Manchester United refuse to launch female team

[Cal?]

And that's not right either, but (probably) more to do with there being the right quality for both levels. The Olympics adds and removes different events all the time, and actively tries to improved the competition at all levels.

It has everything to do with there being nearly no interest in men performing synchronized swimming or rhythmic gymnastics.

Until the women football game can be a sustainable business in its own right, there is no reason to run one just to be politically correct.

 

[Sir A1ex]

Can men play in women's sports? I mean If Murray wanted to win more Grand slams could he just move over to the Women's side of the draw and dominate for years?

Why is it wrong for women to not be able to play for a man's team when men can't play in women's?

Damn right, and they should let adults play in the U14s and able bodied people compete in the paralympics too.

 

[Keeps It tidy]

It has everything to do with there being nearly no interest in men performing synchronized swimming or rhythmic gymnastics.

Until the women football game can be a sustainable business in its own right, there is no reason to run one just to be politically correct.

Manchester United having a team can help grow the woman's game.

 

[Fully Fledged]

Damn right, and they should let adults play in the U14s and able bodied people compete in the paralympics too.

So are you saying that women are children or disabled?

 

[rcoobc]

Can men play in women's sports? I mean If Murray wanted to win more Grand slams could he just move over to the Women's side of the draw and dominate for years?

Why is it wrong for women to not be able to play for a man's team when men can't play in women's?

No they can't, just like women can't play in men's sports.

But its a complicated situation so let me try to set it out:

- At youth level, 16 year olds can play in the mens team, but men can't play in the under 16's.
- In Athletics disabled Athletes can compete in the Olympics but able-bodied Athletes can't compete in the Paralympics.
- In football, women and men can't compete with each other.

Now, if you accept the phrase "most women are less athletic than most men" can also apply to boys or whoever else, you can see that the parallel may exist where women can compete in "mens" football, but men can't compete in "womens" football... Because, again, most men are stronger than most women, so it wouldn't be fair.

However, we definitely cannot have the situation where they just disband women's football and make the whole thing mixed. That would be far worse than the status quo, because virtually no club would bother to go through the expensive of training young girls when they will almost definitely not be big/strong enough to compete (just as right now clubs tend to let the smaller kids go).

One day, it may be possible that women could play with men.

 

[Sir A1ex]

It has everything to do with there being nearly no interest in men performing synchronized swimming or rhythmic gymnastics.

Until the women football game can be a sustainable business in its own right, there is no reason to run one just to be politically correct.

It is down to demand from competitors. As soon as there is demand from men to be allowed to compete in these sports, then the rule becomes unjustifiable.

And there's no doubt there a plenty of women who would like the chance to play top level football.

 

[rcoobc]

So are you saying that women are children or disabled?

No he's not. Reductio ad absurdum, or something that applies better.

 

[Sir A1ex]

So are you saying that women are children or disabled?

I explicitly pointed out that's not what I'm saying earlier in the thread, I'm not going to repeat it in every post.

But I'm not denying the fact that the reason they should have their own competition is because they are not as good at it and never will be, in blunt terms.

 

[Fully Fledged]

I explicitly pointed out that's not what I'm saying earlier in the thread, I'm not going to repeat it in every post.

But I'm not denying the fact that the reason they should have their own competition is because they are not as good at it and never will be, in blunt terms.

My point if I was being a little blunt is that children and disabled people should be protected by law because they are vulnerable.

There are some places where women should be protected and that is when they look for a position where they are better qualified than a male counterpart but don't get selected. To me that is discrimination, when they are not good enough that isn't.

Now if you bar men from women's elite sport then I think it's fair to do the same with women for men's sport. That is equal rights to allow women in men's sport but ban men from women's sport is discrimination.

 

[Cal?]

It is down to demand from competitors. As soon as there is demand from men to be allowed to compete in these sports, then the rule becomes unjustifiable.

And there's no doubt there a plenty of women who would like the chance to play top level football.

The fact is that those used to be in the Olympics, but cancelled due to a lack of interest.

 

[Cal?]

Manchester United having a team can help grow the woman's game.

Manchester United have no obligation to anyone to help grow the game. As soon as it becomes financially viable, I'm sure we'll have a side.

 

[Stack]

Manchester United have no obligation to anyone to help grow the game. As soon as it becomes financially viable, I'm sure we'll have a side.

Well then why do they have a girls academy that covers a range of ages. Not financially viable and its helping grow the game. Utd are already doing what you think they shouldnt be doing.

Two of the mission statements for you.
"There are two aspects to girls’ football at the Manchester United Foundation; managing the FA Centre of Excellence and developing grassroots girls’ football in Manchester, Trafford and Salford."

"Established in 2009, we provide opportunities for girls to play football at the highest level, with the aim of developing them into international players. Players who are selected for the Centre receive intensive training and support, along with the chance to compete against other Centres of Excellence teams from the North West. "

Clearly helping to grow the game with no financial reward..

 

[Sad Chris]

And there's no doubt there a plenty of women who would like the chance to play top level football.

You get to play top level anything if you are top level, not if you dream of it or wish you were. You need to earn it like the others.

I have three daughters and I never let them give up due to gender/strength/speed limitations. It's up to them to make a change or improve their skills. I don't want them hoping for somebody someday to give them a chance. If they're good enough, want it hard enough and work towards their goals, they can do anything they want.

There isn't space for gimmies amongst the most skilled of any area.

 

[Fully Fledged]

You get to play top level anything if you are top level, not if you dream of it or wish you were. You need to earn it like the others.

I have three daughters and I never let them give up due to gender/strength/speed limitations. It's up to them to make a change or improve their skills. I don't want them hoping for somebody someday to give them a chance. If they're good enough, want it hard enough and work towards their goals, they can do anything they want.

There isn't space for gimmies amongst the most skilled of any area.

I couldn't agree more.

 

[RedFish]

Tbf, I find it embarrassing that a club of our stature and standing in the game is one of two teams mot to have a Women's team.Talk of standards or skill etc is missing the point wildly. FFS it's the 21st century.........!!!!!!

 

[jojojo]

As soon as the PR and marketing value of a women's team outweighs the cost of one, United will have one. All the press report does is throw a bit more weight into the current negative PR side of the equation. The running costs are so low that even if it isn't initially self-supporting it'll still have no actual impact on the men's team.

Arguing about principles and who will watch is largely irrelevant to the actual financial calculation. If United Vs City is on the TV, I'll probably watch it, and the nature of TV sports coverage in the UK now is such that it would be on the TV.

 

[vidic blood & sand]

Tbf, I find it embarrassing that a club of our stature and standing in the game is one of two teams mot to have a Women's team.Talk of standards or skill etc is missing the point wildly. FFS it's the 21st century.........!!!!!!

Maybe too few people want to watch women kick a ball around old trafford.

 

[Sir A1ex]

Now if you bar men from women's elite sport then I think it's fair to do the same with women for men's sport. That is equal rights to allow women in men's sport but ban men from women's sport is discrimination.

That's one of those things that appears to make sense logically, but when you read what you've actually concluded it's just silly nonsense. It's not even about equal rights, it's just about letting girls play football - in some circumstances in mixed teams, but at the top level in single-sex teams. What's wrong with that?

 

[Sir A1ex]

The fact is that those used to be in the Olympics, but cancelled due to a lack of interest.

Well if there are no men out there wanting to do it, it may as well stay like that. If there are, they should totally be included.

 

[Sir A1ex]

You get to play top level anything if you are top level, not if you dream of it or wish you were. You need to earn it like the others.

I have three daughters and I never let them give up due to gender/strength/speed limitations. It's up to them to make a change or improve their skills. I don't want them hoping for somebody someday to give them a chance. If they're good enough, want it hard enough and work towards their goals, they can do anything they want.

There isn't space for gimmies amongst the most skilled of any area.

Sorry mate, I can understand telling your daughters they have no limitations and can be whatever they want. But between us in this thread they aren't going to play for the men's England team, if they were to open it up to women too. So if you do want them to play for England, which I've no reason to doubt they can, that's what the women's team is there for.
They can also not play for Brazil or Italy I'm afraid. There are limitations. We just don't need to bang on about the fact to the kids.

 

[Shez]

Manchester United have no obligation to anyone to help grow the game. As soon as it becomes financially viable, I'm sure we'll have a side.

Actually is it financially un viable? As far as I know, we already have youth training teams and the infrastructure setup is already there. Plus you get a number of potential sponsors which want to sponsor female sports only as their CSR budget is dedicated to women empowerment. Having a woman's team makes a lot of sense from a business perspective.
And away from the economics... football was and is rooted in community. If there are a significant number of women who want to play for us, we owe it go them to make sure they have the chance.
And then there is the additional arguments of social benefits, employment benefits etc. Which we can get into.

 

[Speak]

That's one of those things that appears to make sense logically, but when you read what you've actually concluded it's just silly nonsense. It's not even about equal rights, it's just about letting girls play football - in some circumstances in mixed teams, but at the top level in single-sex teams. What's wrong with that?

What do you mean 'It's about letting girls play football'?

You're talking as if they're banned from playing.
There's nobody stopping them from playing football.

 

[Sir A1ex]

There's nobody stopping them from playing football.

In single sex teams, no there isn't.

But why are they not allowed to play with men once they hit 16? It achieves no benefit I can see, and just seems pointlessly mean spirited.

 

[Rich_H_1989]

I think the club need to get with the times a bit because it's making us look bad. Woman's football is on the rise right now so we should jump on the bandwagon. At the end of the day it'll help increase our fan base if we did.

It would also probably have prevented the bad press we got about releasing the female version of the new strip.

 

[The Purist]

Actually can't believe some of the stupidity on this thread. Haha.

Women can't play in men's sports the same way that men can't play in women's. Until woman's sports generate enough revenue to be financially viable and, ultimately, profitable.. they won't be given the same amount of commercial opportunity. That is the end of it. There is no debate.

It's the same whether it's women, men, aliens, a different sport. If it's not a commercial success.. it won't (and rightly so) be given so much attention. Women's football should be thankful that they are carried by a major sports network in BT, plenty of other sports played by men don't even have the luxury of being on television. Is that sexist? No, it's capitalism. No interest, no money.

Some of these people need to think, or get an education, before they speak about things that could potentially change legislation.

 

[Brwned]

I'm sure we'll have a women's team again at some point but I find a lot of the arguments for it a bit weird. Particularly the one about providing women with an opportunity to fulfil their dreams of playing for Manchester United which they're cruelly being denied at the moment. The women that dream of playing for United are dreaming of a completely different entity. They are dreaming of Manchester United's men's team. What else could they be dreaming of? A non-existent women's team which has achieved nothing and represents nothing? That'd be a bit weird. It's actually a bit offensive that this non-existent team has more appeal than the Doncaster Belles. It suggests that the achievements of women footballers are so insignificant that just the association to a men's team is somehow more valuable and appealing than being part of a women's team that has created its own unique identity and has its own history of hard-earned successes.

The Manchester United that has created that history and that allure that women dream about is the men's team. Everything that we associate with Manchester United is based on the success of a team that was a male-only team based on the regulations they were playing under. No matter what happens that will always be a false and unattainable dream. The heritage, the glamour, the "ethos" - none of that would be transferred to the women's team in reality. We know this because it's already happened. The only real associations were the name and the badge. Perhaps eventually elements of the brand would be incorporated into the team but it seems unlikely. They'd represent something completely different. The facilities, the staff, the players...they had nothing in common beforehand and would have nothing in common this time.

The idea it's somehow sexist for Manchester United not to have a women's team is incredibly amusing though. It might be foolish but it's not sexist. The only other Premier League club that doesn't have a women's team is Southampton and along with being one of the teams lauded most often for their commitment to youth football and the community, they're the only team in the PL owned by a woman.

Anyway, I don't agree at all with this idea that people only watch sport to see the fastest, the strongest, the most powerful. The fact that this is a common opinion on here just outlines how detached modern football fans who follow the elite clubs are from football as a whole. Yes that is one aspect of football that has significant appeal but it's not the only appeal. There is significant interest in youth football and women's football because it offers something different - it's progressive, family-friendly, it inspires pride, it's more in touch with football's roots, it's more in touch with the average man/woman. It's a different kind of appeal and it's a different kind of fun. A lot of the same qualities are present in lower league football. The audience is smaller but it's still sizeable. Football was originally about community as much as it was about physical and technical demands and displays. Top-level women's football can still offer that in a way that top-level men's football can't. That won't appeal to a lot of people here but equally it will appeal to a lot of people elsewhere.

 

[gooDevil]

I'm sure we'll have a women's team again at some point but I find a lot of the arguments for it a bit weird. Particularly the one about providing women with an opportunity to fulfil their dreams of playing for Manchester United which they're cruelly being denied at the moment. The women that dream of playing for United are dreaming of a completely different entity. They are dreaming of Manchester United's men's team. What else could they be dreaming of? A non-existent women's team which has achieved nothing and represents nothing? That'd be a bit weird. It's actually a bit offensive that this non-existent team has more appeal than the Doncaster Belles. It suggests that the achievements of women footballers are so insignificant that just the association to a men's team is somehow more valuable and appealing than being part of a women's team that has created its own unique identity and has its own history of hard-earned successes.

The Manchester United that has created that history and that allure that women dream about is the men's team. Everything that we associate with Manchester United is based on the success of a team that was a male-only team based on the regulations they were playing under. No matter what happens that will always be a false and unattainable dream. The heritage, the glamour, the "ethos" - none of that would be transferred to the women's team in reality. We know this because it's already happened. The only real associations were the name and the badge. Perhaps eventually elements of the brand would be incorporated into the team but it seems unlikely. They'd represent something completely different. The facilities, the staff, the players...they had nothing in common beforehand and would have nothing in common this time.

The idea it's somehow sexist for Manchester United not to have a women's team is incredibly amusing though. It might be foolish but it's not sexist. The only other Premier League club that doesn't have a women's team is Southampton and along with being one of the teams lauded most often for their commitment to youth football and the community, they're the only team in the PL owned by a woman.

Anyway, I don't agree at all with this idea that people only watch sport to see the fastest, the strongest, the most powerful. The fact that this is a common opinion on here just outlines how detached modern football fans who follow the elite clubs are from football as a whole. Yes that is one aspect of football that has significant appeal but it's not the only appeal. There is significant interest in youth football and women's football because it offers something different - it's progressive, family-friendly, it inspires pride, it's more in touch with football's roots, it's more in touch with the average man/woman. It's a different kind of appeal and it's a different kind of fun. A lot of the same qualities are present in lower league football. The audience is smaller but it's still sizeable. Football was originally about community as much as it was about physical and technical demands and displays. Top-level women's football can still offer that in a way that top-level men's football can't. That won't appeal to a lot of people here but equally it will appeal to a lot of people elsewhere.

That should about cover it, good stuff.i

 

[Speak]

I'm sure we'll have a women's team again at some point but I find a lot of the arguments for it a bit weird. Particularly the one about providing women with an opportunity to fulfil their dreams of playing for Manchester United which they're cruelly being denied at the moment. The women that dream of playing for United are dreaming of a completely different entity. They are dreaming of Manchester United's men's team. What else could they be dreaming of? A non-existent women's team which has achieved nothing and represents nothing? That'd be a bit weird. It's actually a bit offensive that this non-existent team has more appeal than the Doncaster Belles. It suggests that the achievements of women footballers are so insignificant that just the association to a men's team is somehow more valuable and appealing than being part of a women's team that has created its own unique identity and has its own history of hard-earned successes.

The Manchester United that has created that history and that allure that women dream about is the men's team. Everything that we associate with Manchester United is based on the success of a team that was a male-only team based on the regulations they were playing under. No matter what happens that will always be a false and unattainable dream. The heritage, the glamour, the "ethos" - none of that would be transferred to the women's team in reality. We know this because it's already happened. The only real associations were the name and the badge. Perhaps eventually elements of the brand would be incorporated into the team but it seems unlikely. They'd represent something completely different. The facilities, the staff, the players...they had nothing in common beforehand and would have nothing in common this time.

The idea it's somehow sexist for Manchester United not to have a women's team is incredibly amusing though. It might be foolish but it's not sexist. The only other Premier League club that doesn't have a women's team is Southampton and along with being one of the teams lauded most often for their commitment to youth football and the community, they're the only team in the PL owned by a woman.

Anyway, I don't agree at all with this idea that people only watch sport to see the fastest, the strongest, the most powerful. The fact that this is a common opinion on here just outlines how detached modern football fans who follow the elite clubs are from football as a whole. Yes that is one aspect of football that has significant appeal but it's not the only appeal. There is significant interest in youth football and women's football because it offers something different - it's progressive, family-friendly, it inspires pride, it's more in touch with football's roots, it's more in touch with the average man/woman. It's a different kind of appeal and it's a different kind of fun. A lot of the same qualities are present in lower league football. The audience is smaller but it's still sizeable. Football was originally about community as much as it was about physical and technical demands and displays. Top-level women's football can still offer that in a way that top-level men's football can't. That won't appeal to a lot of people here but equally it will appeal to a lot of people elsewhere.

Very nicely put.

 

[rcoobc]

@Brwned of course the team the young girls dream of playing alongside is (I assume) the men's team. They dream of chipping a 30 yard pass to Wayne Rooney or taking over free kick duties from Giggs in the 90th minute...

The whole situation I find very strange. As much as people like to pretend otherwise, women aren't banned from playing alongside men for their own sakes. We should all take a look at the history of it before claiming that. (And no I'm not saying that that is the best way forward or anything like that)

At the end of the day, what do us who support the idea actually want? A women's club that has the name "Manchester united" slapped on it, but has nothing really to do with the main club? That seems dissastisfactory.

There is no perfect answer.

 

[MarkC]

The thing is if the demand is there people will come regardless of whether it is 11 women kicking a ball about down the park or 11 of them in United shirts at Old Trafford. If we go back to how we end up with 76k coming to see us every week it is because once upon a time we had such a following we started selling tickets for people to see us play as most clubs start.

Women's football needs to address why the demand is simply not there not hope that big clubs will create teams for them in the hope of creating that demand.

If womens football reaches a level where people find it entertaining the demand will come but it's pretty obvious there is no demand apart from a select few and the PC brigade. The numbers just don't stack up and lets face it if we only had 900 people a week coming to see us we wouldn't be in a huge stadium earning millions for very long, just because we have done well for ourselves we don't owe a football team to women off the back of our success.

I am all for equality and believe if there is a choice between a man and a woman for a job it should come down to who does that job best. If there comes a day women can compete with men I would be all for having them in our team as they have earned it not just been handed 11 strips like some sort of charity. I bet half those in here wishing we would have a team wouldn't bother to go and see it anyway.

 

[Stack]

Maybe too few people want to watch women kick a ball around old trafford.

They wouldnt be playing at OT

 

[Ozio]

They wouldnt be playing at OT

Well, maybe he meant the other Old Trafford (cricket) lol

 

[Fully Fledged]

That's one of those things that appears to make sense logically, but when you read what you've actually concluded it's just silly nonsense. It's not even about equal rights, it's just about letting girls play football - in some circumstances in mixed teams, but at the top level in single-sex teams. What's wrong with that?

Then what about the boy who misses out because of her? He would be good enough to make the girls' side but he not allowed even if he is no bigger or stronger than they are.
We can't just think girls rights especially when it comes to children.

 

[Stack]

In single sex teams, no there isn't.

But why are they not allowed to play with men once they hit 16? It achieves no benefit I can see, and just seems pointlessly mean spirited.

Alex i have been coaching girls and women for about the last 8 years. Still coach males but now predominantly its females. Down here in NZ the age where girls are no longer allowed to play in boys teams is 14. I had one girl that played in a boys team I coached from the age of 7 through to when she was 14. She was an exceptionally talented girl and ended up playing for NZ at an U17 WC.
There are a couple of problems which happen, one being that the girls simply find it too hard to compete with the boys once they hit 13-14. The boys are simply faster, more agile and stronger. However the area where the age switch becomes important comes about with when the girls develop physically. Due to the contact nature of football we end up with issues of unintentional inappropriate contact starting to happen when competing for the ball. The truth is it becomes uncomfortable for the boys as they dont wish to accidently touch girls breasts or crotch when competing for the ball. Generally by the time they are all 13-14 there are very very few girls able to compete with the boys anyway.

One thing that has started to happen now due to the huge growth of girls taking up the game is that fewer girls are ending up in boys teams. It was the case that the extremely talented girls would play in boys teams because they couldnt find girls teams good enough. That has virtually ended now and studies have shown that its better for girls to be playing in girls teams anyway, for a wide range of reasons. Hope that helps.

 

[Blodssvik]

Manchester United have a responsibility towards shareholders the way the business is set up. Manchester United have no interest giving anything back to the community if it doesn't result in enough goodwill. What fans think United should do as a financial superpower in football is irrelevant.

Reading red cafe though I sometimes get the feeling even our fan base is becoming more business oriented. You see some pride themselves on amount of paid members, fans worldwide, facebook followers, sold replica shirts, biggest sponsordeals etc. Biggest this, biggest that while playing pretty dire football and trying to compete for trophies again.

 

[Sir A1ex]

Then what about the boy who misses out because of her? He would be good enough to make the girls' side but he not allowed even if he is no bigger or stronger than they are.
We can't just think girls rights especially when it comes to children.

This would apply even in single sex teams... what about the boy who can't get into a boys only team because he's not good enough? Nobody has the right to play in any given team regardless of ability. Any boy or girl who can't get into one team on ability just needs to find one at their level (and yes, we should totally ensure there are enough teams at enough levels that everybody who wants to can get a game).

 

[Siorac]

Not true, nothing in the rules to say someone needs to be male to play for Manchester United in the PL or CL, just that no female is good enouhg.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4110027.stm

 

[Fully Fledged]

This would apply even in single sex teams... what about the boy who can't get into a boys only team because he's not good enough? Nobody has the right to play in any given team regardless of ability. Any boy or girl who can't get into one team on ability just needs to find one at their level (and yes, we should totally ensure there are enough teams at enough levels that everybody who wants to can get a game).

Not if the only reason is a girl takes his place but he is not allowed to take her's in the other team.
If you refuse to have male only sport then their should be no segregation. If you feel there is a need to make female only teams there should be male only teams.

You can have girl only but not male only but that discriminates against boys. If you want to live in a society that allows discrimination then fair enough. I just don't think it's right.

 

[Fully Fledged]

Alex i have been coaching girls and women for about the last 8 years. Still coach males but now predominantly its females. Down here in NZ the age where girls are no longer allowed to play in boys teams is 14. I had one girl that played in a boys team I coached from the age of 7 through to when she was 14. She was an exceptionally talented girl and ended up playing for NZ at an U17 WC.
There are a couple of problems which happen, one being that the girls simply find it too hard to compete with the boys once they hit 13-14. The boys are simply faster, more agile and stronger. However the area where the age switch becomes important comes about with when the girls develop physically. Due to the contact nature of football we end up with issues of unintentional inappropriate contact starting to happen when competing for the ball. The truth is it becomes uncomfortable for the boys as they dont wish to accidently touch girls breasts or crotch when competing for the ball. Generally by the time they are all 13-14 there are very very few girls able to compete with the boys anyway.

One thing that has started to happen now due to the huge growth of girls taking up the game is that fewer girls are ending up in boys teams. It was the case that the extremely talented girls would play in boys teams because they couldnt find girls teams good enough. That has virtually ended now and studies have shown that its better for girls to be playing in girls teams anyway, for a wide range of reasons. Hope that helps.

That mKes sense. Far more so than splitting them because boys are stronger.

 

[okLaptop1]

Eh it's one of those things that I don't care about because I wouldn't watch them either way, but if the club don't view it as a profitable venture it'll probably never happen. Ah well.