Well, that's enough internet for me today.
Manchester United refuse to launch female team
- Thread starter roykeane19
- Start date
Well, that's enough internet for me today.
I think we should only cave when Tracey Neville and her cohorts over at Manchester Thunder bow to pressure to form a men's netball team!
Biggest team sport sounds great and all, but lets be honest - most countries dont have the money to afford womens football clubs outside of maybe a half-arsed "national team" with little to no funding (football is expensive, which is why this is even an issue). The truth is only like 10 countries in the whole world of 200 countires have any significant women's football presence at all, and in those countries it is only those women who are relatively well to do who primarily participate.
Stop lying and trying to portray womens football as some holistic grassroots movement with wide mass appeal among the masses - its not even close to thay. Anyone who has attended a youth girls football club practice knows it is a rich girls sport played almost exclusively in rich Anglo countries. Because of the limited appeal among the general female population it is wholly uncompetitive and not that difficult to make it as a "pro". How many women have even ever touched a football, let alone tried to play?
What some people dont seem to understand is that this issue is about a tiny group of relatively well off women in a select few wealthy countries who didnt have to work all that hard or be that talented to get to where they were, who are now feeling entitled to something that the general public (including the vast majority of women) and sources of funding simply couldnt be bothered to support. There's no demand, there's poor supply (read: poor quality of players due to uncompetiveness), which makes it a piss poor product to support. Its basically like asking why we have so many female ballerinas but so few men - do you really not know?
Maybe if womens football was grassroots as you claim, and we saw poor but very talented girls from poor countries work their tails off to play pro football then there may be more support and sympathy. But right now the reality is money is being funneled to those women who need it the least, and are the least deserving, and that is a travesty.
Last edited:
You very clearly have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. What you have written is ignorant in the extreme and you really arent worth bothering with.
Lol. Utterly unable to refute anything I have said.
Dont worry I'm sure somebody believes womens football is popular. In reality the most popular womens football ever was was when that US player took off her shirt at the Olympics. Why dont you check how many countries fielded an Olympic team, and how many of those countries have a domestic womens professional league? Thats what I thought.
I honestly get frustrated by how much the BBC and others are trying to deliberately hype women's football recently, and why United (or any other club) should be pressured into forming a women's team. As others have said, if it isn't a profitable venture then why should they?
The simple fact of the matter is that women's football is nowhere near as popular, and that a substantial part of this is because the quality simply isn't as high. I don't watch much women's football, and nor do I watch the MLS or conference, because the quality of football on display is simply not that good. I would be quite happy for football to simply become unisex, as I find the segregation of men's and women's sports to be stupid in itself. I believe in a meritocracy, and that if a female player is as good as Messi, she would get picked up by a top club (in a unisex environment), be able to demand a similar salary etc. Instead, the "solution" according to some is to artificially inflate the women's game by pouring money into it in the hope that it attracts more popular interest.
I agree with some of what others have said in this thread that there simply isn't the demand or supply for the product. We live in a world where businesses are governed by economics. If there was more demand for women's football, more people would attend games etc and more money would therefore be getting into the sport.
The simple fact of the matter is that women's football is nowhere near as popular, and that a substantial part of this is because the quality simply isn't as high. I don't watch much women's football, and nor do I watch the MLS or conference, because the quality of football on display is simply not that good. I would be quite happy for football to simply become unisex, as I find the segregation of men's and women's sports to be stupid in itself. I believe in a meritocracy, and that if a female player is as good as Messi, she would get picked up by a top club (in a unisex environment), be able to demand a similar salary etc. Instead, the "solution" according to some is to artificially inflate the women's game by pouring money into it in the hope that it attracts more popular interest.
I agree with some of what others have said in this thread that there simply isn't the demand or supply for the product. We live in a world where businesses are governed by economics. If there was more demand for women's football, more people would attend games etc and more money would therefore be getting into the sport.
Last edited:
Just thought I'd let you know, Marta, considered the greatest ever female footballer, grew up in poverty in a notoriously poor area of Brazil, but of course you already knew that. The only thing that is a travesty here is your ridiculous and ignorant view.
Let giggs manage them before touching this job.
The profit argument seems incredibly limited to me. As a club making so much money from the sport then I think the least it should do is to help it grow and evolve.
Look how far the sport has come in recent decades, there's no reason why women's football couldn't similarly improve dramatically with time and the right backing behind it.
Look how far the sport has come in recent decades, there's no reason why women's football couldn't similarly improve dramatically with time and the right backing behind it.
You're ridiculous argument is akin to saying because the US has a black President that blacks are not ever discriminated against. One exception does not make the rule. Take a look at the consistent top finishers in the Olympics and consistent top goal scorers. Thanks. USA women have won Gold 4 out of the 5 times women's soccer has featured in the Olympics. The time they didn't win, they got Silver behind Norway. USA is also the most succsessful team in Women's World Cup history.
Another interesting factoid regarding participation levels. In spite of your heroic Marta claims, Brazil is not even ranked in the top 10 in number of women playing football. The rankings are (in terms of number of women players):
1. USA, 2. Germany, 3. Canada, 4. Sweden, 5. Australia, 6. Norway, 7. England, 8. Netherlands, 9. Denmark and 10. France.
(all wealthy countries with very high standards of living)
Now in terms of raw talent, the fact that North Korea has a top 10 FIFA ranked team despite incredibly low population and participation levels and overall starvation occuring in that country should also show how uncompetitive and untalented USA and European womens football is despite all the money being thrown at it.
All you have done is prove my point that USA and European womens football are absolutely undeserving of any handouts, and support my claim thay the funds should go towards deserving women in poor countries LIKE Brazil, so we see MORE Martas and less blonde haired Suzy Drivesdaddysporsche fumbling around pretending to be a professional athlete simply because she was the only girl in the neighborhood who showed up for practice.
Last edited:
The difference in standard is so stark they may as well be totally different sports. Fair play to United for not getting swallowed up in the ridiculous over hyping of such a dreary, uninspiring and unwatchable event.
The argument that United needs is a women's team is so ridiculous. Yeah, look everyone is welcome to be a fan of the club but if you are a fan of the club it means you're a fan of the men's team, the team that has been around for well over one hundred years and has won 20 top division trophies. The team that men play in and have played in. So yeah, actually the Manchester United football club happens to be a men's team. Why should a women's team have an association with the brand, history and prestige without ever doing anything to deserve it. As others have said in this thread, women's football needs to start from scratch and build it's own legacies. This handout idea is just pathetic.
Not to mention oversaturation. I don't have the participation figures on hand but something tells me their isn't nearly enough talent to actually support 20 premier clubs. The more clubs the thinner the talent pool, the lower the quality, the less anyone cares.
In Australia the women's league runs for something like 12 matches. It cannot be taken seriously, but an original team (Canberra) is pretty much the best and most successful and now has a history that the players, coaches, staff and fans have earned together. It is a real entity and not a cop-out.
Not to mention oversaturation. I don't have the participation figures on hand but something tells me their isn't nearly enough talent to actually support 20 premier clubs. The more clubs the thinner the talent pool, the lower the quality, the less anyone cares.
In Australia the women's league runs for something like 12 matches. It cannot be taken seriously, but an original team (Canberra) is pretty much the best and most successful and now has a history that the players, coaches, staff and fans have earned together. It is a real entity and not a cop-out.
Yeah, just as I thought, not even worth arguing with someone when their views are as wildly inaccurate and benighted as yours.
Lol what is inaccurate? USA women are the most succesful womens team in history. Everything I posted is factually correct. All my statistics and figures are from FIFA.com. Are you saying the USA women have not won four Olympic Golds and have also the best World Cup record? All participation data is from Fifa.com. Womens football is primarily played by and dominated by a tiny minority of wealthy white women in the wealthiest nations. Full stop. Fact. Truth. Undeniable reality. Just look at Fifa.com data.
Not worth arguing but worth posting that its not worth arguing? Passive aggressive much? Of course you would defend womens football
Last edited:
Knowing Giggs, he'd sooner touch them than managing the job.
As an observer of this topic I'd be quite interested in hearing your counter points, @Ji_Maria's posts don't appear inaccurate or ignorant on the surface to me. Topics concerning gender/race/discrimination of any kind tend to be emotional charged but falling into the trap of just dismissing opposing views as ignorant isn't beneficial IMO. The topic merits a proper discussion.
There's really little point in arguing with someone who says stuff like this as it is abundantly clear you will never be able to have a 'proper discussion' with them
'less blonde haired Suzy Drivesdaddysporsche fumbling around pretending to be a professional athlete simply because she was the only girl in the neighborhood who showed up for practice.'
For one, even if we accept this ridiculous view of the typical female footballer, it completely disregards the adversities young girls face in becoming professional footballers, as if being the only girl who shows up for practice is somehow something that shows how easy they have it, when it reality it is the exact opposite. Yeah, because a young girl showing enthusiasm for a sport that is dominated by men and has a social stigma for girls and in spite of this persevering with their passion until they become a pro is something that we should supposedly dismiss as some silly girl from a rich family 'fumbling around pretending to be a professional athlete'. It's an opinion that is so stupid it should be funny, however I fear it's a view shared by a sizeable amount of football fans.
You said my views are inaccurate. This response does nothing to support that claim. Instead all you are saying now is you have a different viewpoint than mine. And get off your moral high horse. How can you discount the mass of female soccer players who get driven to practice by their mums and dads in their comfortable minivans and SUVs for after school practice. Sure, there are a few who are not so lucky, but that is not the norm.
You see, women who are facing REAL ADVERSITY, in places like Africa or SE Asia or Latin America do not have the luxury to play football, hence the tragically low participation numbers in such regions, so please stop with the dramatic sob story. Since when is it "brave" to kick around a ball for fun?
Your assertion that it is against the norm for women to play sports is absurd. Millions of women play all manner of sports. If anything football is the easy way out compared to something like wrestling or womens boxing or hockey.
BTW, have you seen the US womens soccer team? It is a mass of well-fed mostly blonde white women who attended top universities on full scholarship. Must have taken a lot of courage to go against social norms and accept that scholarship money.
Anyways, all this is pointless since you are unable to address the point I keep raising, which is that womens football is mostly played by well to do women in the wealthiest nations. Poor women in poor countries just dont get the opportunity to play. And most of the world are poor people living in poor countries. What does that say about talent?
Last edited:
Just look at the pictures on the first page of the OP...for a supposed melting pot that is the USA, that picture sure is very very white.
Legitimate opinions, but I must say I'm happy that you're not running Manchester United FC.
Do you agree that higher quality and attractive football is likely to draw higher crowds, tv audiences and thus merchandising sales?
I'd be interested to hear counter arguments to @Ji_Maria's. Can't say he's said much that's factually incorrect. It may not be comfortable for some to read, but he's made very valid points.
Last edited:
I have no idea why the thought of a women's team seems upset some here. Really it would not be a huge investment at all. And no on is going to force you to watch these matches.
Sorry but if you cant see just how ignorant and also how far off the actual key points he is then there is no point in trying any counter argument. Its embarrasing to read and someone else mentioned the phrase knuckle draggers in this thread and its sadly the perfect phrase.
I have given up on this thread and probably any other threads to come on womens and girls football. I find it offensive the level of ignorance and utterly moronic shite written in these threads. The overwhelming majority of moronic shite written in here comes from people who have never played at any reasonable level, never been coached at any reasonable level and have never been involved at grassroots football as an adult. If they had then we wouldnt be seeing some of the utterly ridiculous shite spouted in here because people involved at grassroots football can see and understand whats going on as well as view everything from a sensible perspective.
Fortunately around the world (including the poor countries) there is change happening and its positive and uplifting for anyone involved directly in girls and womens football and I would rather communicate with those than the ignorant and misogynistic bollocks in the threads on female football on redcaf.
If people cant see just how ignorant and idiotic his comments are then they are simply fecking morons. Its that simple.
Im out of this thread and others relating to girls and womens football on redcaf.
Stack might not be 'ignorant' but he is most certainly intolerant.
Generally, when you run out of arguments (probably because you are clearly too biased and ignorant of other POV's) you resort to mudslinging such as moron and knuckle dragger.
Ji_Maria presents a totally reasonable and factually informed opinion and is derided for it, yeah I wonder why people might be against this idea...
Generally, when you run out of arguments (probably because you are clearly too biased and ignorant of other POV's) you resort to mudslinging such as moron and knuckle dragger.
Ji_Maria presents a totally reasonable and factually informed opinion and is derided for it, yeah I wonder why people might be against this idea...
A club that females play in and have played in too, though. Before that happened, it happened to be just men. I think it's widely acknowledged that history, and what happened to be, consists of both valuable tradition and oppressing tradition. Some changes are for the better, and I think the acceptance of organized sports for women is one of them. When Man Utd first came around, it wasn't like that, and so Uniteds history has been inhabited by mostly men until recently. As goes for any club predating the last fifty/hundred years or so. It should be said, 'being successful' wasn't a big part of United's history either for the first seventy odd years of it's existance.
It would be nice if United could be in the forefront of developing female football, not in the rear guard. But that is not my point here. My point is that there is no good reason to go backwards - when United do have girls in the club, there is no reason not to allow them the opportunity to stay in the club, wether they would play in the first, second or bottom division. When we did have a women's team, closing it down because they were closer to Newton Heath in it's success, professionality and 'brand value', than to Busby or Ferguson era United, was in my view a wrong on the part of the Glazers - a wrong to be righted for the existing youngfemale United players.
For some United supporters not involved in the sport themselves, not knowing or being football-playing girls themselves, it demands more than average imagination to see football is not first and foremost public entertainment, or economical business. All that is secondary to the activity of playing football, the team sport.
For me as a trainer having trained both boys and girls, I see the value for all weekly. Girls or boys - most are there for the fun and the togetherness, and much less than a percentage will ever qualify to play at the top level. But all can dream and many boys and also girls do - that is, if they know that they're welcome to it, that at least the opportunity is there.
To be fair he's using 2006 data - not necessarily the best choice when we know that growth (particularly in the less developed countries) has been exponential. He's also using the numbers of "registered" players rather than total players - there are countries (China for example) where only a small percentage of players are registered and this is particularly the case in less developed countries. Overall his "facts" stink. They also seem to have no relevance to the subject of the thread.
Are you kidding me?
My "2006 data" stinks but your 100% anecdotal and completely opiniated "data" about some wild "exponential growth" that is mysteriously occuring in China without FIFA's knowledge is supposedly credible? You just made me laugh. The only thing growing about football in China is the massive amounts of money the government is pouring into it to succeed at the Olympics. I'm sure we have Asian members to these forums who can attest that Chinese women are not interested in playing football - they are too busy working, studying and taking care of their families to have the luxury of attending football camps after school, if they are lucky enough to even afford to go to school.
I wanted to spare the forum this because it's a lot longer and denser to read, but here is 2014 data for you:
http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/foo.../26/49/womensfootballsurvey2014_e_english.pdf
"The United States and Canada have almost half of the female players registered at the worldwide level."
USA/Canada has 47%, UEFA has the other 44%. That leaves a paltry 9% of the slots for Africa, Latin America, the Middle East and Asia, or in other words, 80% or so of the world population.
By the way, the proportion of USA/Canada has actually increased! So what we're witnessing is "exponential decrease" in the proportionality of non-USA/Canada/UEFA women's football ...
If you include unregistered players, then the picture becomes even more comical, with USA and Canada now account for 53% of all female players worldwide.
As I've said, for the past 20 years, USA has dominated women's football in every way possible. It's always been and continues to be a rich girl's sport.
Since you mentioned it, China, with over 1 billion people, can't even produce more players than Canada.
And if you can't understand the relevance of that to why people are opposed to teams being basically blackmailed by the media to fund untalented rich girls who want to play a rich girl's sport that 90% of their peers can't afford to play at all, then I feel sorry for you.
Last edited:
I don't think United has a duty to the world community. They do, however, have a duty to their local community. This unfulfilled duty has been a sore point since well before the Glazers. It was, at least in part, the reason for FCU of M. Whether or not it involves a women's football team, it is time United involved themselves more in the community. A multi sports facility would enable us to foster development of sporting interests for both sexes in a range of sports. If we don't do something like this sooner rather than later, United risks becoming a sideshow while City dominates the region's sports. If your polemic on women's football is based on a desire to not have funds diverted from the men's team, then I think a women's team should be the least of your worries - the infrastructure already exists as does the girls' academy. If it's based on a personal trauma (which seems more likely), then I hope you find venting is this way therapeutic.
On the issue of "untalented" it seems unlikely that among all the millions playing in the US there should be no talented athletes. Soccer is only the third largest women's team sport - behind basketball and volleyball - and clearly there is some sorting in the selection of sports. Urban schools are less likely to have a soccer field which pushes the kids towards basketball and volleyball; suburban or rural areas have fewer space constraints. That said, the assumption that all non-urban kids are rich and white is a long way wide of the mark.
US Women's Soccer team:
http://www.lalive.com/assets/img/US-Womens-Soccer-Win-640w.jpg
So white. So blonde.
Isn't America something like 50% minority? Where are the black, hispanic or Asian women on the team? Women's soccer in America is not even representative of the American population. And are you telling me that a US sports team without any black athletes is actually representative of the talent pool? We all know how amazingly talented black athletes are in every other sport (and men's football as well), but their absence in women's football is striking.
That is symptomatic of a system that is broken from the ground up. Not enough engagement or opportunity given to the poor girls. Too much focus and attention given to the top. Funding pro women's teams is focusing on those who need help the least. Widen the participant pool by increasing access for the black girls, the hispanic girls and the Asia girls, and not just within the US/Canada/UEFA, but where these girls actually live. That is my solution and I would glady donate my own money for such a cause.
But certainly not for this:
http://theflyingwall.webs.com/us-womens-2008-soccer-team.jpg
This makes sense to me. Regardless of race or world poverty.
Your very much on the money in this paragraph ravelston. The problem is the people who run the club have their fingers in their ears.
What exactly is your point other than making silly and pointless generalizations?
If you actually bothered to read:
"That is symptomatic of a system that is broken from the ground up. Not enough engagement or opportunity given to the poor girls. Too much focus and attention given to the top. Funding pro women's teams is focusing on those who need help the least. Widen the participant pool by increasing access for the black girls, the hispanic girls and the Asia girls, and not just within the US/Canada/UEFA, but where these girls actually live. That is my solution and I would glady donate my own money for such a cause."
"What some people dont seem to understand is that this issue is about a tiny group of relatively well off women in a select few wealthy countries who didnt have to work all that hard or be that talented to get to where they were, who are now feeling entitled to something that the general public (including the vast majority of women) and sources of funding simply couldnt be bothered to support. There's no demand, there's poor supply (read: poor quality of players due to uncompetiveness), which makes it a piss poor product to support. Its basically like asking why we have so many female ballerinas but so few men - do you really not know?"
"Maybe if womens football was grassroots as you claim, and we saw poor but very talented girls from poor countries work their tails off to play pro football then there may be more support and sympathy. But right now the reality is money is being funneled to those women who need it the least, and are the least deserving, and that is a travesty."
"And if you can't understand the relevance of that to why people are opposed to teams being basically blackmailed by the media to fund untalented rich girls who want to play a rich girl's sport that 90% of their peers can't afford to play at all, then I feel sorry for you."
...
It would never happen, but it would be interesting to see what the response would be if, for example, the Glazers invested money into a solo project that benefitted girls of all social class. Maybe an organisation endorsed by United that used it's badge etc.
This would unarguably do more for the women's game (which is the issue after all, isnt it?), but I wonder if people would still demand a Manchester United women's team?
If they did, it would maybe imply to me that the genuine growth of the women's game isn't at the forefront. And actually the issue would be women feeling that they deserve whatever men have (whether men are actually in demand and they aren't.) - which is fine, but in that case, I'd rather people were just honest about it.
Just speculation, though. I'm probably being too cynical, and maybe people actually would get off United's back if the Glazers funded women's football indirectly.
This would unarguably do more for the women's game (which is the issue after all, isnt it?), but I wonder if people would still demand a Manchester United women's team?
If they did, it would maybe imply to me that the genuine growth of the women's game isn't at the forefront. And actually the issue would be women feeling that they deserve whatever men have (whether men are actually in demand and they aren't.) - which is fine, but in that case, I'd rather people were just honest about it.
Just speculation, though. I'm probably being too cynical, and maybe people actually would get off United's back if the Glazers funded women's football indirectly.
Last edited:
This is precisely what I think should happen. Hold open tryouts for 6-8year old girls in Africa or somewhere, form a league there or import those girls to youth academies back home. Right now access is the biggest problem because most girls dont even have access to give football a try. Creating pro womens teams does nothing to fix that and only helps those who were born with their foot already in the door.
Invariably the talented girls in places like Africa turn to track and field and not surprisingly dominate.
A couple hundred thousand can make a life changing difference for many girls in a poor country, but wont make an iota of a difference when talking about pro womens football.
I did and the rest of your posts on the page as well. Aside from silly generalizations you don't say much. What does Manchester United having a women's team have to do with poor women in Africa or Asia?
1. Article makes moral arugment that MUFC should support womens football by forming football club.
2. I counter by saying MUFC forming football club would be a farce and do little to support womens football because only rich women would join such team, and would do nothing to benefit the vast majority of women. Funding a womens team would only perpetuate the tragic state of womens football, which is dominance by rich rich women in wealthy countries. Poor women in poor countries are thus unable to relate to womens football and its popularity stagnates.
3. Someone says "oh no! Graaaassss roots everyone plays football!"
4. I point out that as of 2014 over 90% of all women footballers were North America or European
5. Personal attacks occur.
6. Here we are.
Last edited: