Manchester United refuse to launch female team

It's funny that so many people have mentioned that themselves or United "don't view it as a profitable venture", as if that is the ultimately deciding factor. Whereas in reality it's almost definitely got nothing to do with it. Breaking even isn't what they would be looking for when looking at an investment opportunity, its a decent ROI (which let's be honest, women's football wouldn't have).

On the other side of things, United honour lots of causes that will never be profitable. But they are worth doing for their reputation's sake, as well as for a whole number of other reasons.

Likewise, there are almost certainly a tonne of investment opportunities that might be likely profitable, but are definitely not worth doing. Security and transport are two things that a lot of companies could do profitably (or cheaper) in house, but the time and effort involved aren't worth it, let alone the funds that it would tie up.
 
Probably a very selfish viewpoint but I'd rather we invest the money into the youth teams then run a women's team. I just don't have any interest in women's football. It's not sexist at all, I don't have much interest in the MLS so for the same reasons I wouldn't want us starting a franchise or partnership over there.
 
Fully Fledged said:
Not if the only reason is a girl takes his place but he is not allowed to take her's in the other team.
If you refuse to have male only sport then their should be no segregation. If you feel there is a need to make female only teams there should be male only teams.

You can have girl only but not male only but that discriminates against boys. If you want to live in a society that allows discrimination then fair enough. I just don't think it's right.
Click to expand...

Oh I can't be arsed with this. You think you've worked out this really sound logical argument - we know, we get it, well done. But in reality it's just the sort of typical "Why isn't there a White Pride march?" bollocks that we have to put up with from Daily Mail fans.
If you want to try and cunningly win some kind of battle against this perceived injustice, using your staggering intellect, you go for it. But I'm just saying that in the real world things are better for everybody if we avoid being arses about this kind of thing, and let people do stuff they want to do.
 
Sir A1ex said:
Oh I can't be arsed with this. You think you've worked out this really sound logical argument - we know, we get it, well done. But in reality it's just the sort of typical "Why isn't there a White Pride march?" bollocks that we have to put up with from Daily Mail fans.
If you want to try and cunningly win some kind of battle against this perceived injustice, using your staggering intellect, you go for it. But I'm just saying that in the real world things are better for everybody if we avoid being arses about this kind of thing, and let people do stuff they want to do.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry if I upset you that was never my intent. This will be my last post on the subject. I will admit that we will probably never agree on this subject and that's fine by me. I must admit that I don't want to have bad blood with somebody on the forum though.
While I don't believe there is such a thing as positive discrimination and think that discrimination is a negative term by definition I was only trying to have a civilized debate on the matter.

There are such things as White Pride/Supremacy Marches. The EDL are having one in my home town this weekend. They might not call it a White Supremacy march but that's the way I see it. It is the reason that the football match was moved to Friday night. This is a march that I am very much apposed to because it is only there to incited racial hatred. As I said above I am apposed to discrimination in all it's forms.

Again I apologize for any ill feeling I have caused have a nice night.
 
Fully Fledged said:
I'm sorry if I upset you that was never my intent. This will be my last post on the subject. I will admit that we will probably never agree on this subject and that's fine by me. I must admit that I don't want to have bad blood with somebody on the forum though.
While I don't believe there is such a thing as positive discrimination and think that discrimination is a negative term by definition I was only trying to have a civilized debate on the matter.

There are such things as White Pride/Supremacy Marches. The EDL are having one in my home town this weekend. They might not call it a White Supremacy march but that's the way I see it. It is the reason that the football match was moved to Friday night. This is a march that I am very much apposed to because it is only there to incited racial hatred. As I said above I am apposed to discrimination in all it's forms.

Again I apologize for any ill feeling I have caused have a nice night.
Click to expand...

Yeah, sorry, over-reacted a bit, was just a bit busy and stressed about other stuff. I'm sure you didn't mean any offence, some of the reasoning was just a bit similar to stuff that really winds me up!
 
Sir A1ex said:
Yeah, sorry, over-reacted a bit, was just a bit busy and stressed about other stuff. I'm sure you didn't mean any offence, some of the reasoning was just a bit similar to stuff that really winds me up!
Click to expand...
Ok mate we're good. We all have those types of days.
 
Stack said:
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.

Two of the mission statements for you.
"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, we provide 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. "

Clearly helping to grow the game with no financial reward..
Click to expand...

I didn't say the club shouldn't be doing it, just there shouldn't be an obligation to do it.
Sir A1ex said:
Well if there are no men out there wanting to do it, it may as well stay like that. If there are, they should totally be included.
Click to expand...

Clearly there were men doing it, otherwise it wouldn't have been an Olympic sport in the first place, but it was then cancelled because of a lack of interest.
Shez said:
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.
And away from the economics... football was and is rooted in community. If there are a significant number of women who want to play for us, we owe it go them to make sure they have the chance.
And then there is the additional arguments of social benefits, employment benefits etc. Which we can get into.
Click to expand...
No, not at all. If there's enough people who want to represent Man Utd in basketball or ping pong, do we owe it to them to start a basketball or ping pong team?
 
Cal? said:
Clearly there were men doing it, otherwise it wouldn't have been an Olympic sport in the first place, but it was then cancelled because of a lack of interest.
Click to expand...

That makes no sense - is it impossible that men were doing it, but stopped doing so to the point that international competition was no longer viable? If it was cancelled because nobody was interested in doing it anymore, that's fine. If men were and are still doing it, and it was just cancelled because it wasn't as popular as the women's, then it shouldn't have been, and should be brought back.

I had a feeling that that I'd heard something about this a while ago, and although it had world championships or something, it was never allowed in the Olympics. Isn't there some really old fella who wants to get it in the Olympics and take part, because he was good at it in the 70s or something?
 
If we want to do it fine and there are community arguments for it, but we have to accept that a lot of male fans have little to no interest in it and find it overhyped by the likes of the BBC.
It's a bit sad if it comes down to economics, but again understandable.
To be hectored into it by the likes of the DM would be unpalatable though. Presumably the old team was shut down for a reason and few here seem to have noticed.
 
Sir A1ex said:
That makes no sense - is it impossible that men were doing it, but stopped doing so to the point that international competition was no longer viable? If it was cancelled because nobody was interested in doing it anymore, that's fine. If men were and are still doing it, and it was just cancelled because it wasn't as popular as the women's, then it shouldn't have been, and should be brought back.
Click to expand...

To my knowledge neither rhythmic gymnastics or synchronized swimming for men have ever been Olympic events. Both were introduced officially in 1984 and have always been women's only events.

Same goes for World and European championships, as far as I can tell. Men's rhythmic gymnastics is on the rise, though, so they say. But it's not really the same thing. More martial arts exhibition than traditional gymnastics. It's big in Japan, apparently - but, again, it's not really the same sport.

Anyway, there will presumably always be some sort of correlation between popularity and Olympic status - for the simple reason that it's unlikely that a very obscure/unpopular sport will meet the general criteria.
 
Personally think it's a bit of a non issue, if the club want to set up a team I would have no problem with that but like the vast majority of male and female fans of the club I would have no interest in it and would not attend games as I don't find the female sport entertaining. If the sport continues to grow then I'm sure the club will look in to it but I suspect a lot of fans that jumped on the bandwagon after the World Cup will start to lose interest over time.
 
According to Fifa, you have about 10% the number of women playing football as you have men. So that makes women's football only 10% as competitive as men's. The countries with the most number of female players are: USA, Germany, Canada, Sweden, Australia, Norway, England, Netherlands, Denmark and France.

That's just what we need - spend millions supporting untalented athletes in an uncompetitive sport that is predominately played only by a tiny minority of women in only a few select wealthy nations.

If women's football was as altruistic of an endeavour as the press claim, then these clubs should donate millions to fund football programs in Latin America, Africa, India, South East Asia, i.e., places where there will be a lot of talent but women simply do not have the money to even afford a pair of football cleats. Instead, they are clamoring for a football team just so some (relatively) wealthy girl who was best in her class of 50 can play for Man Utd.

http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/fifafacts/bcoffsurv/emaga_9384_10704.pdf
 
Ji_Maria said:
That's just what we need - spend millions supporting untalented athletes in an uncompetitive sport that is predominately played only by a tiny minority of women in wealthy nations.
Click to expand...

On the other hand it would level the playing field with clubs like Arsenal and City, who currently have really succesful women's teams, but can't ever hope to compete in the Premier League due to the millions of pounds they are haemorrhaging supporting their women's teams.
 
Sir A1ex said:
On the other hand it would level the playing field with clubs like Arsenal and City, who currently have really succesful women's teams, but can't ever hope to compete in the Premier League due to the millions of pounds they are haemorrhaging supporting their women's teams.
Click to expand...

That's a complete non sequitor. Whether a club can afford to spend money has absolutely nothing to do with whether the club SHOULD so spend money.

My point is that the "moral argument" that the press is making is flawed at best. Women's football is not this massively popular global sport with a high number of participation. It's played mostly by a tiny minority of well-to-do women in a tiny handful of wealthy countries. If you really want to make a moral argument, it should be that teams should donate to developing women's football programs in places like India, Africa, South East Asia. I've always believed that countries like India are a hugely untapped resource for football talent.

Also, I guarantee if the number of entry-level participants in women's football were to reach the level of men's football, not a single woman playing currently on any women's team in England would still have their spot. They would all be replaced by far more talented players from elsewhere who just never even had the chance to touch a football.

How many elite British runners do you see at the IAAF track and field events? That's what happens when the playing field is completely level. So excuse me if I'm not thrilled about $$$$ going to fund talentless women just so they can make a living kicking a ball around.
 
Last edited:
Cal? said:
No, not at all. If there's enough people who want to represent Man Utd in basketball or ping pong, do we owe it to them to start a basketball or ping pong team?
Click to expand...

This is the fault in logic that ends up being discriminatory - some people assuming as a given that Manchester United belong to men, and that women are somehow 'outsiders' to be 'invited in as extra guests'.

In fact, it's quite the opposite. It's a football club for people, female and male. United has female and male members, fotball players, and female and male teams in all age groups - that is, until the Glazers excluded adult women from the club by closing down the female team based on profitability principles. That was an act of outright discrimination, which clearly needs to be rectified.

And it's a Football Club, so ping pong clearly doesn't enter i to it.
 
Grande said:
This is the fault in logic that ends up being discriminatory - some people assuming as a given that Manchester United belong to men, and that women are somehow 'outsiders' to be 'invited in as extra guests'.

In fact, it's quite the opposite. It's a football club for people, female and male. United has female and male members, fotball players, and female and male teams in all age groups - that is, until the Glazers excluded adult women from the club by closing down the female team based on profitability principles. That was an act of outright discrimination, which clearly needs to be rectified.

And it's a Football Club, so ping pong clearly doesn't enter i to it.
Click to expand...

No, Manchester United is a top football club for the most talented football players. Compared to the Men's team, Womens football is an uncompetitive joke played only by a tiny minority of wealthy women from wealthy countries. Ridiculous for them to expect the same equal treatment when if they had to go through equal levels of trials to become a United player, none of them would even qualify.
 
Ji_Maria said:
No, Manchester United is a top football club for the most talented football players. Compared to the Men's team, Womens football is an uncompetitive joke played only by a tiny minority of wealthy women from wealthy countries. Ridiculous for them to expect the same equal treatment when if they had to go through equal levels of trials to become a United player, none of them would even qualify.
Click to expand...

Know your history, or at least the history of the club. Manchester United is a football club, luckily for more than just the most talented footballers in the world. Luckily, in the modern era, that includes boys and girls. And all have an equal shot at making the teams at their level. Until the Glazer removed the opportunity for women turning 18 and beyond.

If your stance is that women should not have the opportunity of practicing sports unless they can beat men in direct competition, I expect and hope you are pretty much alone in that.
 
Grande said:
Know your history, or at least the history of the club. Manchester United is a football club, luckily for more than just the most talented footballers in the world. Luckily, in the modern era, that includes boys and girls. And all have an equal shot at making the teams at their level. Until the Glazer removed the opportunity for women turning 18 and beyond.

If your stance is that women should not have the opportunity of practicing sports unless they can beat men in direct competition, I expect and hope you are pretty much alone in that.
Click to expand...

Women can have the opportunity to practice sport without the involvement of Manchester United, from what I've gathered in this thread we do offer a football education for young girls and after that they are free to pursue a career in the game if they are good enough with one of the other clubs. Surely it is down to the club to decide if it is in it's best interests to keep funding a senior women's side.

As I said in a previous post I couldn't care less what the club decide as it is a sport that I have zero interest in but from a personal point of view I would prefer more investment in developing the male youth teams than in to women's football.
 
Widnes said:
Women can have the opportunity to practice sport without the involvement of Manchester United, from what I've gathered in this thread we do offer a football education for young girls and after that they are free to pursue a career in the game if they are good enough with one of the other clubs. Surely it is down to the club to decide if it is in it's best interests to keep funding a senior women's side.

As I said in a previous post I couldn't care less what the club decide as it is a sport that I have zero interest in but from a personal point of view I would prefer more investment in developing the male youth teams than in to women's football.
Click to expand...

Very sensible post, I agree with you.
 
Widnes said:
Women can have the opportunity to practice sport without the involvement of Manchester United, from what I've gathered in this thread we do offer a football education for young girls and after that they are free to pursue a career in the game if they are good enough with one of the other clubs. Surely it is down to the club to decide if it is in it's best interests to keep funding a senior women's side.

As I said in a previous post I couldn't care less what the club decide as it is a sport that I have zero interest in but from a personal point of view I would prefer more investment in developing the male youth teams than in to women's football.
Click to expand...

It's down to the Glazers and their money first corporate policy. And their ideas about product branding. MUFC is not a football club in that respect. As an investment, it's nothing we're talking about, and obviously what 18 out of 20 PL clubs can afford, Manchester United easily can.

It's not about your - or mine - personal interests either. It's about the girls playing for Manchester United being told to leave the club at 18 and go to Man City (or FCUM!). And the girls who are interested in football until they find out some men don't consider it the same sport when they do it. You probably won't ever see a live Man Utd ladies game, I'd hazard to guess - and you won't have to. But to the many that this does mean something personal to, it's more important. The burden of argument should lie with those who banish all girls from United once they're 18, no one else, to my mind. And I think they should have a heck of a good reason.

On another note, I believe they're dead wrong. Having teams for both women and men will only serve the brand well, the way the sport and society's heading, and sticking to the dinousaur guns may just lump United in with the likes of FA taking ages to acknowledge European - and world - football, or Chelsea not having a black player before 1982.

But brandmaking is the wrong reason. The right reason is that it's the right thing to do.
 
Stack said:
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.
Click to expand...

This is very much the point as it seems to me.
 
diarm said:
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.
Click to expand...

I agree with much of what you say here. Will only ad that Newton Heath LYR was not constricted to home grown youth. It takes time to build, and you have to start somewhere.
 
I can see both sides of the argument really. For the record, I would like to see a women's team because it would give me something else to watch, another team to support, in another sport. I like seeing United do well, and that includes doing well in activities not related to our first team. As I said, though, I can see both sides of the argument.

I've already explained the main reason why I would like to see a women's team at Manchester United, but I think that there are actually pros. First of all, it does seem a little bit strange having a girls' team but no senior side for those players to graduate to. It means that we could end up spending time and effort developing a talented player, only for that player to end up winning titles for other clubs. I'd imagine a lot of them will end up playing for City or Liverpool since they're both fairly near. I'd hate to imagine our most bitter rivals taking players that we've grown, and it's frustrating to see that City are the main club in Manchester when it comes to Women's football. We should strive to be the best at as many different things as we can. In fairness, we are not a male-only team, as some have mentioned already. It's also good for reputation. We're the only PL side, along with Southampton, to not have a team. That's grim for me to think a bit considering we've always been pioneers of the game. Plus, the sport is growing, so why not invest in a team now before it really becomes profitable? Surely it's only going to become more difficult and more expensive to start this team up.

On the other hand, I think it's great that the club are staying put. We're not a club that gets pushed around, so this position isn't surprising. It's a breath of fresh air all the same, though. Equally, it's annoying how Southampton don't get so much hate for not having a women's side. I also understand that it would be quite a big deal for the club to do this properly, financially especially (although I have already said that I can only see it getting dearer and dearer to set up). And maybe it will never be profitable. I don't see the club as a business at all, but I do disagree with doing things that will blatantly wreck our finances. I also think that the comments about women's clubs attaching themselves to men's teams to get a head start being wrong is a completely understandable way of looking at things.

I'm not going to change my mind about wanting a women's team (as long as we stay away from fecking basketball), but we shouldn't be forced into it, and, should we ever go ahead with it, I don't want to do a City and get other teams thrown out so unfairly (unless it's City themselves). I'd love to do this, but it's gotta be done proper.
 
Sir A1ex said:
On the other hand it would level the playing field with clubs like Arsenal and City, who currently have really succesful women's teams, but can't ever hope to compete in the Premier League due to the millions of pounds they are haemorrhaging supporting their women's teams.
Click to expand...
:lol:
 
Grande said:
This is the fault in logic that ends up being discriminatory - some people assuming as a given that Manchester United belong to men, and that women are somehow 'outsiders' to be 'invited in as extra guests'.

In fact, it's quite the opposite. It's a football club for people, female and male. United has female and male members, fotball players, and female and male teams in all age groups - that is, until the Glazers excluded adult women from the club by closing down the female team based on profitability principles. That was an act of outright discrimination, which clearly needs to be rectified.

And it's a Football Club, so ping pong clearly doesn't enter i to it.
Click to expand...
By the same logic, does United owe it to people with various disability and should start a team for every category?
 
This is kind of cool, Barcelona's womens team playing with the same style and system as their male side. Short clip and the same action is repeated twice so no need to watch the whole thing.
 
Grande said:
Know your history, or at least the history of the club. Manchester United is a football club, luckily for more than just the most talented footballers in the world. Luckily, in the modern era, that includes boys and girls. And all have an equal shot at making the teams at their level. Until the Glazer removed the opportunity for women turning 18 and beyond.

If your stance is that women should not have the opportunity of practicing sports unless they can beat men in direct competition, I expect and hope you are pretty much alone in that.
Click to expand...

You seem to be confused. Manchester United is a football club, but it isn't for ANYONE. They do not and have never accepted Random Joe Public into their starting XI.

My stance is that women already have the opportunity to practice sports. That is a separate issue from whether or not they are ENTITLED to receiving funds to practice their sport full-time. I'm sorry, but I do not believe a women who got to where she was simply by beating 50 other women for a spot deserves any praise or funding. Maybe if she was the best out of a couple million, which is pretty much what it takes for a man to make it onto Manchester United's squad.
 
Last edited:
That's the point Ji_Maria, Manchester United is a football club for all fans who wish to support it, but this does not automatically mean that the club is obligated to create football teams for all who wish to play football.

I'd have no issue with the club creating a women's side, but I also have no issue with the club not having a women's side, especially since it does help develop female players. I do have an issue with people trying to force the club into creating a women's side as part of some crusade to try and make women's football more relevant than it is (fans make the sport).

In terms of the football itself, I personally dont mind watching it (I have watched a number of live games at international and club level; it is generally entertaining as it is more open than the men's game, and the keepers are rubbish in comparison so you get some cracking goals) but the standard will never be at the men's level, no matter how much money is poured in and whether or not United has a senior women's team.
 
I do wonder if any of you have worked out that the reason there is discussion about womens football and Utd having a womans team comes from the simple fact that the womens side of the game is now basically the biggest team sport for women in most countries on the planet. The push hasnt come because of anything PC (which is always a bs cop out argument) but has simply come from the growth of the sport. It hasnt come about because of some random person somewhere going on a crusade. FC United have a womens team, they understand whats going on. Grass roots football knows whats going on. The only people who dont seem to know whats going on are the ignorant and the moronic.
The biggest mistake however is trying to compare it to the mens game in terms of ability and finances, that simply misses the whole point and if you cant understand what the whole point is then I really feel sorry for you.
 
Stack said:
I do wonder if any of you have worked out that the reason there is discussion about womens football and Utd having a womans team comes from the simple fact that the womens side of the game is now basically the biggest team sport for women in most countries on the planet. The push hasnt come because of anything PC (which is always a bs cop out argument) but has simply come from the growth of the sport. It hasnt come about because of some random person somewhere going on a crusade. FC United have a womens team, they understand whats going on. Grass roots football knows whats going on. The only people who dont seem to know whats going on are the ignorant and the moronic.
The biggest mistake however is trying to compare it to the mens game in terms of ability and finances, that simply misses the whole point and if you cant understand what the whole point is then I really feel sorry for you.
Click to expand...

I sort of agree with this. But i also only care about United having a womans team if in the future it hurts the club to not have one.

To be honest the media stuff around it probably isn't helping. If United introduce a team it'll look like they caved to media pressure and if they don't people will continue to moan. I see mens and womens football as two seperate sports personally, so i don't think there should be any obligation for a mens team to have a womans team.

I'm not really a fan of womans football either. But then i watch a lot of other sports so i haven't got the time to invest in it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.