WSL sky sports news

[JohnMac]

So you don't care about women talking about sports which I'm guessing you don't really bother about, but you draw the line at football comparisons?
Pressure is pressure, whether it be in a final of one sport, or another or comparing the genders.

Yet I'd the female agrees with you, then that's fine.

OK then..

Why do continue to try and push your agenda to me? We have a different perspective. I enjoy Women's sport and in particular Golf, Swimming, Athletics and Hockey, to me the skill and performance is similar. I personally don't think Football, Rugby and Cricket are , that is my opinion. It won't be changed because you are waving a 'look at me and my equality banner'. Sorry.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Why do continue to try and push your agenda to me? We have a different perspective. I enjoy Women's sport and in particular Golf, Swimming, Athletics and Hockey, to me the skill and performance is similar. I personally don't think Football, Rugby and Cricket are , that is my opinion. It won't be changed because you are waving a 'look at me and my equality banner'. Sorry.

I don't need to wave anything at you, mainly because it would be a clear waste of my time.
Might as well pee into the wind with some of you tbh.

The skill and performance doesn't have to be similar because the women are built differently and in all fairness they've been ignored and left behind financially for years so they're on the back foot at present.

They aren't being promoted on sky to irritate men, they're doing it to attract a new audience, to generate more money etc.
People won't take an interest in stuff if they don't know what's going on.
Men's football in particular has been force fed to everyone since 92, because of the revolution in TV viewing.
Financially this helped mens football, because prior to that it was in a mess, decrepit stadiums, hooligans etc.

Yes people get all misty eyed about the good old days when it was a men only world pre 92, but it's 2021 and we aren't ever going back there.

We encourage kids to partake in football, but only one gender has been given coverage past school age.
Equality has been needed for a while and well done to sky for seeing this.

Same with having female commentators, analysts, match officials etc.

I'm actually looking forward to the day women are encouraged to manage men's teams, that's when we will see a real meltdown on places like this or other social media platforms.

[Wile E Coyote]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tv0ueEI4OBQ

I am happily in this group.

[claretonthecoast1882]

Think we can all agree there should be more women's beach volleyball on tv

[gandhisflipflop]

I cannot effing stand that woman, that voice just goes right through me..

Forced equality in what way?

They've changed the line up that's all.

There was nothing wrong with the original line up. I have no problem with women getting the job on Soccer Saturday, but they have to be there on merit, not to tick boxes for equality purposes.

[DCWat]

I don't need to wave anything at you, mainly because it would be a clear waste of my time.
Might as well pee into the wind with some of you tbh.

The skill and performance doesn't have to be similar because the women are built differently and in all fairness they've been ignored and left behind financially for years so they're on the back foot at present.

They aren't being promoted on sky to irritate men, they're doing it to attract a new audience, to generate more money etc.
People won't take an interest in stuff if they don't know what's going on.
Men's football in particular has been force fed to everyone since 92, because of the revolution in TV viewing.
Financially this helped mens football, because prior to that it was in a mess, decrepit stadiums, hooligans etc.

Yes people get all misty eyed about the good old days when it was a men only world pre 92, but it's 2021 and we aren't ever going back there.

We encourage kids to partake in football, but only one gender has been given coverage past school age.
Equality has been needed for a while and well done to sky for seeing this.

Same with having female commentators, analysts, match officials etc.

I'm actually looking forward to the day women are encouraged to manage men's teams, that's when we will see a real meltdown on places like this or other social media platforms.

I’m not sure anyone has downplayed the need for the women’s game to receive coverage. Where the issue lies is in the pushing of the product alongside men’s football.

Give it its own platform and let it grow organically. 1992 has nothing to do with it (aside from the fact that money increased from them).

Men’s football has had over 100 years to develop fan bases etc. It wasn’t forced, it was organic.

Women’s football has gone through some ups but a lot of downs (over a very long period of time) which is partly why it hasn’t grown like men’s football. A part will be because historically, women weren’t expected to be playing sports. Now they are, they’re free to do what they want (and amen to that).

It’s never going to attract the sort of support afforded to the men’s game and therefore, likely and arguably rightly, the same sort of money.

There are no meltdowns - that’s just hyperbole - simply different views on how the women’s game as a product should be “force fed” upon the public.

[gandhisflipflop]

And as for the stereotypical old man comments, i'm 30 years old.

[JohnMac]

No Syd, you are trying tell me you are right and I'm wrong and that you hold the moral high ground.

Once you reply, as you will because you must have the defining word, don't lose sleep over our differences.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

There was nothing wrong with the original line up. I have no problem with women getting the job on Soccer Saturday, but they have to be there on merit, not to tick boxes for equality purposes.

The line up needs to be refreshed occasionally though, the same for any regular TV show.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

I’m not sure anyone has downplayed the need for the women’s game to receive coverage. Where the issue lies is in the pushing of the product alongside men’s football.

Give it its own platform and let it grow organically. 1992 has nothing to do with it (aside from the fact that money increased from them).

Men’s football has had over 100 years to develop fan bases etc. It wasn’t forced, it was organic.

Women’s football has gone through some ups but a lot of downs (over a very long period of time) which is partly why it hasn’t grown like men’s football. A part will be because historically, women weren’t expected to be playing sports. Now they are, they’re free to do what they want (and amen to that).

It’s never going to attract the sort of support afforded to the men’s game and therefore, likely and arguably rightly, the same sort of money.

There are no meltdowns - that’s just hyperbole - simply different views on how the women’s game as a product should be “force fed” upon the public.

92 was a big change though to football.
There was a sea change so to speak, it became more family friendly to watch games.

Women and children could go to games and not worry as often about some neanderthal bellend looking for trouble.

The next stage was always going to be the growth of women's football.
In regards to giving it its own stage, it wouldn't matter because there will be men who take offence to it.

We see men on here getting upset over Talksport or the Daily Mail quite regularly and they aren't force fed that at all, in the slightest, but they're going out of their way to listen or read them respectively so they can get upset.

That's what would happen if women's football had its own channel/platform.

It's Sky Sports News, it doesn't specify gender or a singular sport, it's doing its job and highlighting news on all sports, the problem is the football loving men want it to be just about the man's game primarily and everything else needs to stop trying to be relevant.

Well hate to break it to you boys, that isn't gonna happen.

[DCWat]

The line up needs to be refreshed occasionally though, the same for any regular TV show.

Do you think it is better now?

I think it’s lost the banter and obviously the relationships. Perhaps it will improve as they work together for a longer period and outside of covid restriction, but so far, it’s not as good.

There are too many poor personalities - or that’s how they come across to me, so far.

[Hipper]

Saw an advert for dogfood today. There was a three legged dog in it.

This 'pandering' as someone called it is getting everywhere!

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Do you think it is better now?

I think it’s lost the banter and obviously the relationships. Perhaps it will improve as they work together for a longer period and outside of covid restriction, but so far, it’s not as good.

There are too many poor personalities - or that’s how they come across to me, so far.

When I watch it I'll let you know.
I think the line up on MoTd has gotten better, same with talksport etc.

Micah Richards has been a revelation for me as a pundit.
Alex Scott has also been very very good, clear concise etc.

[claptrappers_union]

I want to elaborate a bit the point I made before, and that not about not knowing who to support.

As a neutral, I tend to root for the team who's geography is closest to me. For example, in Rugby Super League, its Wigan Warriors for no other reason really, other than geography and an Andy Farrell used to play for them. Steve Davis was my favourite snooker player. Lewis Hamilton I want to win because he's English, I'll root for Lancashire Lightning (if thats still a thing). My friend supports Hibs... so I have a team to look out for in the SPL.

But I can't engage with Manchester City v Chelsea women's team for the following reasons

a) Its has no effect on Burnley FC
b) None of my Man City or Chelsea supporting friends are watching women play anyway - so where's the conversation, banter or whatever going to come from?
c) Why would I want any of those teams to win anyway... unless there were playing Blackburn Rovers... maybe.

If there were their own thing though - Manchester v London - Boom - thats suddenly more interesting to me (even if the owners are those of the mens club). I'll want Manchester to win. Thats what sparks the interest. To me, I might as well be watching CPU v CPU on FIFA Soccer, the matches have no meaning to me.

It might seem petty, but I think it's important. Fans of the mens clubs with women's teams might have some interest, but no-one else does. So they need to sever ties with the mens brand and make the sport their own if they want to attract more football fans looking for an alternative fix.

[gandhisflipflop]

The line up needs to be refreshed occasionally though, the same for any regular TV show.

Completely agree, and what i'm saying is the likes of Bianca Westwood like her or loathe her would have got there on merit and a logical decision. Sue Smith lets face it is on there because it helps tick a diversity box. Like it or not that's the truth.

[DCWat]

92 was a big change though to football.
There was a sea change so to speak, it became more family friendly to watch games.

Women and children could go to games and not worry as often about some neanderthal bellend looking for trouble.

The next stage was always going to be the growth of women's football.
In regards to giving it its own stage, it wouldn't matter because there will be men who take offence to it.

We see men on here getting upset over Talksport or the Daily Mail quite regularly and they aren't force fed that at all, in the slightest, but they're going out of their way to listen or read them respectively so they can get upset.

That's what would happen if women's football had its own channel/platform.

It's Sky Sports News, it doesn't specify gender or a singular sport, it's doing its job and highlighting news on all sports, the problem is the football loving men want it to be just about the man's game primarily and everything else needs to stop trying to be relevant.

Well hate to break it to you boys, that isn't gonna happen.

I started going to Burnley as a kid in about 1982. I never worried about some Neanderthal bellend or found it unfriendly. Yes, football changed in 1992 (or more accurately it has changed more rapidly since 1992) just as society has.

I don’t buy the view that people want to stop things other than football becoming relevant. Nor do I the talk sport comparison - I actually think that women’s football being afforded its own platforms would reduce the issue you’re raising.

You’re not breaking anything to us - the modern man stance is amusing though, I do hope to see it continue across all of your topic postings

[aggi]

There hasn't been quite a few Women's matches played at Wembley with crowds of 80.000+ though. In fact there hasn't been any.

Regardless of semantics, it's all about opinion and yours is different, fair enough.

Fair point, the game I had in mind (as I was there) sold over 80,000 tickets but had just under 80k attending.

My point, regardless of whether it's 70k or 80k, is that if you're writing pundits off for not having played in front of a big enough crowd then you have to apply that to male pundits too.

[DCWat]

When I watch it I'll let you know.
I think the line up on MoTd has gotten better, same with talksport etc.

Micah Richards has been a revelation for me as a pundit.
Alex Scott has also been very very good, clear concise etc.

He’s had his detractors but I don’t mind Micah Richards. Alex Scott I liked at first but she’s on too much now - it seems she’s using football as a platform for more of a career in TV now - good luck to her if so, I just get fed up of seeing the same faces day in day out, programme after programme.

[claptrappers_union]

Fair point, the game I had in mind (as I was there) sold over 80,000 tickets but had just under 80k attending.

My point, regardless of whether it's 70k or 80k, is that if you're writing pundits off for not having played in front of a big enough crowd then you have to apply that to male pundits too.

Serious question, did you actually buy a ticket... or was it given to you (or sold to you) through a club, organisation or charity?

And if you did buy it, how much was it?

[aggi]

Serious question, did you actually buy a ticket... or was it given to you (or sold to you) through a club, organisation or charity?

And if you did buy it, how much was it?

I bought it, I've been to a variety of women's internationals and cup finals and always just bought them normally.

I can't remember the exact price off the top of my head. A bit cheaper than what I'd pay for a men's friendly but not hugely.

[DCWat]

I bought it, I've been to a variety of women's internationals and cup finals and always just bought them normally.

I can't remember the exact price off the top of my head. A bit cheaper than what I'd pay for a men's friendly but not hugely.

Obviously you enjoy it, having been to a few. How would you compare it to going to a men’s game. Not just from a quality perspective but also as an experience?

I’ve watched a good few games on television and for whatever reason, I just can’t enjoy the games. Perhaps I expect too much, I don’t know.

There are some cracking goals but these often seem to be aided by poor defending and poor keeping (without wishing to bang the poor women’s goalkeepers drum).

[Tall Paul]

There was nothing wrong with the original line up. I have no problem with women getting the job on Soccer Saturday, but they have to be there on merit, not to tick boxes for equality purposes.

How do you know they're not there on merit?

[claptrappers_union]

I bought it, I've been to a variety of women's internationals and cup finals and always just bought them normally.

I can't remember the exact price off the top of my head. A bit cheaper than what I'd pay for a men's friendly but not hugely.

The reason I ask is because I suspect that not many tickets will be sold... most will be given away - like they are for U18's etc.

[DCWat]

The reason I ask is because I suspect that not many tickets will be sold... most will be given away - like they are for U18's etc.

By the sound of the cheers and chants, that may well be the case, sounds like a hell of a lot of young children. But like a Scotland international.

[JohnMac]

Fair point, the game I had in mind (as I was there) sold over 80,000 tickets but had just under 80k attending.

My point, regardless of whether it's 70k or 80k, is that if you're writing pundits off for not having played in front of a big enough crowd then you have to apply that to male pundits too.

I don't disagree, many of the pundits are poor regardless of status in the game. Some of the females are very knowledgeable and have good presenting skills. It's the smoothing of female football into the male game that I disagree with not the individuals.

During a Liverpool match on Sky they switched to a ex female player with a caption underneath something like 'Liverpool 2013 - 2016'. She has never represented Liverpool.

Their title is Liverpool FC Women.

That's what I'm eluding to...

[TheFamilyCat]

I don't disagree, many of the pundits are poor regardless of status in the game. Some of the females are very knowledgeable and have good presenting skills. It's the smoothing of female football into the male game that I disagree with not the individuals.

During a Liverpool match on Sky they switched to a ex female player with a caption underneath something like 'Liverpool 2013 - 2016'. She has never represented Liverpool.

Their title is Liverpool FC Women.

That's what I'm eluding to...

How did you cope?

[bob-the-scutter]

I know there are a few things more irrelevant than women's "football" it's just I'm struggling to think of any just now!!

Scottish football?

[TheFamilyCat]

Seems a lot of this issue, like the "defund the BBC" mob is that because people think because they pay a subscription/license 100% of the output should appeal directly to them.

[JohnMac]

How did you cope?

Counselling..

[claptrappers_union]

The only issue I have with female broadcasters is Karen Carney. I'll put it bluntly, she is ****.

I presume she is best football player to grace the planet because all she does it tell us what a player 'should've done' after ball goes out of play.

A co-commentaor doesn't need to be an expert, they just need to add a bit of colour, some relevent insight and maybe some light anecdotes to compliment the main commentator - thats it, its not hard.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

He’s had his detractors but I don’t mind Micah Richards. Alex Scott I liked at first but she’s on too much now - it seems she’s using football as a platform for more of a career in TV now - good luck to her if so, I just get fed up of seeing the same faces day in day out, programme after programme.

Fed up of seeing the same faces?
Like they've had on Sky Sports or Match of the day for years?

[GodIsADeeJay81]

You’re not breaking anything to us - the modern man stance is amusing though, I do hope to see it continue across all of your topic postings

Modern man stance?

It's just expecting equality and not understanding why men are so set in their ways and so against it that the vast majority will raise poor arguments against it.

I'm not a 'modern man' about a number of things I suspect, but I'm probably more open than most to learning and changing my opinion.

[claptrappers_union]

I turned on the television the other day and Jermaine Jenas was on three different channels at the same time.

[DCWat]

Fed up of seeing the same faces?
Like they've had on Sky Sports or March of the day for years?

I was referring to those that you see day after day, across different programmes - doesn’t have to be a woman.

Jenas as posted above is a decent example. He’s a terrible presenter but not bad as a pundit.

[DCWat]

Modern man stance?

It's just expecting equality and not understanding why men are so set in their ways and so against it that the vast majority will raise poor arguments against it.

I'm not a 'modern man' about a number of things I suspect, but I'm probably more open than most to learning and changing my opinion.

I’m not arguing against equality, in fact I think you’re diluting the equality argument by simply suggesting that everyone with a view on the coverage of women’s football alongside men’s football, is against equality.

Everyone with a different view on this is a Neanderthal, not capable of critical thinking in order to be capable of adjusting their views.

[Wile E Coyote]

its probably an age thing, if your time as a spectator for decades was one in which no women were involved playing or working as pundits, then to suddenly find it acceptable is not too easy. Younger viewers will see it as normal, and not question it.
I truly believe their involvement recently in premier league analysis and commentaries is one which has undoubtably been crow barred in. Nothing has evolved naturally on that score.
If there is a duo of male/female ex players , you can bet your bottom dollar the bloke is inwardly thinking"what the **** is she on about" whenever the matches are being spoken about.

[Venkys4eva]

My wife wont watch a match with a female commentator she says its cr*p lol and she's only 29 so not older generation.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

I’m not arguing against equality, in fact I think you’re diluting the equality argument by simply suggesting that everyone with a view on the coverage of women’s football alongside men’s football, is against equality.

Everyone with a different view on this is a Neanderthal, not capable of critical thinking in order to be capable of adjusting their views.

I'm not diluting anything.

The arguments against -
Just because they played women's football, doesn't mean they understand mens football or the pressure involved...
They don't know what they're on about.
They're being crow barred in, or it's forced inclusion.
No one watches their games
The standard of football is league 2 at best
Other female sports are fine, just not football

Hardly sound arguments against the involvement of women, or women's football, in sky sports.
Yet I'm diluting it..

[DCWat]

I'm not diluting anything.

The arguments against -
Just because they played women's football, doesn't mean they understand mens football or the pressure involved...
They don't know what they're on about.
They're being crow barred in, or it's forced inclusion.
No one watches their games
The standard of football is league 2 at best
Other female sports are fine, just not football

Hardly sound arguments against the involvement of women, or women's football, in sky sports.
Yet I'm diluting it..

If you’re attributing those opinions to me then you’re mistaken. I personally don’t enjoy watching women’s football and think the standard is quite low. That’s my view of the quality and nothing to do with equality.

The number of fans (based on 2019 averages) are, as I posted earlier, somewhere between conference (or whatever it’s called now) and League Two. That’s not saying that nobody goes to games but quoting published figures.

I’m also not referring solely to SKY Sports, I’ve referenced various media platforms.

So yes, I think that you’re approach, by name calling and putting yourself forward as a more modern thinker than others, is diluting your argument.

[aggi]

Obviously you enjoy it, having been to a few. How would you compare it to going to a men’s game. Not just from a quality perspective but also as an experience?

I’ve watched a good few games on television and for whatever reason, I just can’t enjoy the games. Perhaps I expect too much, I don’t know.

There are some cracking goals but these often seem to be aided by poor defending and poor keeping (without wishing to bang the poor women’s goalkeepers drum).

It's different to a men's game in the UK, I'd say it's most akin to MLS games I've seen. More family friendly, more emphasis on supporting your team rather than abusing the opposition/ref/rivals, less tribal.

The quality obviously isn't the same as the men's game but when I go to watch non-league (or Burnley at times!) I'm not standing there thinking I can't enjoy this because there is better football out there. In fact it many ways it's a bit more enjoyable with less diving, feigning injury, hounding the ref, etc

[aggi]

By the sound of the cheers and chants, that may well be the case, sounds like a hell of a lot of young children. But like a Scotland international.

The reason I ask is because I suspect that not many tickets will be sold... most will be given away - like they are for U18's etc.

I suspect there are more children there as, as I mentioned, it is more family friendly. No bloke who's been drinking for the past ten hours hurling abuse at anyone and everyone, no-one doing coke in the toilets, etc

Some games do have free kids tickets (with an adult) although you do see plenty of deals for the less popular men's games too.

[aggi]

I don't disagree, many of the pundits are poor regardless of status in the game. Some of the females are very knowledgeable and have good presenting skills. It's the smoothing of female football into the male game that I disagree with not the individuals.

During a Liverpool match on Sky they switched to a ex female player with a caption underneath something like 'Liverpool 2013 - 2016'. She has never represented Liverpool.

Their title is Liverpool FC Women.

That's what I'm eluding to...

I would guess most people realised she was a woman and could work out that she'd been playing for Liverpool FC women.

[DCWat]

I suspect there are more children there as, as I mentioned, it is more family friendly. No bloke who's been drinking for the past ten hours hurling abuse at anyone and everyone, no-one doing coke in the toilets, etc

Some games do have free kids tickets (with an adult) although you do see plenty of deals for the less popular men's games too.

I can see the appeal of that.

I’ve never got the getting ****** pre game and continuing during. I’d be at the Loo all game and not arsed about watching the match. Having a shed load afterwards, fair enough.

The whole doing a line at the football - dick heads!

[JohnMac]

I would guess most people realised she was a woman and could work out that she'd been playing for Liverpool FC women.

Woosh...

Equality, Racism, Women's football morphing as the real Premier League..

None of it offends me in the slightest and I actually agree with most things.

But ever since Megan Rapinhoe started her delusional rants about equal pay for Women in football...

[Rileybobs]

I turned on the television the other day and Jermaine Jenas was on three different channels at the same time.

BBC1, BBC1HD and BBC Wales?

[aggi]

Woosh...

Equality, Racism, Women's football morphing as the real Premier League..

None of it offends me in the slightest and I actually agree with most things.

But ever since Megan Rapinhoe started her delusional rants about equal pay for Women in football...

Well I understood your point, it was just very poor.

Given that the US women's team generate similar revenue to the men's team Megan Rapinhoe seems to have a pretty valid point.

[claptrappers_union]

BBC1, BBC1HD and BBC Wales?

Something on Sky, that Match of the Day show which is like SoccerAm, and presenting the One Show