Women's Footy - don't waste the chance

[Guich]

I've watched a bit of this World Cup and have listened to the BBC news coverage, saying how the nation has been right behind our team and the Women's game could now take off.

The problem is, it won't if we don't learn the lessons of London 2012, when the stakeholders and media assumed the legacy would be that everyone would stop eating junk food and start running around and throwing javelins like Jess Ennis. And we all know what happened.

If we just assume the nation is now on board...the Women's Superleague attendances won't increase much above the 800 average. The last thing we should do is to compare it to the men's game, if we do it'll just get lost in the saturated market. It's an entirely different product.

Some of the individual skill has been superb, but the standard of passing and marking, and the limited speed and power makes it a little strange to watch if you are used to watching Burnley.

The Chelsea manager has suggested smaller nets to help the keeper but I'd go the other way in trying to market the game,
* Why not reduce the match time to 30 minutes each way? See how T20 has breathed life into one day cricket.
* And why not play the domestic league in summer, as Rugby League did to re-invent itself.

If there was a one hour game on a summer evening I'd bet you'd get a decent crowd - it's all about marketing of course.

The game needs more support than simply the women football players and mums and dads who take their daughters to watch.

Market it as a different product to the men's game and it think it could actually take off.

[martin_p]

I've watched a bit of this World Cup and have listened to the BBC news coverage, saying how the nation has been right behind our team and the Women's game could now take off.

The problem is, it won't if we don't learn the lessons of London 2012, when the stakeholders and media assumed the legacy would be that everyone would stop eating junk food and start running around and throwing javelins like Jess Ennis. And we all know what happened.

If we just assume the nation is now on board...the Women's Superleague attendances won't increase much above the 800 average. The last thing we should do is to compare it to the men's game, if we do it'll just get lost in the saturated market. It's an entirely different product.

Some of the individual skill has been superb, but the standard of passing and marking, and the limited speed and power makes it a little strange to watch if you are used to watching Burnley.

The Chelsea manager has suggested smaller nets to help the keeper but I'd go the other way in trying to market the game,
* Why not reduce the match time to 30 minutes each way? See how T20 has breathed life into one day cricket.
* And why not play the domestic league in summer, as Rugby League did to re-invent itself.

If there was a one hour game on a summer evening I'd bet you'd get a decent crowd - it's all about marketing of course.

The game needs more support than simply the women football players and mums and dads who take their daughters to watch.

Market it as a different product to the men's game and it think it could actually take off.

I think you've identified one of the biggest problems, a saturated market. there's so much football coverage of the men's game that most people aren't going to be that interested in what is seen as an inferior product. One of the reason's the World Cup has been so successful here, apart from the success of the team, is that there's nothing to compete with.


I hope the women's game get's more success, but I fear it may be a struggle.

[aggi]

I'd agree with the summer suggestion but logistically I guess it wouldn't really work with World Cups, Euros, etc

I wouldn't mind the occasional game prior to men's matches (I think rugby have been doing this), particularly as I think technically you'd be able to drink whilst watching it. I can see why some would view this as a bit patronising though and may **** off the regular fans.

[Falcon]

News has broken today that the WSL is considering getting the Premier League on board to run their league rather than the FA.

If they did decide to go for Aggi's idea of playing the matches back to back with the men's matches there is real scope for a joined up approach in fixture scheduling if the same organisation are running both competitions.

[Guich]

I'd agree with the summer suggestion but logistically I guess it wouldn't really work with World Cups, Euros, etc

I wouldn't mind the occasional game prior to men's matches (I think rugby have been doing this), particularly as I think technically you'd be able to drink whilst watching it. I can see why some would view this as a bit patronising though and may **** off the regular fans.

I can see that working well in places like Manchester and London, but it'd be hard to leave the Miners an hour or so early

[houseboy]

Just one slight possible flaw to playing the games before regular matches: we are presumably talking about professional games and as such wages would have to be found. If that be the case would the clubs be willing to go to the extra expense or would they put up the price of regular tickets? If the latter that would be totally unfair on those fans that have no interest in it. Of course I realise that at this point we are not talking about huge amounts in wages but it would still have to be found and with no income from a seperate game (even with gates of only a few hundred) there would be a cost involvement.
Having said all that I admit I have absolutely no idea what wages are like in that game.

[dsr]

Brighton & Hove Albion subsidize their women's team by over a million pounds a year. The women managed a gate of 4,000 or so on the last day by playing it at their home ground, making it free admission for season ticket holders, and £2 for everyone else.

The difficulty they have is what happens if Brighton get relegated. Do they keep the subsidy running? The women's game (Premier League) is full time professional, but as such it's entirely dependent on subsidy from the men's game.

[aggi]

Brighton & Hove Albion subsidize their women's team by over a million pounds a year. The women managed a gate of 4,000 or so on the last day by playing it at their home ground, making it free admission for season ticket holders, and £2 for everyone else.

The difficulty they have is what happens if Brighton get relegated. Do they keep the subsidy running? The women's game (Premier League) is full time professional, but as such it's entirely dependent on subsidy from the men's game.

I guess one view there is is it Brighton Football Team or Brighton Men's Football Team and Brighton Women's Football Team?

If the former then it's all part of the one club, if it's the latter then I can see the subsidy. I'm not sure how it's viewed in Brighton.

Most men's teams in the Football League are loss making so it isn't that surprising that women's teams are at the moment.

[theroyaldyche]

Womens footy - dont waste your time

[TheFamilyCat]

I questioned on one of the other threads a couple of weeks the sustainability of the game, given the players are full time pros on decent wages with virtual zero income from gate receipts.

No idea what tv viewing figures are for league games but would guess they aren’t great and probably not attracting high advertising prices that the broadcaster needs to offset the cost.

[dsr]

I guess one view there is is it Brighton Football Team or Brighton Men's Football Team and Brighton Women's Football Team?

If the former then it's all part of the one club, if it's the latter then I can see the subsidy. I'm not sure how it's viewed in Brighton.

Most men's teams in the Football League are loss making so it isn't that surprising that women's teams are at the moment.

Whether you call it a subsidy or not, it's the same question - if BHA get relegated and are not flush with cash, will they continue paying the wages of full time professional female players who draw crowds of less than 1,000, or will they squeeze the maximum budget into keeping the best of their Premier league players?