50% female sport on bbc news and tv

And Mockers, we don’t live that far from SW6, and believe you me almost all my kids friends support Chelsea. Quite a lot of parents had season tickets. I don’t know why you would think that was not the case.

Mockers, when I last looked Kingston was nowhere near Chelsea. It is barely in London and the ground is a real trek to get to. Kingston is not even on the tube. And for Kingston dwellers, Chelsea is not their closest professional club, there are several that are closer. You might as well argue that since there are a lot of Man Utd supporters in Kingston, their women’s games should be played there. Plus the ground has nowhere near the capacity of the men’s, nor sufficient capacity to meet demand.

Seriously European and American clubs are doing a lot to promote the women’s game. A recent record attendance was over 60,000. There is absolutely every reason to believe that this game would have the same if TV and the Club were willing to give proper support.

is the state of women's football attendances after recent records?

There are a lot of girls playing football, especially in the North. (DD plays for a southern University team and almost every one is from the north, with skill levels rising year on year.) Why on earth should they have to sign up to Chelsea TV to see the biggest match, involving a British club, of the year.

Compared to men this is not even beginning to approach parity.

No. I do not believe I mean that.

And I'm not sure what point you are making about the reasons for intrducing conscription after 1916 and its place in the war effort, or its relevance to this discussion.

In Australia the AFLW (the women’s AFL league) has been phenomally successful. There’s evidence that lots of girls and young women are playing football because the AFLW has shown them athletic role models.

People are turning up to watch the women play, both on field and on television - not as a substitute for the men’s league, but as an enjoyable sport in its own right.

It's not as populat because fewer women support women's sport than men supporting men's sport.

When people get 'cause' and 'effect' completely the wrong way round.

Mockers

When you say 'their' jobs do you mean the ones they were forced to leave agsinst their will so they could be bombed, shot at, gassed and mutilated?

Why didn't they deserved their job back?

There’s no money in it. That’s what it boils down to.

Sponsorship, interest, audience - no one is going to champion women’s sport if there’s no money to be made.

The BBC aren’t investing in sport - haven’t for ages. They can’t really compete with Sky budgets, and aren’t that interested in investing in it anyway.

The Lyon v Chelsea tie is on BBC Red Button.

The return fixture is on Chelsea TV only.

(Clubs own the rights to their home games.)

And there are a lot more CFC fans in and around Kingston than anywhere near SW6.

A few baby steps would be useful.

Chelsea are in the semi-finals of the European Champions League.

It won’t be televised. Not BT, the BBC, ITV, Sky or even Eurosport. Despite the hours of quite ordinary men’s matches shown each week. Presumably, duh, because it is the women’s team. Even though they have already beaten a well-funded PSG and are facing probably the strongest woman’s team in Europe.

www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/47937511

And whilst other European Clubs have opened their large stadia to their women’s teams for important matches filling them with families and pensioners and others happy to see big event football at a low cost, those Chelsea fans who can get tickets will have to head out to some ground near Kingston.

And then we will be told that people are not interested in women’s sport.

...should have sad women's cricket on Sky, not so much football.

Interesting dispute in USA at the moment over demands for equal funding for the men's and women's national teams. USA are multiple world champs in women's football but the men get paid more, partly to keep them from defecting to foreign leagues.

In Britain, the story ought to be well-known about how women's football was started in WW1 and was a commercial sucess but was shut down after the war like so many other industries when the men came home and wanted 'their' jobs back. Association Football was defined as a male-only sport into the 1970s, with the seperate women's game fighting for recogntion.

ITV have the rights to England men's internationals. BBC cover the women.

it's an interesting idea OP, and a good one I think. will you write to the beeb about it?

For all sports investment and TV follow popularity not the other way around.
In 1929 92000 people went to the FA cup.final.

There was no investment in football then there was no TV. Football became popular because people went to see it on a Saturday. When women go to warch football TV and invedtment will follow. This is the same rule for sports.

The average attedance at Liverpool 's home games in 2016 was 724.

Why should that be on TV?

Not sure why you would pick on the BBC. The bulk of women's sport on TV is on Sky who have the deep pockets to buy it up. The golf, the netball, the women's football and rugby are all there and all well worth watching.

Too much sports reporting on the mainstream news already. I am even less interested in women's sports than I am in men's.

I listen to 5 Live quite a bit and they obviously made an editorial decision to cover more women's sport and have more women covering sport a few years ago. It is noticeable that women's football and rugby get more mentions in the sports reports (as I write, they've just announced the Man Utd women's team winning the league in the sports headlines). And there are more women reporting, both in the studio and in the grounds (but, yes, largely on men's sport). After the spurs v man City game this week, there were only female fans being interviewed on 5 Live the next morning. And the coverage of the women's rugby in the last Olympics and the football in the euros was great - no different in terms of commentary and analysis than the men's games. Just not as much of it, but that's not going to happen overnight.

It's changing for the better and credit where credit's due.

Our local paper has equal coverage of the men's and women's rugby teams and that is something I never thought would happen in this town.

I wrote a letter to "The Times" a couple of days ago about their lack of coverage.

Not published (yet) but fingers crossed.

Jugzy

You've just shot yourself in the foot -twice.

This is a brilliant idea. I don't watch men's sport at all but I would definitely watch women's sport if there was any on. It is the sort of thing the bbc should be doing. They spend enough time giving batshit viewpoints airtime for a 'balanced' view. And the excessive religious programming.

I bet the rights would be really cheap as well 😞

Which words in the BBC' s charter are you refering to?

It is exactly the BBC's job, it is a public body, funded by the public and regulated by the government. Personally I'd be delighted if as a starting point they stopped talking about 'football' and 'women's football', much in the same way they say the premier league and the Scottish premier league. It's a small thing but just adding a 'men's' to the introduction to each sport, would go such a way to highlighting the imbalance.

The only radio station my car will pick up is radio 2 and the only time I listen to it is on my way to park run on a Saturday morning. However getting to the point the sports reporter on Dermot O'Leary's show is excellent for talking about women's sport. We need more of this!

It's not as populat because fewer women support women's sport than men supporting men's sport.
Lots of women follow the mem's worls cup. Very few women watch the women's. No doubt you'll find a way to blame for the actions of women; first rule of misandry - men are to blame.