Strange infantilised coverage of women's football

stw2022

New Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2021
Messages
3,687
It's quite jarring once you listen out for it. A friend of mine pointed it out.

A team will lose in Europe and its "plucky" and they were "unfortunate". Men's teams "crash out of the cup" ladies teams "give their all and despite best efforts have been eliminated"

Men's teams under achieve. Fail. Ladies teams are "disappointed but look forward to bouncing back"

Once your notice the difference in media reporting of men's and women's football you can't stop hearing it. It seems patronising.

Women's teams "give their all" despite losing 4-0. Men's teams get hammered.
 
Last edited:
No examples? As in, headlines or videos of commentary or something?
 
stw2022 said:
It's quite jarring once you listen out for it. A friend of mine pointed it out.

A team will lose in Europe and its "plucky" and they were "unfortunate". Men's teams "crash out of the cup" ladies teams "give their all and despite best efforts have been eliminated"
Click to expand...

Purely money I think. They'd say the same about a complete underdog or any minnow/semi pro team. If the women's teams were huge and paid 6 figure salaries a week the reporting would change
 
They're perhaps wary of punching down. The expectations of men's football is far higher so people tend to be less harsh towards the women's game.

That's just my 2 cents
 
horsechoker said:
They're perhaps wary of punching down. The expectations of men's football is far higher so people tend to be less harsh towards the women's game.

That's just my 2 cents
Click to expand...
So yes, you think they're patronizing
 
TsuWave said:
No examples? As in, headlines or videos of commentary or something?
Click to expand...

Not really, apologies. But listen out and see if you agree there's a difference. It's like reporting immediately switches to 'reporting on a school sports day' mode. Particularly match reviews on the radio the morning after a match. Maybe it's just within that genre of sports reporting that it happens.

Recent example was how Chelsea ladies "sadly went out" of the CL "despite securing a draw in front of 71,000 in Barcelona."

Maybe I'm wrong but in same scenario the men's side would have "crashed out" and wouldn't be brave and the attendance would not be mentioned
 
It's not just in reporting, it's also in fan opinion as well. The most extreme criticism you'll usually come across is 'should have done better there'.

Now obviously you can say that as the standard is lower, they are held to lower standards.

But it does seem that a lot of people are almost very hesistant to be critical.
 
Probably because they fear someone on a forum will make a massive big deal of any criticism and try and say it's sexist.
 
I don’t feel that way about the coverage when I’m watching games on BT sport or DAZN. They usually have ex pros who played in the women’s game doing the punditry and co-commentary. I don’t really consume the women’s game in other places unless there’s an international tournament.

I suppose if you’re watching football focus, or a program like that, that is usually dedicated to the men’s game with pundits not really involved with the women’s game in a way, I can imagine you can get the patronising vibe you’re referring to in that context, but almost all of the coverage I personally see have got ex pros involved and they don’t give off that vibe.
 
Yeah I’ve followed it for years and have noticed it. There’s a real lack of criticism but it’s probably because of how disrespected the women’s game gets in general.
 
Surely questioning a players professionalism and ability whilst acting as if the world is going to end due to the slightest of errors is more of an infantile reaction than acknowledging a professional did their best despite the outcome and being respectful to their feelings sets a better example to those watching who may otherwise feel empowered to abuse them after the fact
 
Sandikan said:
Probably because they fear someone on a forum will make a massive big deal of any criticism and try and say it's sexist.
Click to expand...

This is the reason. People don’t know where the line is, so they choose to stay well away from it.

I still remember the backlash that McEnroe dealt with for suggesting that Serena Williams was the greatest woman’s tennis player of all time. Colbert tried to get him to take back an honest statement (which was meant as a compliment) because he claimed “the sharks were swimming”

People don’t know where the line is and fear the sharks, rightly or wrongly.
 
Really wouldn't say happily highlighting the negatives of male football and only the positives of the female version is a negative, and patronising, to the female version. It's a huge benefit that I'm sure male sports stars would love to benefit from as well.

It's more that journalists / reporters / pundits, etc, are pretty much under pressure - or have a personal agenda - to only highlight the positives of women's football in order to help it gain in popularity. If you only hear positive things about something, many people will form a positive attitude towards it - regardless of whether it's merited or not. And the opposite applies if you regularly hear criticism / negativity about it.

It's also self preservation from male reporters / pundits, etc. As being as critical or personal about the female players as they are about the male version risks getting them into huge trouble. Much safer to be all positive and gushing all the time. Even if it does help create a false impression of a complete lack of any negatives.
 
A lot of factors at play but one that shouldn't be forgotten is the women footballers are (fairly) seen as better people than men's footballers.
 
Context I guess. Women’s football is doing its best to break into the mainstream and is getting a bit of time in the sun right now. Men’s football is at its peak and is as competitive as it’s ever been.
 
Wouldn't want them to worry their pretty little heads about losing would we?

It's definitely the same here honestly.
 
2 man midfield said:
Context I guess. Women’s football is doing its best to break into the mainstream and is getting a bit of time in the sun right now. Men’s football is at its peak and is as competitive as it’s ever been.
Click to expand...
It's been given a huge helping hand though by the male clubs - who had built up a sport, professional league, domestic and then global fan base and media interest over a century from scratch - forming female teams and giving them an immediate share of all that domestic and global fan base and media interest.

Much easier and quicker route to 'breaking into the mainstream' than starting teams from scratch and having to do the hard work of garnering new interest in a Liverpool Rovers, Manchester Athletic, etc.
 
Nero said:
It's not just in reporting, it's also in fan opinion as well. The most extreme criticism you'll usually come across is 'should have done better there'.

Now obviously you can say that as the standard is lower, they are held to lower standards.

But it does seem that a lot of people are almost very hesistant to be critical.
Click to expand...

Yeah that's odd. To me it indicates a lack of passion from the fans. So few get irrate or excited. Everything seems very..I dunno....placid. Like how I might react to a missed shot in snooker or someone winning the World Championship at the Crucial e.g not really giving a shit but occasionally looking up from my phone. That. "Oh right, that's good innit?" reaction.

I get it's a different sport and relatively up and coming but it largely seems very passionless.
 
Bertie Wooster said:
It's been given a huge helping hand though by the male clubs - who had built up a sport, professional league, domestic and then global fan base and media interest over a century from scratch - forming female teams and giving them an immediate share of all that domestic and global fan base and media interest.

Much easier and quicker route to 'breaking into the mainstream' than starting teams from scratch and having to do the hard work of garnering new interest in a Liverpool Rovers, Manchester Athletic, etc.
Click to expand...
Commentators should remind everyone at the start of all women's games that they're only here thanks to all those kind and generous men.
 
DOTA said:
Commentators should remind everyone at the start of all women's games that they're only here thanks to all those kind and generous men.
Click to expand...
There's a huge gulf between mentioning it at the start of every game, and mocking the simple truth being mentioned at any point. It's a fact, nothing wrong with it being acknowledged.

You think the women's game would have reached this point of global attention so soon if the Women's league had been random teams starting from scratch and not teams who immediately carry an affiliation with established global clubs like Man United, Liverpool, Barcelona, etc? You don't think that's been a huge help in grabbing media and fan attention?
 
Bertie Wooster said:
There's a huge gulf between mentioning it at the start of every game, and mocking the simple truth being mentioned at any point. It's a fact, nothing wrong with it being acknowledged.

You think the women's game would have reached this point of global attention so soon if the Women's league had been random teams starting from scratch and not teams who immediately carry an affiliation with established global clubs like Man United, Liverpool, Barcelona, etc? You don't think that's been a huge help in grabbing media and fan attention?
Click to expand...
The FA banned football grounds from hosting women's matches for 51 years.
 
Assuming we’re talking about Chelsea here. I’d say that they did alright given how good Barca women are. Compare that to the riches of the men’s Premier League vs La Liga, where you’d expect better from Premier League teams.

That said, I’m 100% there’s an element of not wanting to be too critical. If anything, the problem is how the men’s game is reported, not the womens.
 
Bertie Wooster said:
It's been given a huge helping hand though by the male clubs - who had built up a sport, professional league, domestic and then global fan base and media interest over a century from scratch - forming female teams and giving them an immediate share of all that domestic and global fan base and media interest.

Much easier and quicker route to 'breaking into the mainstream' than starting teams from scratch and having to do the hard work of garnering new interest in a Liverpool Rovers, Manchester Athletic, etc.
Click to expand...
It’s been given a leg up by the men’s game but people forget women’s football was actually banned until shockingly recently. So while the men’s game was developing, they weren’t even allowed to join in. I don’t see any harm in letting them piggyback off of it.
 
Its been promoted to death but few people really care or get passionate about it the way they do men's football. It's helped the women's game enormously having teams affiliated with big clubs, but it will always mean they are an after thought for most people kind of like the youth and reserve teams.
 
Bertie Wooster said:
It's been given a huge helping hand though by the male clubs - who had built up a sport, professional league, domestic and then global fan base and media interest over a century from scratch - forming female teams and giving them an immediate share of all that domestic and global fan base and media interest.

Much easier and quicker route to 'breaking into the mainstream' than starting teams from scratch and having to do the hard work of garnering new interest in a Liverpool Rovers, Manchester Athletic, etc.
Click to expand...

Well it's a bit difficult to form clubs, build up a sport, professional league, domestic and then global fan base and media interest from scratch, when your FA does this:

Despite being more popular than some men's football events (one match saw a 53,000 strong crowd),[26] women's football in England was halted in December 1921 when The Football Association outlawed the playing of the game on association members' pitches, the FA stating that "the game of football is quite unsuitable for females and ought not to be encouraged."

The ban in England was maintained by the FA for nearly fifty years, until January 1970
Click to expand...
 
DOTA said:
The FA banned football grounds from hosting women's matches for 51 years.
Click to expand...
Not really getting into all that. There's other factors that should be included in that statement - the men had built a sport, teams, professional league, grounds, fan interest, etc, from nothing - mostly just starting off as works teams. Then it was put on hold while they went off to die in their millions in WW1. And of course it restarted, and they took control of their grounds, after the war.

But, yeah, obviously women should have been allowed to try to do what the men had worked hard to do - form their own clubs and leagues from scratch, build their own grounds, etc. If they weren't allowed to try to do that then that's obviously wrong.
 
DOTA said:
Commentators should remind everyone at the start of all women's games that they're only here thanks to all those kind and generous men.
Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more. I'd also like to see some kind of a tribute to Lord Kinnaird, president of the FA in 1921, before every match. Maybe even call it the Lord Kinnaird League.
 
top1whoisman said:
Well it's a bit difficult to form clubs, build up a sport, professional league, domestic and then global fan base and media interest from scratch, when your FA does this:
Click to expand...
You say 'your FA'. But I assume that was the men's FA for their version. Couldn't the women have done what the men did - form their own FA, professional leagues, clubs, grounds, etc? Did it have to be affiliated to the same FA, using the same grounds, if they started from scratch?
 
I watch both men's and women's footie and to be honest I prefer the commentary on the women's game, I think it's a much healthier way to look at the game. Maybe it's patronizing, I dunno, but because the pundits are not so focused on having digs at players or looking for creative ways to say a team sucks, it's actually more relaxing. I don't get angry at the pundits nor journos on social media who talk about women's footie, I enjoy it much more and it becomes pure entertainment, unlike the men's game, which is more about stress than entertainment for me at this point.
 
maniak said:
I watch both men's and women's footie and to be honest I prefer the commentary on the women's game, I think it's a much healthier way to look at the game. Maybe it's patronizing, I dunno, but because the pundits are not so focused on having digs at players or looking for creative ways to say a team sucks, it's actually more relaxing. I don't get angry at the pundits nor journos on social media who talk about women's footie, I enjoy it much more and it becomes pure entertainment, unlike the men's game, which is more about stress than entertainment for me at this point.
Click to expand...
The media circus around the men’s game is definitely more malicious. Build them up to knock them down etc. It seems like failure gets more reaction in the wider media and on social media than actually winning things.
 
Bertie Wooster said:
You say 'your FA'. But I assume that was the men's FA for their version. Couldn't the women have done what the men did - form their own FA, professional leagues, clubs, grounds, etc? Did it have to be affiliated to the same FA, using the same grounds, if they started from scratch?
Click to expand...

Why is the FA automatically by default "Men's FA"? It's a football association, not men's football association. If you think about what the world was like a hundred years ago, you wouldn't ignorantly state that women should've just formed their FA, leagues, clubs, grounds etc. If they started their own FA the men's teams would've probably threatened to beat them if they approached a football pitch. They couldn't start building football pitches when they had to take care of their families when the brave "men went off to die in their millions". Your ignorance is quite something.

First saying this:

Bertie Wooster said:
It's been given a huge helping hand though by the male clubs - who had built up a sport, professional league, domestic and then global fan base and media interest over a century from scratch - forming female teams and giving them an immediate share of all that domestic and global fan base and media interest.

Much easier and quicker route to 'breaking into the mainstream' than starting teams from scratch and having to do the hard work of garnering new interest in a Liverpool Rovers, Manchester Athletic, etc.
Click to expand...

Followed by this when replied to:

Bertie Wooster said:
Not really getting into all that.
Click to expand...

...is also one strange way to discuss a topic.
 
maniak said:
I watch both men's and women's footie and to be honest I prefer the commentary on the women's game, I think it's a much healthier way to look at the game. Maybe it's patronizing, I dunno, but because the pundits are not so focused on having digs at players or looking for creative ways to say a team sucks, it's actually more relaxing. I don't get angry at the pundits nor journos on social media who talk about women's footie, I enjoy it much more and it becomes pure entertainment, unlike the men's game, which is more about stress than entertainment for me at this point.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Another thing is that the commentary is much more unbiased. In men's football most people on comms can't hide their feelings for or against a club, no matter how hard they try. In WSL the commentators focus on commentating the game without much bias.

Nowadays I always have the United games on mute as I'm stressed enough without having to listen to the (Finnish) commentators having digs at United or its players. Can only imagine how much worse it is in the UK where the commentators have genuine roots to the clubs on display.

Watching United women I have no problem keeping the sound on.
 
I think people fear the prospect of strawman misinterpretations being employed, with any negative, or sometimes merely objective comment, garnering the tired observation of woman-hater or misogynist.
 
2 man midfield said:
The media circus around the men’s game is definitely more malicious. Build them up to knock them down etc. It seems like failure gets more reaction in the wider media and on social media than actually winning things.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I think that should be the question, really. Why has that become an accepted thing? So much so, that it now seems 'patronising' to some that they're aren't as brutal and negative about the women's game than the media circus is about the men's version.

But, really, it's why its become the norm to be so nasty and negative in the reporting of the men's game that should be addressed more than why they mostly look to emphasis positives in the female version.
 
The infantilisation claims are ludicrous. As with any new sport/sub-category, they're trying to build up a brand. It has nothing to do with the fact that these womens' teams routinely lose to male children :mad:
 
Bertie Wooster said:
Yeah, I think that should be the question, really. Why has that become an accepted thing? So much so, that it now seems 'patronising' to some that they're aren't as brutal and negative about the women's game than the media circus is about the men's version.

But, really, it's why its become the norm to be so nasty and negative in the reporting of the men's game that should be addressed more than why they mostly look to emphasis positives in the female version.
Click to expand...
I have no idea. Perhaps the outdated idea that ‘men can take it’ while women can’t. Look at the shit De Gea and Maguire got from professional pundits against Sevilla the other day. Women’s football has multiple gaffs per game and the commentary don’t seem to mention it - it’s like the elephant in the room, as if everyone knows the standard is poor, but don’t want to mention it. Perhaps because it’s not really news, everyone knows the standard isn’t there yet and pointing these things out often wouldn’t really help.
 
top1whoisman said:
Why is the FA automatically by default "Men's FA"? It's a football association, not men's football association. If you think about what the world was like a hundred years ago, you wouldn't ignorantly state that women should've just formed their FA, leagues, clubs, grounds etc. If they started their own FA the men's teams would've probably threatened to beat them if they approached a football pitch. They couldn't start building football pitches when they had to take care of their families when the brave "men went off to die in their millions". Your ignorance is quite something.

First saying this:



Followed by this when replied to:



...is also one strange way to discuss a topic.
Click to expand...
I was referring to the time of the first world war / 1920's when the ban that people mentioned was introduced. I'd have thought at that time it was a Men's FA, given the quote someone cited stated the FA said: "the game of football is quite unsuitable for females and ought not to be encouraged.".

That doesn't strike me as an FA that was representing both the men's and women's game. That's why I asked couldn't the women have set up their own version, with their own FA, leagues, etc, if they weren't allowed to be affiliated to the men's game and FA - as the quote, and ban, shows.

You suggest other reasons why that may not have been possible, and that's valid. There probably was a lack of resource - and interest - in starting and developing a professional Women's game from scratch at that time. Especially once the men's version had restarted after the war.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.