Get this:- 3.5bil women in the world, there must a few messi and maradonas there some where. We are missing out.
Why do we not have a women's team?
- Thread starter Jaybomb
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik @Rood and Imran @Annihilate Now! start with the good news by celebrating Manchester United Women's emphatic FA Cup win over Spurs at Wembley and the future of manager Marc Skinner.
Then it's the bad news and the ever worsening form of our Men with losses to Arsenal and Palace.
Finally the main debate - ETH Out now or keep him until the end of the season - if not longer. Are you Team Nik or Team Imran?
In reality, the choice isn't even difficult Lyon are the best team in Europe, PSG are probably the second best, they respectively have a 5 and 7m annual budgets.
Fair, but surely the initial development from the ground up would be quite expensive?
If you had a choice between walking, or chewing gum, what would you prefer?
Or perhaps, I know this is crazy but stick with me here, could you do both at the same time?
Well if you have a set amount of money to spend over the course of a certain amount of time then no, it might be a choice as to how you allocate resources.
What would be expensive? United have the The Cliff, women football is generally played on the same grounds than U21 football and United could use Old Trafford for big CL games, there is nothing big to purchase outside of player. Also the teams I have mentioned are the equivalent of Barcelona and Real Madrid.
What are you talking about?
If we can spunk 35m on Schneiderlin, 28m on Fellaini, pay Zlatan, Rooney & Schweinsteiger 850-900k a week collectively, then we are not in a position where we only have a set amount of money.
Money isn't an issue for us.
That would be a disgrace. We would have to split all our revenue equally between the mens and womens teams.
Considering that women's world champions can lose 2:5 to the Dallas U-15 side... I doubt it
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...team-suffer-5-2-loss-FC-Dallas-U-15-boys.html
Also
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...-Newcastle-Jets-15s-Rio-Olympics-warm-up.html
Why? I know that it's not the case in France.
Women's football isn't that big. I don't know a single guy who plays it.
If we have a womens team they must have the same wage bill as the men. Otherwise it's discrimination.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/li...lers-are-demanding-equal-pay---and-its-in-al/
Also none of this business of making them play outside the main stadium like some PL womens teams have to. It's basically telling women they are second class citizens in the football world.
Did you actually read the article?
It's an opinion article, nothing else. And it's about the national team.
I wouldn't be against a women's team. I think it would be good for exposure and PR. I like how City are able to advertise new kits with the women's team modelling them with the mens. I don't think it's a good idea to let city get a monopoly of the women's game in Manchester either.
But at the end of the day I wouldn't pay to watch a women's game and I'm not sure whether I would be too fussed on watching it on tv either.
But at the end of the day I wouldn't pay to watch a women's game and I'm not sure whether I would be too fussed on watching it on tv either.
We haven't found the right one yet.
Ignoring that you're pasting links to that disgraceful site...
Far more men play football than women, the pool size the talent is coming from is tiny in comparison. There may very well be some exceptionally talented women out there who we'll never see because they don't have the resources and opportunities.
And the men's game has been developing since the late 1800s so of course the standard is much higher, money can't just suddenly be pumped into the women's game now and expect it to suddenly be anywhere near the same standard.
Money.
Manchester City have invested heavily in the women's side of their game - poaching the best players and paying the highest wages. And to their credit, they've put equality at the heart of their new training facilities.
However, it's loss-making. They're not gaining anything financially from having a team in the Women's Super League. It's effectively a loss-leader - promoting a product at a loss, but knowing that it'll attract investment, support etc into the brand/club as a whole. The club don't have the interests of female footballers at the heart of their ambition, but rather the good PR and brand exposure that results from it. But in truth, said exposure is a fraction of what can be achieved from other initiatives.
Without wanting to sound sexist, there is a ceiling to the women's game, and it isn't that high. United acknowledged this long ago and chose to pursue other avenues.
How do you profit from something that is boring? That's the crux of the issue. Women's football, to the masses, isn't entertaining.
At this moment in time, there is no incentive to United investing in a women's game. And I doubt there ever will be.
Manchester City have invested heavily in the women's side of their game - poaching the best players and paying the highest wages. And to their credit, they've put equality at the heart of their new training facilities.
However, it's loss-making. They're not gaining anything financially from having a team in the Women's Super League. It's effectively a loss-leader - promoting a product at a loss, but knowing that it'll attract investment, support etc into the brand/club as a whole. The club don't have the interests of female footballers at the heart of their ambition, but rather the good PR and brand exposure that results from it. But in truth, said exposure is a fraction of what can be achieved from other initiatives.
Without wanting to sound sexist, there is a ceiling to the women's game, and it isn't that high. United acknowledged this long ago and chose to pursue other avenues.
How do you profit from something that is boring? That's the crux of the issue. Women's football, to the masses, isn't entertaining.
At this moment in time, there is no incentive to United investing in a women's game. And I doubt there ever will be.
We should have one. Little girls who adore Manchester United should be able to dream of playing for their club too.
The idea that it costs too much is nonsense given that other teams without our resources have one. Every time we're linked with an overpriced player we get a load of "who cares, it's not our money" arguments so why wouldn't the same apply here? It's just about where our priorities lie.
The idea that it costs too much is nonsense given that other teams without our resources have one. Every time we're linked with an overpriced player we get a load of "who cares, it's not our money" arguments so why wouldn't the same apply here? It's just about where our priorities lie.
We have a deaf team, we have community coaching clinics for local at risk kids. How do we profit from something that boring?
You would do well to look into the history of the womens game, as it has well over a century of history to it, despite the FA trying it's best to destroy it in the 1920s.
The 1966 World Cup was the catalyst for reestablishing it as a legitimate professional sport and forming an England Womens team, so even the recent history of it is older than you think.
They are community initiatives, not a sizeable arm of a business.
Women's football isn't a charity. Manchester City are trying to instil parity between the men and women's game and however admirable that is, it won't be successful.
Its already successful. Some of the arguments put forward in here suffer from serious moving of goalposts, sidestepping and idiocy.
You don't seem to understand how equality is supposed to work.
I'm talking about financial parity. Engagement parity. Sponsorship parity. Investment parity.
Manchester City aren't profiting financially from having a women's game.
Did you not consider that perhaps those expenses fell within our budget? No doubt we have a lot to spend, but we don't have unlimited funding. Anyway, I'm not sure why that's relevant, as we could obviously afford to develop and sustain a women's football team.
Its an utterly moronic argument. Ignorant, moronic and vacuous.
I would bet that you dont play for a local club, have never played for a local club, have never been to watch local club football, dont have kids playing in local grassroots football and watch all your football on tv or at the pub. If you did any of those things you will understand exactly why I called your parity comments moronic.
The crux of the problem in these forums is those who dont see the point or are opposed to Utd having a womens team have absolutely no connection to the actual game, they have no connection to their local grassroots football community and have absolutley no idea of whats going on with respect to the growth of the game, its future or its impact on the community.
TV, pubs, playstation.
You are a bit harsh mate.
Nope. Its been going on in here for years and there is nothing harsh about pointing out ignorance and moronic arguments
Most women's football teams were formed separately of the men's clubs, but then after many years, were brought under the umbrella of the nearest men's teams and often renamed after them.
Presumptuous much.
I don't dispute the well-meaning initiative of furthering the women's game - to instil a belief in young girls that they can be a footballer.
But what you're ignoring is that the reasons for Manchester City wanting a female football team are entirely centred around brand exposure and public relations. They spotted an opportunity and they took it.
From United's perspective, they've chosen to allocate time, money and resources into actitivites that present greater financial incentives. Rightly or wrongly.
The reason people see it as something we should have isn't because of 'political correctness', but because we are the richest club in the world, yet one of the few in the country who don't have a senior women's team. We have a female academy system, but as soon as these girls reach 16, there's nowhere for them to go but elsewhere. Our female academy graduates are forced to leave, and many of them now play for rival clubs.Well why do you think we would have a women's team then? Let's face it will you go and watch them play. It's just in the modern world we are looked at by many is a disgrace (think that term is used every other post at the moment). The only reason you see it as a disgrace is because of political correctness it's not that girls are not allowed to play football, they can. You could even go and start a ladies team of your own and get them promoted through the divisions. I just don't see why it has got to be affiliated with Manchester United other than as a box ticking exercise (Man united ladies team, check).
If you don't see this
Is there a rule that says women can't play for our first team? Genuine question.
I have to say if United did produce a women's team I would have more interest in the Woman's game.
I'm pretty sure there was a story about a female player signing for a male club, although I can't remember if it was just a PR stunt.
Ins't that just another flavour of political correctness though? Don't get me wrong btw, I'm not against big clubs keeping a Women's team. Even if you only see it from a financial point of view it could make some sense for PR reasons and because it might get girls/women interested in the sport and subsequently club.
In Germany there are also a couple of 1st division ladies clubs who don't need a big men's team to carry them, most notably FFC Frankfurt and Turbine Potsdam, who also happen to be the two clubs who won the most titles. So it might not even be a big investment to start a ladies team.
Afaik one of the italien mid/lower table teams once "wanted" to sign one.
Thing is, we already do all of that stuff, and somehow manage to buy players for world record fees. We just have nowhere for the over-16 players to go once they've reaped the benefits of our female academy system. It's daft.
Add to that the fact the game has absolutely exploded in the last decade for girls and women in terms of playing numbers. Add in that the marketing opportunities alone could make it financially viable. Add in that football has become the worlds most popular team sport for women and girls. Add in the fact that football is the fastest growing team sport for girls at school. In 2016 the average attendance for the English FA WSL div 1 was 1128 but the Scottish Ladbrokes Div 1, a semi professional league had an average attendance of 565 and that division isnt collapsing. Dumbarton in the Scottish championship, a fully professional league averaged attendances of 1130 and the whole viability argument becomes rather silly.
For some reason the people arguing against it are not using realistic comparisons that relate to whats actually going on and able to be done. Man City arent having to pay players 50k a week, nor are they running their womans team at a loss which causes the club any even remotely irritating loss.
Utd have been in Manchester for a very long time and they have connections and roots built over decades of involvement in the game their. The womens game has absolutely exploded in the last decade or so, more women and girls actively play and follow the game. The logical path to take both from a moral and financial standpoint is to have a womans team. Even with small attendances it could be run profitably. Anyone who has ever been involved at grassroots club football knows that semi professional teams can pay their own way because the budgets fit the situation.
I don't understand the 'PC' point you and others keep trying to make.
We live in the 21st century. We have a female academy system. Most Premier league clubs have female teams. Women's football is improving and increasing in popularity. We had a women's team that was closed down for financial reasons. We are the richest football club in the world.
There's no reason we shouldn't have a women's football team and 'political correctness' doesn't even come into it.
Also, have you heard of Doncaster Belles? They are one of the most successful women's teams, and were so long before they merged with Doncaster Rovers. Those German clubs are not unique. I think there's a serious lack of knowledge of English women's football history in here as in society in general.
Last edited:
I think an important issue is what is meant by"equality" in this debate. I think we should have a women's team but there's a danger that the players would forget that in general it's how good you are and how much revenue you bring in that determines how much you're paid. Cleverly deosn't get paid as much as Iniesta because he's not as good. Most fans would probably be glad to see Fellaini's wages halved. Football is entertainment and big business.
Doctors, civil servants etc who are in an equal-pay structured system are not the same as footballers or actors and it could be dangerous not to remember this. One thing is to get better pay in line with what you bring in, another is the same pay as male footballers in the name of equality. As women footballers get better and better, this distinction would have to be clear.
Doctors, civil servants etc who are in an equal-pay structured system are not the same as footballers or actors and it could be dangerous not to remember this. One thing is to get better pay in line with what you bring in, another is the same pay as male footballers in the name of equality. As women footballers get better and better, this distinction would have to be clear.