they are not as good at it and never will be, in blunt terms.
The fact is that those used to be in the Olympics, but cancelled due to a lack of interest.It is down to demand from competitors. As soon as there is demand from men to be allowed to compete in these sports, then the rule becomes unjustifiable.
And there's no doubt there a plenty of women who would like the chance to play top level football.
Manchester United having a team can help grow the woman's game.
Well then why do they have a girls academy that covers a range of ages. Not financially viable and its helping grow the game. Utd are already doing what you think they shouldnt be doing.Manchester United have no obligation to anyone to help grow the game. As soon as it becomes financially viable, I'm sure we'll have a side.
And there's no doubt there a plenty of women who would like the chance to play top level football.
You get to play top level anything if you are top level, not if you dream of it or wish you were. You need to earn it like the others.
I have three daughters and I never let them give up due to gender/strength/speed limitations. It's up to them to make a change or improve their skills. I don't want them hoping for somebody someday to give them a chance. If they're good enough, want it hard enough and work towards their goals, they can do anything they want.
There isn't space for gimmies amongst the most skilled of any area.
Tbf, I find it embarrassing that a club of our stature and standing in the game is one of two teams mot to have a Women's team.Talk of standards or skill etc is missing the point wildly. FFS it's the 21st century.........!!!!!!
Now if you bar men from women's elite sport then I think it's fair to do the same with women for men's sport. That is equal rights to allow women in men's sport but ban men from women's sport is discrimination.
The fact is that those used to be in the Olympics, but cancelled due to a lack of interest.
You get to play top level anything if you are top level, not if you dream of it or wish you were. You need to earn it like the others.
I have three daughters and I never let them give up due to gender/strength/speed limitations. It's up to them to make a change or improve their skills. I don't want them hoping for somebody someday to give them a chance. If they're good enough, want it hard enough and work towards their goals, they can do anything they want.
There isn't space for gimmies amongst the most skilled of any area.
Actually is it financially un viable? As far as I know, we already have youth training teams and the infrastructure setup is already there. Plus you get a number of potential sponsors which want to sponsor female sports only as their CSR budget is dedicated to women empowerment. Having a woman's team makes a lot of sense from a business perspective.Manchester United have no obligation to anyone to help grow the game. As soon as it becomes financially viable, I'm sure we'll have a side.
What do you mean 'It's about letting girls play football'?That's one of those things that appears to make sense logically, but when you read what you've actually concluded it's just silly nonsense. It's not even about equal rights, it's just about letting girls play football - in some circumstances in mixed teams, but at the top level in single-sex teams. What's wrong with that?
There's nobody stopping them from playing football.
That should about cover it, good stuff.iI'm sure we'll have a women's team again at some point but I find a lot of the arguments for it a bit weird. Particularly the one about providing women with an opportunity to fulfil their dreams of playing for Manchester United which they're cruelly being denied at the moment. The women that dream of playing for United are dreaming of a completely different entity. They are dreaming of Manchester United's men's team. What else could they be dreaming of? A non-existent women's team which has achieved nothing and represents nothing? That'd be a bit weird. It's actually a bit offensive that this non-existent team has more appeal than the Doncaster Belles. It suggests that the achievements of women footballers are so insignificant that just the association to a men's team is somehow more valuable and appealing than being part of a women's team that has created its own unique identity and has its own history of hard-earned successes.
The Manchester United that has created that history and that allure that women dream about is the men's team. Everything that we associate with Manchester United is based on the success of a team that was a male-only team based on the regulations they were playing under. No matter what happens that will always be a false and unattainable dream. The heritage, the glamour, the "ethos" - none of that would be transferred to the women's team in reality. We know this because it's already happened. The only real associations were the name and the badge. Perhaps eventually elements of the brand would be incorporated into the team but it seems unlikely. They'd represent something completely different. The facilities, the staff, the players...they had nothing in common beforehand and would have nothing in common this time.
The idea it's somehow sexist for Manchester United not to have a women's team is incredibly amusing though. It might be foolish but it's not sexist. The only other Premier League club that doesn't have a women's team is Southampton and along with being one of the teams lauded most often for their commitment to youth football and the community, they're the only team in the PL owned by a woman.
Anyway, I don't agree at all with this idea that people only watch sport to see the fastest, the strongest, the most powerful. The fact that this is a common opinion on here just outlines how detached modern football fans who follow the elite clubs are from football as a whole. Yes that is one aspect of football that has significant appeal but it's not the only appeal. There is significant interest in youth football and women's football because it offers something different - it's progressive, family-friendly, it inspires pride, it's more in touch with football's roots, it's more in touch with the average man/woman. It's a different kind of appeal and it's a different kind of fun. A lot of the same qualities are present in lower league football. The audience is smaller but it's still sizeable. Football was originally about community as much as it was about physical and technical demands and displays. Top-level women's football can still offer that in a way that top-level men's football can't. That won't appeal to a lot of people here but equally it will appeal to a lot of people elsewhere.
Very nicely put.I'm sure we'll have a women's team again at some point but I find a lot of the arguments for it a bit weird. Particularly the one about providing women with an opportunity to fulfil their dreams of playing for Manchester United which they're cruelly being denied at the moment. The women that dream of playing for United are dreaming of a completely different entity. They are dreaming of Manchester United's men's team. What else could they be dreaming of? A non-existent women's team which has achieved nothing and represents nothing? That'd be a bit weird. It's actually a bit offensive that this non-existent team has more appeal than the Doncaster Belles. It suggests that the achievements of women footballers are so insignificant that just the association to a men's team is somehow more valuable and appealing than being part of a women's team that has created its own unique identity and has its own history of hard-earned successes.
The Manchester United that has created that history and that allure that women dream about is the men's team. Everything that we associate with Manchester United is based on the success of a team that was a male-only team based on the regulations they were playing under. No matter what happens that will always be a false and unattainable dream. The heritage, the glamour, the "ethos" - none of that would be transferred to the women's team in reality. We know this because it's already happened. The only real associations were the name and the badge. Perhaps eventually elements of the brand would be incorporated into the team but it seems unlikely. They'd represent something completely different. The facilities, the staff, the players...they had nothing in common beforehand and would have nothing in common this time.
The idea it's somehow sexist for Manchester United not to have a women's team is incredibly amusing though. It might be foolish but it's not sexist. The only other Premier League club that doesn't have a women's team is Southampton and along with being one of the teams lauded most often for their commitment to youth football and the community, they're the only team in the PL owned by a woman.
Anyway, I don't agree at all with this idea that people only watch sport to see the fastest, the strongest, the most powerful. The fact that this is a common opinion on here just outlines how detached modern football fans who follow the elite clubs are from football as a whole. Yes that is one aspect of football that has significant appeal but it's not the only appeal. There is significant interest in youth football and women's football because it offers something different - it's progressive, family-friendly, it inspires pride, it's more in touch with football's roots, it's more in touch with the average man/woman. It's a different kind of appeal and it's a different kind of fun. A lot of the same qualities are present in lower league football. The audience is smaller but it's still sizeable. Football was originally about community as much as it was about physical and technical demands and displays. Top-level women's football can still offer that in a way that top-level men's football can't. That won't appeal to a lot of people here but equally it will appeal to a lot of people elsewhere.
They wouldnt be playing at OTMaybe too few people want to watch women kick a ball around old trafford.
Well, maybe he meant the other Old Trafford (cricket) lolThey wouldnt be playing at OT
Then what about the boy who misses out because of her? He would be good enough to make the girls' side but he not allowed even if he is no bigger or stronger than they are.That's one of those things that appears to make sense logically, but when you read what you've actually concluded it's just silly nonsense. It's not even about equal rights, it's just about letting girls play football - in some circumstances in mixed teams, but at the top level in single-sex teams. What's wrong with that?
In single sex teams, no there isn't.
But why are they not allowed to play with men once they hit 16? It achieves no benefit I can see, and just seems pointlessly mean spirited.
Then what about the boy who misses out because of her? He would be good enough to make the girls' side but he not allowed even if he is no bigger or stronger than they are.
We can't just think girls rights especially when it comes to children.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4110027.stmNot 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.
Not if the only reason is a girl takes his place but he is not allowed to take her's in the other team.This would apply even in single sex teams... what about the boy who can't get into a boys only team because he's not good enough? Nobody has the right to play in any given team regardless of ability. Any boy or girl who can't get into one team on ability just needs to find one at their level (and yes, we should totally ensure there are enough teams at enough levels that everybody who wants to can get a game).
That mKes sense. Far more so than splitting them because boys are stronger.Alex i have been coaching girls and women for about the last 8 years. Still coach males but now predominantly its females. Down here in NZ the age where girls are no longer allowed to play in boys teams is 14. I had one girl that played in a boys team I coached from the age of 7 through to when she was 14. She was an exceptionally talented girl and ended up playing for NZ at an U17 WC.
There are a couple of problems which happen, one being that the girls simply find it too hard to compete with the boys once they hit 13-14. The boys are simply faster, more agile and stronger. However the area where the age switch becomes important comes about with when the girls develop physically. Due to the contact nature of football we end up with issues of unintentional inappropriate contact starting to happen when competing for the ball. The truth is it becomes uncomfortable for the boys as they dont wish to accidently touch girls breasts or crotch when competing for the ball. Generally by the time they are all 13-14 there are very very few girls able to compete with the boys anyway.
One thing that has started to happen now due to the huge growth of girls taking up the game is that fewer girls are ending up in boys teams. It was the case that the extremely talented girls would play in boys teams because they couldnt find girls teams good enough. That has virtually ended now and studies have shown that its better for girls to be playing in girls teams anyway, for a wide range of reasons. Hope that helps.
