Strange infantilised coverage of women's football

Personally I feel people are way to harsh with the men's game, constantly beating players up for the slightest mistake, it's quite frankly embarrassing.

The coverage of women's football isn't infantillised, it's positive, as football should be.
It picks on the players mistakes but rather than create memes or highlight them as the main I'll to a team they try and pinpoint where they should be doing better, which again is how coaching works.

It's how the mens game started, I am sure once the women's game gets flooded with money it will be similar, but for now I will enjoy it for it's early, unconsumerist beauty.
 
The old school mentality is that "men are supposed to take it like a champ", cause women are weaker and fragile.

In the old school families even the expectations for sons were higher than what the family expected from daughters.
 
The commentary is harder on PL players, which makes sense considering how much they get paid. It is nowhere near that level for lower divisions, though.

Have you ever listened to the commentary in FA Cup when a PL team faces a lower division side? What about the national leagues?

The women's game is nowhere near PL level, so it will have commentary in relation to that level.
 
Champ said:
Personally I feel people are way to harsh with the men's game, constantly beating players up for the slightest mistake, it's quite frankly embarrassing.

The coverage of women's football isn't infantillised, it's positive, as football should be.
It picks on the players mistakes but rather than create memes or highlight them as the main I'll to a team they try and pinpoint where they should be doing better, which again is how coaching works.

It's how the mens game started, I am sure once the women's game gets flooded with money it will be similar, but for now I will enjoy it for it's early, unconsumerist beauty.
Click to expand...
I was thinking this. The OP pre-supposes that the way the men's game is covered is the right way. I'm not so sure that's true.
 
I wonder whether the coverage is just polite and respectful which is why it compares so favourably with the gutter press coverage of the men's game? There may be some criticism that would be fair but goes unsaid, but is being respectful such a bad thing?
 
top1whoisman said:
Never heard anyone on the comms say that in a men’s match either. That’s because naturally Sky, BT, BBC or whoever it is wants to portray their product as highly as possible.

Nothing to do with the gender. It wouldn’t be the best ad for say BT to have their commentators on a CL game saying ”it’s been a shit game, why would anyone watch this crap?”

Even if it’s not commentating we’re talking about. Where in mainstream media do they say a men’s football match was shit? Or the players were shit? They wrap their critique in a more polite form as they should, they are supposed to be journalists. That happens in both women’s and men’s football.

Media is a stakeholder in the game. Why would they ruin their opportunities to remain that or keep their contacts intact with shitting on players/managers/teams/clubs without context and civil manners.
Click to expand...
Come on now, you don't really think I meant they literally say "this game is shit!"?
 
There isn't the same coverage of other women's sports. Female tennis players, like their male counterparts "crash out" and "fail to progress "

Only women footballers "fought bravely" and "did themselves proud" in coverage after a defeat.
 
Further evidence on the BBC last night. Arsenal Ladies lost their champions league semi and the main angle was about the record crowd and ‘oh well they lost’ but look at the crowd vibes! I found that really patronising for such a massive game!
 
The broadcasters feel they have to act as PR reps for it, as they do for most sports. I watch some Rugby League and they'll dig around for something positive (young team, loyal crowd, injuries, new signings etc) to say even when teams are getting hammered. That's the treatment most sports get.

I understand it - I get swept along with BBC led tournament stories and discover I'm a fan of curling for a couple of hours every four years etc.

They don't have to do PR for the men's game. It's already too expensive for the free to air broadcasters.

That said, the paid for services have a glut of football they can't quite sell - and their primary ambition is to keep the audience engaged. Controversy, anger, dodgy VAR, individual mistakes help keep the pundits and commentators sounding excited even when they're watching a match that's as dull as dishwater or one that's embarrassingly one sided.
 
stw2022 said:
There isn't the same coverage of other women's sports. Female tennis players, like their male counterparts "crash out" and "fail to progress "

Only women footballers "fought bravely" and "did themselves proud" in coverage after a defeat.
Click to expand...
That happens in most sports though - particularly ones that are paying relatable wages or no wages at all.

If you watch coverage of gymnastics - athletes may be "disappointed" by a performance, but mostly it's about progress, one slip and having the courage to carry on after falling off etc. The tone of the commentators voice will get you excited that you're seeing something special - which it is of course - and then you realise that it's special for that athlete, but still leaves them in sixteenth place in a sixteen person event.

Women's football is still at that crossover moment to full-time pro. The average wage of the players is still relatable to the fans (and generally less than the commentators).

So yeah, it does sound condescending, even patronising at times - but I can understand it. For the ones familiar with women's football, it can be because they understand the background and the recent history (training facilities, coaching, finance) and make allowances for certain kinds of error.

It's the ones unfamiliar with the women's game who are worse though - they still sound surprised that the women can kick a ball at all. Everything looks like plucky losers, a good try or a surprise to them.
 
Honestly in America this is not the case.

I used to regularly watch our college team and then some local women’s games.

People get pissed. Commentators criticize women and its in general quite competitive.

I have to say I just can’t get into women’s soccer. Even the best teams like USA the quality just lacks.

Personally wish women opted for a smaller pitch some different rules like a small goal maybe and 60 mins. Make it a little more exciting
 
jojojo said:
The broadcasters feel they have to act as PR reps for it, as they do for most sports. I watch some Rugby League and they'll dig around for something positive (young team, loyal crowd, injuries, new signings etc) to say even when teams are getting hammered. That's the treatment most sports get.

I understand it - I get swept along with BBC led tournament stories and discover I'm a fan of curling for a couple of hours every four years etc.

They don't have to do PR for the men's game. It's already too expensive for the free to air broadcasters.

That said, the paid for services have a glut of football they can't quite sell - and their primary ambition is to keep the audience engaged. Controversy, anger, dodgy VAR, individual mistakes help keep the pundits and commentators sounding excited even when they're watching a match that's as dull as dishwater or one that's embarrassingly one sided.
Click to expand...

excellent point. In general I have noticed most other sports the broadcasters are PR reps. I’ll be watching the dullest game of cricket and the broadcasters will try and put a spin on it being a good outting
 
Thiagoal said:
Further evidence on the BBC last night. Arsenal Ladies lost their champions league semi and the main angle was about the record crowd and ‘oh well they lost’ but look at the crowd vibes! I found that really patronising for such a massive game!
Click to expand...

To be fair after facing their fourth ACL injury to a key player in five months, I’d say yesterday’s case in isolation was a bit different. Wolfsburg also being a top three team in the world for the last decade must be taken into account.
 
top1whoisman said:
To be fair after facing their fourth ACL injury to a key player in five months, I’d say yesterday’s case in isolation was a bit different. Wolfsburg also being a top three team in the world for the last decade must be taken into account.
Click to expand...


It discourages people from taking it seriously as a sport though. If all that matters is crowd size or how proud someone is or how lovely their hair is
 
stw2022 said:
It discourages people from taking it seriously as a sport though. If all that matters is crowd size or how proud someone is or how lovely their hair is
Click to expand...

I'm sure BT would've been very emphathetic towards a male English side going out in the CL semis under those circumstances. Actually I think BT always protects the English sides in Europe.

Regarding crowd size, of course you have to see the context and bring that up. Didn't hear anyone talking about their hair.
 
stw2022 said:
It's quite jarring once you listen out for it. A friend of mine pointed it out.

A team will lose in Europe and its "plucky" and they were "unfortunate". Men's teams "crash out of the cup" ladies teams "give their all and despite best efforts have been eliminated"

Men's teams under achieve. Fail. Ladies teams are "disappointed but look forward to bouncing back"

Once your notice the difference in media reporting of men's and women's football you can't stop hearing it. It seems patronising.

Women's teams "give their all" despite losing 4-0. Men's teams get hammered.
Click to expand...

Tbh, all your examples point towards the men’s coverage being infantile, not the women’s. Kid’s talk in simple extremes, adults actually know that a 4-0 loss to Barcelona is much more akin to top athletes temporarily disappointing, than a bunch of failurea being slaughtered.
 
So women will never be equal until they start getting as much abuse as Harry Maguire?
top1whoisman said:
I'm sure BT would've been very emphathetic towards a male English side going out in the CL semis under those circumstances. Actually I think BT always protects the English sides in Europe.

Regarding crowd size, of course you have to see the context and bring that up. Didn't hear anyone talking about their hair.
Click to expand...
They're a TV company. How can they protect anyone?

BT are in the entertainment business. Their bottom line depends on viewership. BT and Sky want English teams to progress in Europe for the same reason Marvel wants to release a sequel to Black Panther or Spiderman.
 
stw2022 said:
It's quite jarring once you listen out for it. A friend of mine pointed it out.

A team will lose in Europe and its "plucky" and they were "unfortunate". Men's teams "crash out of the cup" ladies teams "give their all and despite best efforts have been eliminated"

Men's teams under achieve. Fail. Ladies teams are "disappointed but look forward to bouncing back"

Once your notice the difference in media reporting of men's and women's football you can't stop hearing it. It seems patronising.

Women's teams "give their all" despite losing 4-0. Men's teams get hammered.
Click to expand...
I think it's because they want the womens side of football to grow and using sensationalist language like "crash out" and "fall apart" etc that gets unfairly thrown around at the men, would make the womens teams come across as failures, especially with it still in somewhat of a teething phase.

They'd rather make games seem closer and losses not be so harsh to give people a more positive outlook on the players and teams
 
  • Like
Reactions: jojojo
On the Sky Sports football page: 'Arsenal bogged down by rain as Real take two-goal lead into second leg'.

The kind of excuse that would get laughed at in under 12s football.
 
Gabriel Djemba-Bebe said:
On the Sky Sports football page: 'Arsenal bogged down by rain as Real take two-goal lead into second leg'.

The kind of excuse that would get laughed at in under 12s football.
Click to expand...
Yeah, if the Women’s game wants to be taken seriously, they’re going to have to start blaming things like the balls that are used in the champions league really flying when they’ve been kicked, compared to balls used in other competitions.
 
Gabriel Djemba-Bebe said:
On the Sky Sports football page: 'Arsenal bogged down by rain as Real take two-goal lead into second leg'.

The kind of excuse that would get laughed at in under 12s football.
Click to expand...
It's also very confusing how they commingle men's and women's headlines / scores on their main page.
 
Gabriel Djemba-Bebe said:
On the Sky Sports football page: 'Arsenal bogged down by rain as Real take two-goal lead into second leg'.

The kind of excuse that would get laughed at in under 12s football.
Click to expand...
Did you watch the match? Both teams were bogged down by the rain. The pitch cut up badly. It was not the night for stylish football.
 
Big Ben Foster said:
It's also very confusing how they commingle men's and women's headlines / scores on their main page.
Click to expand...
jojojo said:
Anyone who thought Madrid's men played Arsenal tonight is confused.
Click to expand...
6C9cqCMOwCxm.png


I don't mean to brag about my amazing football knowledge but I for one am relatively confident I could tell which team were playing from how the front page presents it.
 
rimaldo said:
Yeah, if the Women’s game wants to be taken seriously, they’re going to have to start blaming things like the balls that are used in the champions league really flying when they’ve been kicked, compared to balls used in other competitions.
Click to expand...

That was Arteta though wasn't it? Like Sky Sports didn't blame the ball? Maybe I'm mistaken but if not there's a difference between that example and the one the other poster has used. I see somebody has used Arsenal fan tv above too. Maybe I'm mistaken, as these examples seem very different to what the poster was saying
 
Big Ben Foster said:
It's also very confusing how they commingle men's and women's headlines / scores on their main page.
Click to expand...
Does my head in when they announce it on the radio, something like ‘and Manchester United are in action later…’ and your ears prick up, only for ‘in the WSL’ to be added on right at the end. Or they announce a result like ‘Chelsea have beaten Liverpool 3-0’ and you’re not sure if you missed something, until they qualify it at the end. Does get a tad annoying.
 
Gabriel Djemba-Bebe said:
On the Sky Sports football page: 'Arsenal bogged down by rain as Real take two-goal lead into second leg'.

The kind of excuse that would get laughed at in under 12s football.
Click to expand...

Really? The manager of the men’s team who are going to win the Premier League blamed a defeat on the wind, about 12 months ago.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
Really? The manager of the men’s team who are going to win the Premier League blamed a defeat on the wind, about 12 months ago.
Click to expand...

I dont think thats what he's saying? Players, managers and fans will make the most petty rubbish excuses there's no question about that. I think he's saying that it's unlikely a mainstream sports outlet would headline a crucial champions league loss in such a way. That's not my opinion, just a suggestion of clarifying what seems to be a misunderstanding some posters have made of the quoted post.
 
Tbf it is hard to get to grips with soggy wet balls and make something happy at the top end where it matters.
 
DOTA said:
6C9cqCMOwCxm.png


I don't mean to brag about my amazing football knowledge but I for one am relatively confident I could tell which team were playing from how the front page presents it.
Click to expand...
Again, I am making a general statement, not commenting on this specifically
 
SER19 said:
I dont think thats what he's saying? Players, managers and fans will make the most petty rubbish excuses there's no question about that. I think he's saying that it's unlikely a mainstream sports outlet would headline a crucial champions league loss in such a way. That's not my opinion, just a suggestion of clarifying what seems to be a misunderstanding some posters have made of the quoted post.
Click to expand...
Thanks. Journalists have annoyed me in the past by being scathing about a player or team's performance. I've never seen the weather being used as an excuse when reporting on the men's game. Managerial quotes or excuses from fans are entirely different.
 
stw2022 said:
Not really, apologies. But listen out and see if you agree there's a difference. It's like reporting immediately switches to 'reporting on a school sports day' mode. Particularly match reviews on the radio the morning after a match. Maybe it's just within that genre of sports reporting that it happens.

Recent example was how Chelsea ladies "sadly went out" of the CL "despite securing a draw in front of 71,000 in Barcelona."

Maybe I'm wrong but in same scenario the men's side would have "crashed out" and wouldn't be brave and the attendance would not be mentioned
Click to expand...
What's you point on this exactly? Are you saying it's wrong? What you're describing can be seen in pretty much all media coverage where there's a general perception issue about a group of people.
 
Sandikan said:
Probably because they fear someone on a forum will make a massive big deal of any criticism and try and say it's sexist.
Click to expand...
This. The commentators who do that seem overly worried about looking negative towards women`s football in case it`s seen as some ism within the game and to the public. But there`s a balanced way the women`s game can be commentated on and reported just like there should be with the men`s game. Ripping into any sports team for failure has its limits.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.