Girls and unisex or girls and boys football team

[r0tringLover]

I'm in a position of influence in a school and recently needed to debate with parents whether there should be continue to be a boy-only football team.

I guess the sport is irrelevant except that football is a male-dominated sport, especially in schools.

We have several girls teams which compete against other girls teams. The rules in the local league don't actually appear to exclude girls from the boys team but are clear that boys cannot play for the girls teams. I feel that this is about following the spirit of the law as opposed to the letter. Not a single team we compete with has a girl playing with the boys. I'm sure a large part of this is due to the equally good girls league with plenty of fixtures and camaraderie.

Many parents wanted the girls to be classed a closed group whereas the boys as a free-for-all Perhaps unsurprisingly, they were the same parents who will defend the need for girls to have spaces reserved for them.

Was I being unreasonable defending the need for boys to have space free from girls and any politics involved should girls be picked over boys? I'm rarely unsure about my opinions (for better or worse) but on this occasion I am doubting myself.

Of course ideally you would have 3 teams, mixed, girls and boys but then it's about whether there is enough interest to justify it.

Should women be allowed in mixed gyms if there are women-only gyms nearby?

Where does the boy that has lost his place on the team go?

Let's think for a second why he could have lost his place. It'll be because there is a girl who is more talented than him. Are you really saying she should move over to make room for him.....?

And if youre about to point out that the talented girl can play for the girls team, what about the girl that she's then displaces?

Why aren't you bothered about her? She's unlikely to find an alternative girls team, but the displaced boy will always be able to find another team somewhere, even if his parents have to drive a bit further.

If a school had a football team for children with disabilities, does that mean a child with a disability should not be allowed to join the 'main' team?

titchy

I'm saying that you shouldn't just cut him from the team. You have to put a safety net in place. What others are basically saying is stuff him

there is no girl for this girl to displace.

And how is this child going to play for another primary school team?

What about the girl who doesn't want to play with the girls team. My DD has no interest in playing with with girls (they are a beginners team, very back to basics). Should I tell her she has to play with them because she's in possession of a vagina? Even though she can keep up and play on the same level as the boys?

Mixed team on ability
Girls team for beginners and girls who otherwise wouldn't play.

Let's not pretend that boys are socialised in football way over and above girls from a young age. They don't need their spot protecting in football,

Arent*

A safety net? What are you on about? A football team has 11 players. The 12th best gets cut. Why does the 12th kid need a safety net?

And you're the one that said a boy would lose his place if there was a better girl. If you cut the girl on the basis that she could play for the all girls team, then the current 11th best girl does get displaced - you can't have a 12 girl team.

If you have 11 boys and 12 girls, one of them has to be cut. If you have single sex groups it'll be the girl, a girl only team and a mixed team, it'll be the boy.

Given that the boy will be able to access another team easily, and the girl won't, it's better the boy gets cut and goes elsewhere. That way all23 kids are able to play.

you will have unfairness anyway but do you think it is better for a very able girl to not be able to achieve her potential because the girls only team is limited or for a mediocre boy to have to give his place to a girl?

Ok, this convinced me. Girl + mixed team

Yes Titchy a safety net. Why? because this is a school team.

The boy can't just move schools and go, so he cannot access another team that easily.

Strangely I can think of ways that would probably make the majority of the parents and children happy, but you seem so blinded by your position that anything other than the girl must be on the team as wrong that you can't.

If there is a girls only team there should be a boys only team . That's fair.

It's a long way upthread now, but "What about a boy who wanted a career in football who wanted a boys only team because the standard was higher? Why should their ambition suffer because girls wanted to play in mixed teams to suit their ambition? "

By age 8 or 9, boys thinking seriously of a career in football would already have been scouted by a professional team, taken onto a youth development squad, and have had their parents sign a contract to say they would no longer play other football outside the context of the development squad (because the league professional teams don't want to risk getting their junior players that they're putting a lot of effort into getting injured in a school kick around). I know that sounds crazy, but seriously, that's the way youth football works!

I'm an ex women's Sunday League player, and the thing is that if you're serious about getting girls of primary school into football, you do need a girls-only team for the beginners, and an experienced team of both sexes - otherwise what do you do with the girls who are really good? It's about providing equality of opportunity on a playing field that already by age 6 is anything but level. Because of the way society treats boys and girls from toddlerhood onwards, by 6 or 7 in a typical class of 30 children, 5 or 6 of the boys will be really good footballers, whereas maybe one class in three will have a girl who's had the encouragement to become good. Which is a great shame because football is a bloody brilliant game to play.

But the boy can continue to play football, not in school cos he's not good enough, but there are plenty of clubs outside school.

There simply AREN'T other opportunities for the girl - so she has to give it up.

It's about finding a solution that means all kids have the opportunity to play football somewhere. Your boys only or girls only team means some girls cannot play. My solution, and the one preferred by the FA, means all kids can play the game.

The point, as Titchy says, is thinking about what opportunities already exist for boys to play football, vs. what opportunities exist for girls.

titchy

I haven't said that she just has to give it up, and I haven't said that I am against the mixed team.

I have said that it this situation that it would be wrong just to drop the boy from the team.

My solution, and the one preferred by the FA, means all kids can play the game.

That would be all children part from the child that cannot play for his school team.

Because we are talking about a school team.

M0stlyBowlingHedgehog

the problem with your cheesy infomercial is that in this case is that one of the boys still can't see over the fence because someone dug a hole.

Boney - it's a straw man. Primary school teams and junior local league teams drop children who aren't good enough quite ruthlessly. Sadly, such is the cut-throat competitiveness of football-mad parents that by late primary school there will be loads of boys who've had to get their heads round being dropped for not being good enough. Whether this is a healthy way to run kids' football is a whole other question (personally I think it's a shit way to run it), and whether it is healthy for the game as a whole at all levels is also a moot point (there is a persuasive argument to the effect that the youth league structure in England, which chanels children into learning unimaginative defensive skills from a young age rather than simply being allowed to enjoy developing good ball skills, is one of the reasons England underperform at international level - any creativity is knocked out of kids aged 8 and 9).

But those are arguments against competitive league football too young - not against a boy losing a place to a girl. Why is it terrible for a boy to lose a place to a girl when he might equally well have lost his place to another boy? Once you've decided competitive football for this age group is a good thing, then you've already conceded that the kids who aren't good enough are just going to have to suck it up. (Which is why I'm far from convinced it's a good approach to take to youth football, but there you go).

No Boney, they haven't been put in a hole, they've been beaten to a place by a girl who was better than them. No different from being beaten to a place by a boy who was better than them. Once you have competitive football with competition for places, there will be kids who are less talented who lose out. The clue is in the name. Competitive football.

Boneyback if you have 23 kids who want to play for one of two school football teams there is ALWAYS going to be one that cannot, you know, cos there's only space for 2 x 11. I'm not sure what you're not getting...

Why does the 11th best boy get to play when there's a girl who is better than him?

M0stlyBowlingHedgehog

I haven't said that its wrong for a boy to lose his place to a better player whether female or male. This is other posters spinning what I have said to meet their agenda.

And lets be honest, if a new pupil turned up at the school and said "I am the best footballer ever", they wouldn't just put him in the team (as some seem to be suggesting here).

They would have to prove themselves at training, on the pitch and they would be cycled in to the team taking a turn at being sub and in the stand by group.

Any players that are not up to scratch wouldn't just be dumped, they would train and be cycled through the team and reserves so that injuries would be covered.

And as for he could play else where, that is a crass generalisation, their could be many factors that prevent them form playing outside the school.

M0stlyBowlingHedgehog

If your picture where to truely reflect this senario only two would see the game.

titchy

What you are not getting is that there are better ways to deal with this than just dumping a child off the team.

and if we are talking numbers its 11 on the pitch, + subs + reserves so your numbers are wrong.

On the face of it I would say to be fair a girls team and a boys team but what I've seen in real life at our school and this isn't a team but the after school club so no places lost I would say girls and mixed teams.

So at our school we had an after school football club so mixed.
Then a girls club was created to encourage girls into the sport, necessary because alot of the boys at the club have been playing since age 4 at football clubs and they play every waking moment of the day. So then there was boys and girls club.
One of the girls is very talented so needs to play in the boys club as the girls are all beginners and a full range of ages Y1-6 whereas the boys are separated into year groups and increase in talent as they get older. So now we have a mixed football club and a girls club. (Club as in afterschool club, not a proper football club)
This is fair to the players as they are able to play more competitively in the 'mixed' club but girls who are beginners get to play in the girls club.
But like I said, this is not a specific 'team' so no one is missing out on places.

Sigh....

Yes I know there are subs on the bench, players have to train to prove themselves, some kids can't access out of school clubs etc etc. It's an illustration to highlight the point. A straw footballer if you like.

On a global level there are far more opportunities for boys to play football than there are for girls to play. One way of encouraging girls to play, whilst keeping the competitive nature of the game is for teams to be either mixed or girls only. It's a shame the OP, who is in a position to make a difference with girls' participation at her school, is choosing not to do so, and rather worrying she doesn't really understand the problem

I was once a boy who for years wasn't good enough at football to make the starting line-out, and we had a girl who was better than me, who did make the first 11.

Obviously I wanted to be in the team, but the girl, and a lot of the boys, were better than me. I didn't have a divine right to be picked.

I practiced a lot and ended up playing my way into the team on merit. Never even crossed my mind that the girl should be made to leave and join a girls' team.

I haven't said that its wrong for a boy to lose his place to a better player whether female or male. This is other posters spinning what I have said to meet their agenda.
I think the problem is that it's quite difficult to work out what point you're actually trying to make.

The OP's school's 'boys team' plays in a mixed league and girls would be allowed o play under league rules. The school has decided not to let girls join.

All that I, titchy and others want is for girls to be given the opportunity to join the 'boys' team, if they're good enough to do so.

We're not saying that the team MUST include girls, either in the squad or the starting lineup, just that girls should be eligible and, if they show themselves to be better than a male counterpart, they should be picked ahead of them.

I think that you think we're saying that a girl should automatically be included ahead of one of the boys, but I don't think anyone is actually saying that.