50% female sport on bbc news and tv

DD had a lot of that. Hence my theory that middle aged PT teachers were unwilling to offer sports away from the trad rounders and netball. The former was dead boring, and the latter favoured tall girls.

The take up in sixth form where they were given a free choice was amazing. 50% even though almost all had never played before. They had a great time. In part because you did not need to be that good to play.

There is a huge problem with encouraging girls to play sports. Yet they can be great for resilience and self esteem, as well as life long physical well-being. (There was a famous study some years back that suggested that Japanese girls who played tennis were physically strong and healthier well into middle age.)

Everyone from Chelsea/BBC should do their bit. The quick acceptance of the Rachel McKinnon and Sally Hines theories has me fearing that whatever has been said in the past, the men in positions of influence in sport have no interest at all. They just don't care about women's welfare.

At dds state secondary the girls aren't even allowed to play football! Boys only. Not on the curriculum apparently. She gets cheerleading instead

I feel I should apologise for the massive thread derail. However I hope there are some point that others can unpick.

There is not reason at all, in terms of interest money or whatever why Chelsea/BBC should not make the most of their women's real achievement to promote the women's game.

Yes lots of posts making excuses for the men who have decided not to.

Its just not good enough. There may be plenty of reasons why you don't televise swimming, horseriding or other sports where women either compete with men or in the same events of roughly equal interest. I don't necessarily agree with the dominance of football. But accepting this dominance means that it is right to question why the top women's matches are not covered. Especially as on this one we are out of step with Europe and the US.

At DDs University the men apparently get first dibs on the training facilities. They might have the wokest SU in Britain but sexism still runs through day to day stuff like a stick of Weston-super-Mare rock. The sort of thing we need to challenge and encourage our DDs to challenge.

Yes dd plays in a girls team but against boys teams. They are really good and that's why I can see the quality of the game really improving over the next 10 years.

www.theguardian.com/football/2019/mar/25/arsenal-under-12-girls-boys-equal-footing

Fazackerley, agreed. Though an advantage is that there not the huge gulf between, say, a University player, and a professional player. DD says quality is changing fast and the girls who have been playing in Club academies since the age of 9 turn up at University very skilled.

I can’t find the article but one of the London Academies separates girls from boys on skill levels, something they apparently do in Holland which has led to huge progress from the best girls training with the boys.

The match i went to was in bbc2 tbf

Disclaimer- I have a really rather talented football playing dd

The women's game just isn't as good as the men's yet. It will be, and it's still great to watch, but it doesn't have the power and flow of the top men's teams. I watched England women play a few weeks ago and it's just no where near as exciting.

So people who are used to watch g the men's game might be disappointed.

Dont get me wrong, I love women's football and dd is determined to make it all the way , but it's got a long way to go.

Andy, this is the first leg of the match on the BBC red button. Its the European semi final.

So Lyon have their women playing in the main stadium capacity 55,000 to let as many supporters in as possible. Plus TV is available to the BBC.

Its called encouraging women's sport.

The Chelsea return leg in contrast, is being played at their small pitch, shared with various other sports, somewhere outside Kingston. And only on Chelsea TV.

That is what I am moaning about. A really good chance to promote interest, and to recognise all those girls out there who play, yet the BBC/Chelsea are making no effort at all. Even though they would make plenty of money in the club shop.

And a good game. Lyon 2-1 up. Chelsea missed a penalty. DD is screaming at the TV, and her dad is almost as engaged.

The Chelsea game is live on the BBC now.

There are huge audiences for sport out there. They just sticks with the same tired old formula of football with the odd bit of something else.

Why not try? Why not have a day of 50/50. Or even try for 75/25? We pay for the BBC. Women too.

And, if like someone's Dad, I wanted to fly to see sport, I would have to be minted (120 miles to an airport from here, and that a pretty small one). And why would I when the sport I want to see is not advertised, promoted or made visible. When I have been brought up by the patriarchy to support men's sport, to get frantically involved in football and rugby?

No. They need to do better. And bollocks to spending years building it.

Some women can't even get a break for a cup of tea from caring duties. Men who "care" often take kids out (hence the Dad at the football with kids). I want it on the radio and television.

They could give it a bloody go. There are enough BBC channels now. Don't tell me they can't find a slot amongst all the repeats and DIY programmes to fit in SOME sport involving women.

CLFC two-nil down at half-time, having scored an own goal and missed a soft penalty.

I have to apologise for my ignorance regarding women's football. I just watched the BBC news and they showed Arsenal Ladies playing at their home ground, and bearing in mind they are playing in the "Super League", I am taken aback.
Their home ground is not the "Emirates", but Meadow Park, home to Boreham Wood who play in the National League, and the ground capacity is 4,500 (2,800 standing), so the picture is much clearer now.
At the moment there is another match taking place in France, between Lyon Ladies and Chelsea Ladies, in the UEFA Women's Champion League and it is being played at the Parc Olympique Lyonnais, capacity 55,000. It should be noted that their usual ground for league matches is an academy ground next to the Parc with a capacity of 1,524.
It is therefore highly unlikely that spectator levels for women's football will not increase if they are being sidelined in very small grounds.

To the sorts of people who turn up to watch womens football at the Olympics or at Wembley for a cup final or those who watch the She believes tournament and so on.

Not just women.

Why is there the assumption that only women will watch women's sport. My observation is that men who like watching sport will watch lots of different sports. So women's athletics, women's tennis, women's football. And I am specifically talking about a big match. In the same way as the England U19s would be on red button if the reach a final.

I find it hard to understand why women argue against it, say you need the gate numbers or whatever or whatever. There is plenty of recent evidence that people will watch big womens football matches, whilst broadcasters have been surprised at how popular women's hockey and netball matches were during the last Commonwealth games. I think the women hockey wasmore popular than the men's.

A big match is on. People will watch. There is no reason why the BBC should not make every effort to show it. But, being the BBC, they won't, but will probably show some sort of lower popularity men's sport instead on the same red button.

Imteresting to whom?

Tee Jay, their last three games of the season (Southampton Spurs and Palace) will be on Sky. Yet none of these games will be as big or interesting as Chelsea Women in a European semi final.

Unflushable...no I am not answering my own questions.

This whole thread is about the BBC as national broadcaster , paid for by rich and poor alike setting a lead.

Your dad’s interests should not be given priority because he is male and well off. As with the debate on equal pay the BBC should set a lead on equality. And perhaps set a lead on encouraging girls to participate in sport. Including acceptance of those who are same sex attracted. (NB homosexuality is far more accepted and open in the women’s game than in the men’s...where it is hard to think of a single current player who is openly gay. I think that is a positive, especially given the new wave of anti-lesbianism on campuses). Perhaps others don’t.

Who were they playing when they were on TV?

Sorry. It was a men’s EPL game. Attendance is always around 11,000. This was lower because of the sunshine.

But men football does not rely on gate receipts. It is funded by TV, merchandise, developing players, and rich owners.

If Chelsea women had access to Stamford Bridge for a Champions League semi they would easily get 11,000. Plus a good TV audience. It will be a challenging match with a lot to play for. And quite historic.

I really don’t get it, nor the arguments about more grassroots work, or gate numbers. No one is saying to men’s clubs that they need 30,000 attendance before they can be on TV. If licence fee payers will watch, it should be shown. Even if they are women...

1. Spectators don’t provide the income. Only about 5% of the revenue from the club we support comes from the gates. Most is from TV. The big clubs also make a lot from merchandise.

Yes, that's all money coming from the fans. TV deals are lucrative because people watch the matches on TV; if no one watches it on TV, then advertisers won't be interested and the match has no value to the broadcaster. But if people aren't physically attending the matches, then there's simply no evidence that the same match would be lucrative if it was broadcast on TV instead.

As for merchandising, again, that's money from the fans; if people don't follow the team and generate interest in the team and the games, then they're not going to sell much merchandise either. I think you've missed the point on this one...

(And as much money from a dad buying his daughter a shirt as buying his son one which is why they should consider following the Italian/Spanish lead and opening up stadia for big matches.)

Football clubs are businesses. If what you are suggesting is correct, then that means they're losing out on a lot of money by not allowing their women's teams to play their biggest matches at the same stadia the men use. If businesses make stupid financial decisions, then let them do so. It's their loss, that's just capitalism.

2. Of course first division/third tier matches get shown. It is seen as equality. (The big teams are mainly in Cities.)

Yes, I know first division matches are shown on TV (many first division teams are ex-Premier league teams, so they have huge followings and their games still generate a lot of interest.)

Third tier matches though? Are they routinely shown on TV, or is it only the biggest third tier games?

3. Your dad pays the same TV licence fee as my daughter. Yes she is low income. But given she pays the same there is no reason for the BBC to not treat her equally.

First of all, the BBC and ITV don't even broadcast all men's Premier league games; only the biggest matches. If you want to watch the individual games, you need to pay for the appropriate channels.

Second, the TV license is simply a legal permission to watch TV. It's not implied anywhere in the TV license agreement that broadcasters have to treat all of their viewers equally, and doing so would be impossible. How would it even be possible to treat all viewers equally? What if I don't want to watch football on TV (which I don't!) and I want to watch basketball instead? Should the BBC accomodate me by showing basketball instead of football? What if your daughter wanted to watch men's Premier league games and my dad wanted to watch women's football (why are people in this thread continuously implying that women only want to watch women's football and men only want to watch men's football? Because that's not true all of the time!) In that scenario, would it be better for equality for the BBC to broadcast men's premier league games to accomodate your daughter, or to cater to my dad's wishes by broadcasting women's football? Yes, you see how messy this becomes?

4. The BBC gives recognition to men’s football, not women’s. They are generally poor on all women’s sport.

There are many men's sports the BBC doesn't recognise too. This is not a gendered problem, this is simply a case of one sport, played at a specific level by men, dominating all other sports in the country. That will only change if people become less interested in men's premier league games and spend more time watching other sports.

5. Women’s football is relatively young. There has been a big problem in schools where middle aged PE teachers want to stick to netball and rounders, so the grassroots work of the past decade is only just breaking through there. (DD moved for sixth form and though virtually none of the girls had play football before about half opted to play, despite a big range of options including aerobics.) DD says northern girls at University tend to be better because they have more experience/exposure. Younger audiences mean less well off. Plus young families, where the dad takes his daughters rather than going alone to a match, tend not to have much spare cash

6. There is an image problem that the BBC could help address. DD has spotted a bizarre southern girl/boy attitude at University. Girls who play football must be lesbian, and that being lesbian is not cool.. The boys football teams have their joint socials with the netball girls - not with the girl footballers. The girls don’t mind!

Well there you go.

You are literally answering your own questions now.

Which women's team are you comparing them with?
Who did they play on the televisied games?

Yet the Premiership team we saw yesterday had an attendance of 10,500 but will feature on TV several times this season.

My local.men's team get attendences of over 1500.

They've never been on TV. Why would be.? They're not popular enough.

Unflushable. You really don’t know much about football.

1. Spectators don’t provide the income. Only about 5% of the revenue from the club we support comes from the gates. Most is from TV. The big clubs also make a lot from merchandise. (And as much money from a dad buying his daughter a shirt as buying his son one which is why they should consider following the Italian/Spanish lead and opening up stadia for big matches.)

1. Of course first division/third tier matches get shown. It is seen as equality. (The big teams are mainly in Cities.)

1. Your dad pays the same TV licence fee as my daughter. Yes she is low income. But given she pays the same there is no reason for the BBC to not treat her equally.

1. The BBC gives recognition to men’s football, not women’s. They are generally poor on all women’s sport.

1. Women’s football is relatively young. There has been a big problem in schools where middle aged PE teachers want to stick to netball and rounders, so the grassroots work of the past decade is only just breaking through there. (DD moved for sixth form and though virtually none of the girls had play football before about half opted to play, despite a big range of options including aerobics.) DD says northern girls at University tend to be better because they have more experience/exposure. Younger audiences mean less well off. Plus young families, where the dad takes his daughters rather than going alone to a match, tend not to have much spare cash.

1. There is an image problem that the BBC could help address. DD has spotted a bizarre southern girl/boy attitude at University. Girls who play football must be lesbian, and that being lesbian is not cool.. The boys football teams have their joint socials with the netball girls - not with the girl footballers. The girls don’t mind!

Women's tennis can be a fantastic watch. The only problem is so many games are one sided and are over in an hour but once you get through to the business end of a tournament it does serve up (sorry) some amazing spectacles.