The trouble with moral arguments is that there's always a greater need or a greater justice to appeal to. There's no chance of us resolving the, "why are footballers paid more in a week than some people earn in a year, or a lifetime." There's no way I can justify £1000s being spent on season tickets and TV contracts, when I know that could be saving kids eyesight or providing clean water.
There's no moral high ground in football (at least not in watching it) but I can look at the local equation. I, as a United fan, wanted to hear United's name when they read out the England women's team names. I, as a United fan, am more likely to watch United women Vs City (or whoever) women than another women's game.
Promoting women's pro/semi-pro sport encourages more girls to get off their backsides and participate. It gives them something to aspire to as teenagers. Crucially, it might even encourage some of them to continue enjoying sport in adult life. Us fat, lazy, rich Europeans subscribe to health services that are struggling through a crisis of obesity and diabetes. Anything that makes people enjoy running around is to be welcomed.
Why United? Why not? The PL clubs are uniquely placed to support women's League teams. They've got the training facilities, the expertise, the logistics support and the PR and marketing know-how. The costs involved are minimal compared to their overall budgets and the impact of their names is huge.
Of course, United don't have to do it. But then they had a women's team once, and they got rid of it, and they didn't have to do that either. At some point, I believe that the net benefit in terms of PR, good will and marketing will make the commercial decision for United easy. Meanwhile, if the press want to add to the PR pressure to accelerate the process then I welcome it, it's one of the less harmful examples of the press abusing its power.
There's no moral high ground in football (at least not in watching it) but I can look at the local equation. I, as a United fan, wanted to hear United's name when they read out the England women's team names. I, as a United fan, am more likely to watch United women Vs City (or whoever) women than another women's game.
Promoting women's pro/semi-pro sport encourages more girls to get off their backsides and participate. It gives them something to aspire to as teenagers. Crucially, it might even encourage some of them to continue enjoying sport in adult life. Us fat, lazy, rich Europeans subscribe to health services that are struggling through a crisis of obesity and diabetes. Anything that makes people enjoy running around is to be welcomed.
Why United? Why not? The PL clubs are uniquely placed to support women's League teams. They've got the training facilities, the expertise, the logistics support and the PR and marketing know-how. The costs involved are minimal compared to their overall budgets and the impact of their names is huge.
Of course, United don't have to do it. But then they had a women's team once, and they got rid of it, and they didn't have to do that either. At some point, I believe that the net benefit in terms of PR, good will and marketing will make the commercial decision for United easy. Meanwhile, if the press want to add to the PR pressure to accelerate the process then I welcome it, it's one of the less harmful examples of the press abusing its power.
