Discussion in 'Manchester United Forum' started by Jaybomb, Jun 18, 2017.
It wont be, there will be more people following the youth team.
To me, it's fairly obvious that a football club should have opportunities for people including both boys and girls to play football. It's equally obvious that there should be separate teams for boys and girls. And thirdly, it should be as ovious that a club providing the opportunity for girls and boys to play football, should not withdraw that opportunity on the grounds that the players become adults, or that they are not commercially viable enough (honestly, a team can be run on members yearly contributions if need be, they don't have to have 15 physios and play at Old Trafford), or that they are incompatible with a brand that in itself would make 'branding' closer to it's origin from cattle branding. I think it's a shame Man United don't have a womens team on the grounds that is traditional in the meaning of 'sexist tradition'.
Now, I too believe that running a women's team, even a top womens team would be as possible for Man Utd as it is for City, Arsenal, Liverpool, Everton etc. They can and we can't? I don't buy that. If I we're in charge of MUFC, I would put in at least the effort Arsenal puts into their set up, beacuse the players and the audience are there in Manchester As much as in London and Liverpool. But to me that's not really the main point.
The main point for me is that the club is a football club (not primarily an ltd) for people, and should enable people to play football from kids to adult levels in one form or another. May the product develop as it deserves. This should be, and in more and more clubs is, the minimum.
A dream, to top it off, is this - that regardless of being jittery through a sort of financial crisis - MUFC through it's special position in the world may actually be a force for the entire world changing the outlook and possibilities for girls (like my own) and women in many places following and playing football, that they are reckoned with as opposed to being actively or indirectly held back. If not now, some day pretty soon. A dream, but I wouldn't say it's off the charts in the Theatre of Dreams.
Yeah, naturally as it should be. The quality they will be viewing will be much higher as well.
It's just another marketing tool that can be exploited to boost the brand tbh. It's win win scenario to me with minimal investment. If thinks doesn't work out you can shut it down. Hardly you need to spend hundred of millions or disappoint millions of followers.
Staggering the amount of pushback from some here - it costs you and your beloved club nothing to set up, yields more positives than negatives and actually contributes to the social good of the area.
I have read some grade-A ass-pulls for excuses as to why United shouldn't do this and it is disheartening to see the level of mental gymnastics at play.
If there are no downsides and all positives why do you think the club hasn't done it?
Posts like these seem to exist in a world where the decision wasn't made to scrap the team and where the decision to reinstate it has already been made. Neither of those things are true, people trying to suggest reasons why the reality of the situation exists is perfectly reasonable whether you like the reasons or not.
We either look at the reality and try to find reasons why the current situation exists or we say "everyone who disagrees with me is an ass and reasons why it doesn't have a team doesn't exist" - in which case do you have a conspiracy theory as to why this great, cheap, wonderful, community-spiritied venture that yields more positives than negatives, isn't being embraced by the club?
We're not in a situation where it exists. More than that we're in a situation where the club took the decision to end its existence. If you think that was done for absolutely no reason then fine, but the reality is it probably wasn't.
It's unlikely the club at the time, and each season since when they've had to reviewed the decision, made it on the basis of "We shan't have a women's football team because...no reason. Thanks, bye!" and no amount of getting arsey with people in the thread who suggest that probably wasn't the reason why the football team was a) scrapped and b) not reinstated over the last few years, will really change that.
This thread is a pretty tough read for a woman. People say that the women's game is shite, fine, but how do you think it gets better? How do you think it HAS been getting better? Certainly not by ignoring and dismissing it. Also, people are acting as if men's professional sports hasn't had the advantage of being developed for 100+ years. I'm not too impressed by early footage of men's football either.
That's a separate debate though really, isn't it? I don't know why when it comes to women's football people are so offended by other people not liking it.
Not every sport has a divine right to be popular.
I'm responding to the people whose only input to the thread has been, "It's shite, simple as." I'm not at all offended by people not liking it, I just think it's a bad reason to use as to why it shouldn't be supported by the club. Saying that women's football should simply get better before we support it is backwards. It gets better when you support it. That's how sports works, men's or women's. See US men's football for example.
Wouldn't the women's game benefit from slightly smaller size goal posts ? I mean I know they keep the same metrics for all the other sports (basketball, handball, tennis etc etc) but it feels like it is too easy to score from long range in the women's game. They can shoot the ball almost as powerfully and accurately as men ans the keepers are often too short and reach for the most difficult balls.
Basically all they have to do is aim for the corners for the shots to have a good chance being converted (just like the men's tbh).
One can only hope
I don't think our powers that be care. I'm far from convinced a Manchester United woman team would be unable to break even. Let alone fail to make money.
I'll just quote Wikipedia:
As you can see, the FA actively hindered women's football, and even after lifting the ban (something they didn't really want to do), continued to refuse to acknowledge and support it for another 20 years. As women playing football was also seen as improper by many during the '20s, it's safe to say that trying to gain the support necessary to put together something on their own was an almost impossible task.
Football is a gender neutral sport, in England held back by the very association that was supposed to be governing it. The least we can do now is try to right some of those wrongs and help the game continue to develop and grow.
He said there are more positives than negatives, or essentially that the upsides outweigh the downsides, not that there are no downsides and only positives.
And again, your countering an argument no one has made. I think all, to a person, have acknowledged that money was the reason the team was shut down, and everyone knows that money is the primary reason it hasn't been reinstated. Whether it's because it wouldn't be profitable, or because it wouldn't be profitable enough to justify the effort is anyone's guess. As someone else mentioned, though, PSG and Lyon, the two best women's teams in Europe, run on a budget of €7m and €5m respectively. The excuse that United can't have a women's team because it isn't profitable (or profitable enough, whatever the case) rings incredibly hollow in light of the fact that it'd cost the equivalent of a reserve team player to run the team. It's a literal drop in the bucket as far as United is concerned.
And I really don't think anyone is being arsey, abusive or hostile towards those that disagree. If you feel like people are being harsh on you, it might have something to do with the condescending manner in which you explain to us things we already know.
I think it's more the people who drop by to tell us women's football is shit, or tripe, or whatever. It adds nothing to the discussion, is incredibly tedious, and amounts to shitposting.
Why can't people say they think women's football is shite?
Isn't this forum and indeed the football discourse in general full of people complaining about players, teams, clubs? I think it's a huge barrier to the acceptance of women's football this insistence that anything but adulation is to be treated with disgust. Bizarre how people seem to think the only opinion on women's football that people are allowed to give is praise. You don't get that with any other top-level professional sport. Unless I missed the years of people who hated the football we played under Van Gaal being accused of "shitposting"
If women's football was treated like men's football then every week most players would be getting absolutely hammered for their performances, like the men do. Can't have it both ways; insist that people take it seriously as a top-level professional sport then in the next breath insist any criticism is unwanted.
So far the only acceptable opinions seems to be:
United doesn't have a team and any suggestions that there exists any reasons for this at all are wrong and probably sexist.
Women's football is a top-level sport but unlike all other top level sports you're not allowed to criticise it.
You have teenage fans of boybands who'd happily stab their parents in the eye if they so much as suggest one of them has a silly haircut, less sensitive to criticism of that thing that they like than a lot of people who like women's football. Someone not liking the thing you like is okay.
I'm not sure who exactly you're arguing with here mate. The only people who responded to your post said that there's nothing wrong with not liking women's football, but that simply saying "it's shite" doesn't add anything whatsoever to the conversation. If the thread title was, "What do you think about women's football?" and they answered with that, then fair game. Unless of course they're saying that United doesn't have a women's team because women's football is shite, in which case I think it's perfectly fair for people to point out the historical and cultural reasons why that may be, and why that isn't a great reason for us to not have a team.
Simply put, it wouldn't be profitable.
There's no point in doing business if there's no profit. And we all know football is a business, except for naive ones.
If women football is profitable, we would have already gotten one.
Do you think non-league Football should just be abolished?
But nobody, here or elsewhere is asking you to like it. I couldn't care less about whether you or any other poster/supporter likes it. I don't like cricket, but I'm not going to make endless posts about how it shouldn't exist based on that and some notion of financial viability. Everything is financially viable to Manchester United at this moment in time.
No, what's bizarre is your unrivaled ability to put words in other peoples mouths. No one has said that the only opinion people are allowed to give on women's football is praise. Plenty of people have said they don't like it, and no one has a problem with that. It's the people who drop by just to call it shit, without actually contributing anything to the overall debate, that people have a problem with.
If you're going to continue taking part in this discussion, may I suggest you start actually responding to what people are writing, instead of what you're imagining them to be writing?
You're an expert at constructing all these elaborate straw-men, I'll give you that, but you're entirely unable to respond to what people are actually writing. You just ignore everything people actually write, then make a post where you knock down all these straw-men you've so carefully constructed.
If you're not going to respond to what people are actually posting, what are you doing here?
But pretty much the only use of the word "sexist" in this thread has been by you. Nobody in favour of having a women's team has brought that notion into it. It suggests that you are posting with an agenda.
It would be a nice idea to have a team, I'm not sure there's really a market for it though, so I can't imagine we'd put too much money into it.
He probably meant specifically about professional football and he would be right.
The thread asks: Why do we not have a women's team?
Not: Those who think it's outrageous we don't have a women's team and think anyone who believes there might be valid reasons for this is a bastard - post here!
Most professional Football clubs do not make profits.
They are not profitable, thus called non-league football.
We can have as many women football teams we want in a non-league football level. But in order to have proper infrastructure, league, stadium, or for Man Utd sponsoring or creating a women's team, it has to be profitable.
There just isn't enough cash flow for investors to have motivation to invest in improvements of level and quality women football.
I'm not opposed to having women football team at all. I'm saying it's just a nature of business that we don't see high level women football.
You are quite frankly ignoring what people are saying to you and making up your own imaginary discussion. Have a look in the mirror.
Don't bother with him, he's entirely unable to come up with anything worthwhile, so has instead resorted to putting words in peoples mouths and constructing straw-men that he then knocks down. He's yet to be able to offer a counter-argument to anything anyone has actually written.
But they attempt to. That is the ultimate goal, you do not go into professionnal without worrying and caring about making profits. Otherwise clubs get relegated, bankrupt etc etc..
I think the answer is very simple: Manchester United's goal is to make profit for the owners. The owners do not have to, nor do not want to engage in operation that will most likely bring losses. In addition they don't want to budge to social pressure and create women's team.
Personally - i don't follow women football, more apart from beach volleyball and volleyball i have absolutely zero interest in women sports. Actually apart from football (EPL, CL, Polish Ekstraklasa) and handball (Polish superleague and CL) i don't follow any other sport (with rare exception of golf and yachting)
This is the crux of it. If a women's team could be financially self-reliant then of all the clubs in world football - we'd have one.
Then there's the fact that maybe managers have objected to the idea of having to share training facilities with another entire squad of players in addition to everyone else who uses Carrington along with the first team. Setting up a women's football team involves more than just asking 11 ladies to turn up on a Saturday and adding an extra page to the merch catalogue.
If they do it, great, if they don't, I wouldn't lose sleep. I'm not hugely passionate either way. I cannot, however, understand anyone vehemently arguing against the formation of a senior women's team. You might not actively desire it, as I don't, but how you can oppose it so passionately is rather confusing. Beyond operating at a minor loss, what's the downside to forming a women's team? Can some of the staunch detractors please enlighten me?
Are there that many vehemently opposing the formation of it?
"Why don't we have a women's team?"
- It could be because of X, Y or Z
"OMG why do you fiercely oppose it?!!"
I'm like you I'm not arsed either way but suspect there might be reasons why we don't have one. As I said earlier it's unlikely the decision to scrap the team was taken for no reason, and it's unlikely a lack of appetite to bring it back has been for no reason either.
The women's team was an ongoing concern. You don't end ongoing concerns for no reason. You also don't discuss bringing back a women's team and conclude:"We've discussed re-introducing a women's team and have decided that we won't, for no reason".
Agree or disagree with the decision. People seem to have a huge problem with anyone attempting to deviate the discussion from the narrative of: if you don't agree with me you're sexist. To the point where those of us suggesting that there may be reasons behind what happened are dismissed.
Literally no one is saying that, though.
You've been banging that drum for a couple of pages now, time to give it a rest.
Maybe, if you gave actually responding to what people are writing a whirl, instead of arguing against things no one has been saying, people would be willing to have a discussion with you. As it stands, the only one dismissing others is you, with you continued refusal to respond to what people are actually writing, instead opting to respond to what you imagine them to be writing.
Everyone knows there was a reason behind, everyone knows that reason was the Glazers cutting costs, no one is saying the team was shut down for no discernible reason and no one is saying that the higher-ups don't have a reason for not reinstating the team. People simply disagree with that.
And we disagree with that because worst case scenario the team would cost less than one Buttner per season, but it won't because the name of United associated with the likes of Alex Morgan would yield big sponsors in the US for example, where the women team makes more money than the men team.
Isn't that a bit presumptive?
Presumably City's women's team isn't a commercial gold-mine state side?
It took the men's game years and years to establish itself with the US audience, primarily due to marketing and the fact that it was of a much higher standard and quality that what the American audience were exposed to. Given the chasm in quality between women's football in the US and any side in this country, least of all a fledgling one, the idea that a United women's team would be an excuse to print money in the US does seem a tad naive.
City women's team isn't the team with the highest profile though and the club of City as a whole isn't of the highest profile in football. My guess is that Manchester United as a brand is bigger than Lyon, Lyon biggest player in terms of notoriety is Alex Morgan not Lacazette, she is followed by a lot more of people than he is and United with its own aura is in a great position to exploit it. It's important to remember that very often the marketability and financial efficiency of a player is made by its club.
So, I'm not going to tell you that a women's team will definitely break even but a United women team with for example Alex Morgan and Sakaguchi could have a big enough profile to do it.
Again you're arguing a point that hasn't been made. Nowhere did he claim that it would be a commercial goldmine, or a license to print money. He said that the team, with the right players, could potentially cover it's own costs and become self-sustainable (I see @JPRouve clarified his point, but I'll post this anyway, just because...)
If we had a women's team I wouldn't watch them anyway. Not unless they wear bikinis.
It's weird how this types of comments are accepted. Don't you guys have mothers and sisters?
I predict that the first female to play in the Premier league will be born in the next decade.
I predict a female player will be born that is a "one in a lifetime" type player like Best, Pele. di Stefano and that whatever club they play for will push through the necessary rule change to allow them to play for the club, ending the current status quo with Male / female teams.
I can remember the ridiculous stereotyping of Black players in the 70's as only "flair" players that would not have the character or strength to play in defence. Stereotyping of women's football will gradually be eroded too.
I would like United to be part of reducing those stereotypes and run a women's team.
I would love us to discover such a player in the future and see her winning the ballon d'or whilst playing for United and adding to our trophy cabinet.
This thread is actually quite disturbing/sad to read...
Separate names with a comma.