To think people who say women's football & tennis isn't as skilled as men's because the men (or even untrained boys) would beat them are missing the point?

It's not about skills; it is the entertainment. I love to watch woman tennis and volleyball, but not football. I don't care the gender of players just the overall thrill and fun.

I think in many sports (not all), in particular at the elite level, men will out-perform women if they were to compete against each other. And that’s biology- because the best men are going to be stronger/faster etc than the best women. I think it’s a given and best just accepted.

I think that there is a disparity in skill between elite men and women in some sports- but I think that has come about due to difference in training opportunities and the way they have been trained, as much as anything. I also think in some sports there is a noticeable difference in how men and women’s play/perform. I’m not saying necessarily better or worse, just different- both can be very good, but they aren’t necessarily identical to watch.

For instance, I prefer watching men’s rugby to women’s. That doesn’t mean that I don’t think women shouldn’t play rugby or that they shouldn’t be professional etc. It’s just not my preferred match to watch- that won’t be everyone’s opinion, just mine and I don’t have an issue with anyone else taking the opposite view. Horses for courses, and all that.

@Carla786 - I’ve already posted a couple of times but just wanted to add: i’ve just mentioned this thread to my DH and he has said women’s rugby is a particularly good showcase for skill vs the men’s game.

And he agrees that the fact that men would generally beat women at any sport that depends at least in part on strength and speed does not mean the men’s game is better and isn’t an appropriate way of measuring the quality of the women’s game in any sport. As i have said upthread, he loves the skill on display in women’s sport.

@Helleofabore & @gannett good points well made & I will take them on board. Thank you.

🤣 imagine coming onto mumsnet to post his oh so important opinion 🙄

They're being paid for the work they put in behind the scenes as well as the public display. Are you in a job where you give client presentations? Do you just get paid for the time you're giving the presentation or for all the time you spent researching and rehearsing as well? Is it a higher-quality presentation if it takes 3 hours instead of half an hour?

Best of 3 is a superior psychological test, I think. You can come out half-asleep in best of 5 and still have loads of time to gradually find your rhythm. You can't afford that in best of 3, and you can't afford to dip if you have a lead either - you have to be at the top of your game more consistently.

If you really think that people don’t get to see the performance of exceptional female athletes pushing their bodies to the limit the same way the male athletes do and get value for money in seeing those games, then maybe that is an issue with the framing of people paying per minute’s entertainment. Rather than people paying to see exceptional athletes at the top of their game.

My point really is that in the grand slams I don't think the women should get equal prize money, the best of three sets is often over in an hour. I think the women should play 5 sets in grand slams just like the men. I don't agree that 5 sets add nothing, it is a completely different scenario. Look at players coming back from 2 sets down, which happens fairly often. In a 3 set match it would have all been over, but they have to dig in & show stamina & mental strength to turn things around.

But don't you have trans women ie biological men in your sport?

Speaking to a chap about some of this stuff who absolutely thought that men should earn more money than women because they are 'better' - which would make it pointless for women to ever participate in sport because they would never be good enough by that standard. Approach that men are the main character and women an inferior deviation from this. I wonder why we don't have toddlers sprinting with 21 year olds...

He also said that womens football has been added to the endless coverage of mens football and is crowding out other sports which I do agree with. Every time I listen to Radio 4 they're talking about war and football and sometimes how war affects football.

Depressing

That's a leap forward from Sepp Blatter saying women should wear skimpier kit.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2004/jan/16/football.gender

I know that's over 20 years ago but it still shows the struggle female footballers have gone through

I don't follow tennis so apologies for my football centric posts but this is another area that has only just been addressed, kits designed for women.

https://www.wisean.net/post/from-fabric-to-field-the-evolution-of-women-s-football-apparel

Thank you. This really is an area that needs focus.

I agree this is a red herring. I don't think 5 set matches particularly enhance the men's game either.

Timely interview with Katja Snoeijs

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2026/mar/26/everton-wsl-katja-snoeijs-endometriosis-diagnosis

"Who is arguing for this? I'm merely saying they're physically capable of it."

Has anyone on this thread denied that they are capable of it?

The studies into the menstrual cycle and performance are really interesting and really only just being started.

To add, the studies into female bodies and sports performance are only really just begun too.

Which strawman are you arguing with? Again no one is saying that female tennis players will soon be beating male ones.

That is correct, but your phrasing wasn't that of someone familiar with professional tennis.

yes. I know. So, why again would we arguing for women to be playing five sets?

Who is arguing for this? I'm merely saying they're physically capable of it.

Yes I would love to know in what tournament a woman has played a 5 set match as men only play those in Grand Slams.

The final of the women's year-end championships in the early/mid-90s was best of 5.

Well... apparently mentioning that the Grand Slam circuit is across different surfaces is somehow problematic. I think there is not a lot of actual engagement and a rather lot of knee jerk reaction combined with this belief that training will mean that female tennis players will soon be beating male tennis players.

Let's not forget that apparently equipment that boost performance will just be automatically approved for players to use.

"Some women frequently play three-setters that rival five-setters in length (don't forget that most women get fewer "free points" off their serves so have to expend more effort in more rallies)."

yes. I know. So, why again would we arguing for women to be playing five sets?

Yes I would love to know in what tournament a woman has played a 5 set match as men only play those in Grand Slams.

Men only play five sets in four tournaments.

So was the men's game at the same stage of development. Also not all men's games are played at a terrific pace.