Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

50% female sport on bbc news and tv

115 replies

Girlofgold · 20/04/2019 16:08

Whilst the bbc are at addressing pay disparity and diversity for their public pound. I would like to see 50% female sport coverage and reporting. It could be the start of a really great movement. Do you think?

OP posts:
Needmoresleep · 21/04/2019 14:16

If you read my earlier links Italian clubs have achieved 60,000 plus for big women’s matches. Certainly Wembley is pretty full, with lots of girls and families, for cup finals.

And despite playing in some inaccessible outer suburb some way from their main ground, the Chelsea team regularly sell out. This game could be sold out many times over. They would sell out StamfordBridge.

It also cannot be just about money. One reason why clubs like Chelsea have junior and family memberships is to get lots of dads and boys into their shop to buy overpriced merchandise. There is no reason why they should not allow dads and daughters the same spending opportunities.

Another link

www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2019/04/01/phil-neville-calls-premier-league-giants-open-stadiums-

This one is unthinking cultural misogyny, pure and simple. There are no excuses.

Have you actually been to a woman’s game, or even tried to get to the women’s ground from SW6 in less than an hour. Or do you belong to that branch of feminism which thinks women should simply accept what men offer and apologise for even asking for more. I may be being harsh, but you really do seem to have a McKinnon take on women’s sport. As if our daughters don’t deserve equality.

FWIW DD was looking into travelling to Lyon, and would have gone had there not been a big family event. She can’t go to the home match, first because it is a bloody awful journey from her University, plus they are playing at a small ground so she would not get a ticket.

Chelsea in fairness are shite at the community thing. DD has recently switched her allegiance (apart from the women) to a club which champions their women’s, youth and wheelchair teams, even their eSports team in a long term bid to embed within the community. One day the Chinese TV money may dry up, and teams will need their (ethnic, female, etc) community support. Chelsea’s arrogance got to her. Plus she was impressed that her new team have equal numbers of men and women’s loos. The joy of seeing a half time queue for the men’s whilst women walked straight in.

unflushable · 21/04/2019 14:25

And what about those of us who can't watch live? I live in a very remote corner of the UK

Me too.

Dad travels 40 mins to the airport, 1.5 hours on the plane, then travels more through London, at least a dozen times a year, to see his favourite football team.

But anyway, the post isn't directed at you personally. If you can't make it to the match, then what about all the people who can? Why aren't they making an effort to watch the games and generate a crowd for the team they want to see more of?

and pay my TV licence just like anyone else.

You don't have to.

(I'm not being rude here; if it was up to me, I wouldn't have a TV license either).

Or my Mum who, before she died, was bed bound for years and lived for the women's rowing, when it was on? Yet lived somewhere a long way from rowing regattas.

This is why able-bodied people who are not bed-bound and able to see the sport really need to go and see it, to generate as much interest as possible around the event.

But again, my posts are not personal about yourself or your family. Unfortunately, some fans won't be fit to attend events, or won't be able to because of other circumstances, and this is true for all sports and all events. There is a duty on the rest of the fan base to do their best to help these fans in whatever way they can.

Yes, more grassroots support would help.

No no.

Not "would help."

It's essential.

Men's premier league teams all started with grass roots support, long before TVs even existed. They are on TV because there is a lot of interest in them, not vice versa. And people continue to go and watch these teams, the numbers being tens of thousands for every game. If no one went to see men's Premier League football teams, then they definitely wouldn't be on TV either.

Needmoresleep · 21/04/2019 14:26

The fact is Chelsea will be televising the match for Chelsea TV. The BBC could buy it off them, in the way they are buying the other leg from Lyon.

But they are not. Because even though it would cost a tiny fraction of what an EPL game or F1 race would cost, and even though football is one of the fastest growing grass roots sports for girls, these girls are not the sort of females the BBC is interested in.

Pity because students like my daughter are precisely the sort of viewers who debate whether to buy a license fee, and all too often deciding there is no need as so little programming is relevant to them.

Needmoresleep · 21/04/2019 14:36

Grassroots is It's essential

How much more do girls and young women have to play before they meet your criteria for recognition. Why are third tier men’s matches shown on TV when women’s matches with a much greater reach and potential audience are not. Why are you demanding more from women in order for them to be considered for BBC recognition, than you do from men.

Does your dad have a higher income than many of the girls and students who want to each women’s matches?. (If you have ever been to one of the first tier women’s matches you will notice that part of the appeal is to lower income families who simply could not afford a premiership match.) Your dads trips sound expensive. Is there a reason why he does not take the coach like my student daughter and her friends would.

unflushable · 21/04/2019 14:43

If you read my earlier links Italian clubs have achieved 60,000 plus for big women’s matches. Certainly Wembley is pretty full, with lots of girls and families, for cup finals.

I've never been, but any broadcaster would be missing out on a slice of the pie but not broadcasting those if those events are as big as you are say.

And despite playing in some inaccessible outer suburb some way from their main ground, the Chelsea team regularly sell out. This game could be sold out many times over. They would sell out StamfordBridge.

Yes, that's how it works. Teams start off small and they work their way up; hence the reason why Chelsea women are playing in a smaller ground. If their games are selling out, then that's an indication they need a bigger stadium (which they should have the financial muscle to do so, if their games draw in so much money... this is just capitalism 101). And then if their games continue to bring in more and more people, their stadium will bigger and better.

No team ever gets handed a huge stadium on a silver plate. There's no reason for Chelsea Women to have access to Stamford Bridge (and indeed, vice versa). For all intents and purposes, they are separate clubs, linked by the "brand name" only.

This one is unthinking cultural misogyny, pure and simple. There are no excuses.

Doubtful. People are motivated by money, not gender politics. Surely you have noticed that most men don't even know what feminism is.

Have you actually been to a woman’s game, or even tried to get to the women’s ground from SW6 in less than an hour. Or do you belong to that branch of feminism which thinks women should simply accept what men offer and apologise for even asking for more. I may be being harsh, but you really do seem to have a McKinnon take on women’s sport. As if our daughters don’t deserve equality.

Less than an hour?? My daily commute to work is an hour! I would have thought that driving 2 or 3 hours to an "event" is normal. As I said earlier, dad takes a flight at least a dozen times a year to see his favourite football team. Why does a football team need to be less than an hour away from your post code?

Chelsea in fairness are shite at the community thing. DD has recently switched her allegiance (apart from the women) to a club which champions their women’s, youth and wheelchair teams, even their eSports team in a long term bid to embed within the community. One day the Chinese TV money may dry up, and teams will need their (ethnic, female, etc) community support. Chelsea’s arrogance got to her. Plus she was impressed that her new team have equal numbers of men and women’s loos. The joy of seeing a half time queue for the men’s whilst women walked straight in.

There you go, capitalism at work. So it is equal because anyone can choose what sports teams they go to see, and what sports teams they don't see.

If you don't engage with a sport, or a sport team, they don't get any money.

Sports teams you do engage with get more money and grow bigger.

There are events, sports, and activities I would love to see on TV, but they aren't. I accept that because I know things I am a fan of aren't all that popular, so I settle for internet streams instead.

I am also not a huge fan of football. Yet it's everywhere. TV, newspapers, magazines... but again, I accept that, because I know it's the country's biggest sport.

It's not that I'm "settling for less," to use the words you quoted from McKinnon (I don't know who this is). It's just understanding that an event you like is not as big as a different event which other people like.

But the only way to get your event to become bigger is to grow it at the grass roots level. You have to go to games, and you have to do your own part to generate more interest in the event. Take a look at Super Smash Bros... it's massive, and that was grown ENTIRELY at the grass roots level.

Girlofgold · 21/04/2019 14:51

But aren't we saying we know why more women's sport is not on tv and capitalism is only part of it? My question is If the BBC could be used as a vehicle to counteract the money argument and agitate for change.

The status quo is shit and not benefitting or befitting of a progressive society where the goal should be equality.

OP posts:
Needmoresleep · 21/04/2019 15:03

You clearly know very little about either football, taking children out, or not having much money to spare.

Oddly the tradition in football is to support your local team. (Or at least that is how the chant goes.)

European Clubs and cup finals/Olympic matches in the UK do attract big crowds. There is absolutely no reason why something like a European championship semi final would not. Its just that the men have decided not to allow it.

And whilst you may commute for over an hour for work, taking kids over several modes of transport to get from SW6 to a less than central part of Kingston is no fun. Yet during school holidays plenty of girls are taking part in football holiday schemes (with Chelsea making a lot of money from selling their brand.)

Thing is you see, your dad clearly has plenty of spare cash. Students like DD don’t. Yet she shelled out the same £150 for her TV licence. I bet there is lots on the BBC about his team. Because the BBC seeit as part of their remit to provide men with their sport. Even though your dad probably also has Sky or BT. However the BBC do not see airing the biggest woman’s match of the season as part of their remit. Even if the viewing figures will be far higher than for some of the men’s mathches.

Because...men count. Women do not.

McKinnon is a particularly brave and stunning spokesperson for women’s cycling (a world champion) who the BBC give a lot of airtime to, and recently suggested, as you do, that women should to work harder to achieve equality, rather than expect support.

andyoldlabour · 21/04/2019 15:03

Needmoresleep

"If you read my earlier links Italian clubs have achieved 60,000 plus for big women’s matches."

Not according to this they haven't. The Record has recently been set at 39,000 which smashed the previous record of 14,000.

www.marca.com/en/football/international-football/2019/03/24/5c97bda2468aeb4d588b4651.html

In Spain, there was a crowd of 60,739 to watch a match between Barcelona and Atletico Madrid, which is the record for a women's match in Europe.

www.marca.com/en/football/spanish-football/2019/03/17/5c8e4d13ca47419c018b45af.html

In England, Arsenal are top of the women's league and it seems their crowds are only around the 1,500 mark at the most.

unflushable · 21/04/2019 15:06

How much more do girls and young women have to play before they meet your criteria for recognition.

There's a huge misunderstanding here; I'm not talking about players, I'm talking about spectators. Spectators generate revenue for the club, and spectators make a sport grow bigger.

And indeed, it doesn't have to be girls and women watching women's football. Men and boys can watch women's football too, just as women go to men's football games. I watched the women's world cup in 2015 and I thought it was very good, so I will be watching it again this year.

Why are third tier men’s matches shown on TV

Are you sure that's true? Because surely such games are not routinely shown.

Why are you demanding more from women in order for them to be considered for BBC recognition, than you do from men.

I'm not demanding more from women, I'm demanding more from the sports fans. Fans can be either male or female. Men who enjoy watching women's football need to be doing more too.

And this is not specific to football. It applies to any event. The fans of those events need to do everything they can for that event to get BBC recognition. As I've explained, I'm not much of a football fan, but I accept it gets BBC recognition because it's the country's biggest sport. On the other hand, sports, games and events I enjoy are never broadcast on TV... I accept that because I know these are not that popular.

Does your dad have a higher income than many of the girls and students who want to each women’s matches?. (If you have ever been to one of the first tier women’s matches you will notice that part of the appeal is to lower income families who simply could not afford a premiership match.)

Then that's part of the problem. If these sports only appeal to people on lower incomes, as some sort of "football lite" substitute, then that's the reason why they're not generating enough revenue.

There's no reason why people on higher incomes can't go and watch women's football. If people on higher incomes aren't attending the matches, then the question needs to be asked; why?

Your dads trips sound expensive. Is there a reason why he does not take the coach like my student daughter and her friends would.

As I said, I also live in a remote part of the UK.

It's difficult to get a coach to drive across water.

starzig · 21/04/2019 15:16

There are plenty women on sky sports. Men appreciate the totty.

Needmoresleep · 21/04/2019 15:16

Sorry. Spanish not Italian. But the point is the same. European clubs can get big attendances for big matches, and given our footballing culture we could as well. Women’s football in the US has taken off to a much greater extent, but this then is influencing the UK, particularly London. But Clubs and TV need to do more.

A Champions League semifinal is surely a great place to start. Given the greater support women get in Europe, Chelsea have done really well to get so far. And TV rights can’t cost anything like those for a men’s match.

One quirk is that French male football hooligans, banned from the men’s and youth games, seem to have taken to following their women’s teams. There was trouble in Kingston....

andyoldlabour · 21/04/2019 15:17

I will only watch a sport if I think it is worth watching, so I will watch women's golf, athletics, gymnastics, badminton, table tennis, cricket, ice skating, skiing, various "sliding" events, but women's football and tennis are non starters, they just do not seem to have the skill or speed, so the spectacle is not there.

AssassinatedBeauty · 21/04/2019 15:17

Of course the BBC should show 50% of women's sport, and report on it during sports bulletins etc. And Channel 4, if they are in receipt of public money which I think they are. Its better by miles than it used to be, but it's still way off representing women as they should be. They need to lead the way. It's not about popularity or money, it's about basic equality and seeing women's sport as being as worthy as men's.

AssassinatedBeauty · 21/04/2019 15:18

and about women being visible and participating, too.

unflushable · 21/04/2019 15:31

but women's football and tennis are non starters, they just do not seem to have the skill or speed, so the spectacle is not there.

I disagree that women's football isn't worth watching because it doesn't have the same skill or speed as a men's premier league team. Your local men's team won't play with the same skill or speed as a premier league team either, but it's still enjoyable to watch. Women's football is worthwhile in its own right, it doesn't need to be compared and contrasted with the men's game.

insertamusingIDhere · 21/04/2019 15:39

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.

Needmoresleep · 21/04/2019 15:40

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!
TeeJay1970 · 21/04/2019 15:42

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

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

Needmoresleep · 21/04/2019 15:48

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

TeeJay1970 · 21/04/2019 15:56

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

unflushable · 21/04/2019 16:01

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.

Needmoresleep · 21/04/2019 16:08

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...

TeeJay1970 · 21/04/2019 16:15

Who were they playing when they were on TV?

Needmoresleep · 21/04/2019 16:16

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.

Needmoresleep · 21/04/2019 16:19

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.

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is closed and is no longer accepting replies. Click here to start a new thread.