Some thoughts on the women’s football World Cup

The women’s football World Cup is over now. In the final, England lost narrowly in terms of goals, but they were completely outplayed by Spain. I would have liked England to win, but my feelings on the matter do not run deep and I seldom watch any football on television.

My thoughts on the matter mostly relate to the predictable coverage in media.

Why was there so little coverage of the netball world cup final?

England reached the netball final and narrowly lost to Australia, who they had beaten in an earlier round. At the request of a friend, a netball coach who was incensed by the lack of coverage the netball World Cup had received, I watched the final and I was gripped by the game. Netball is a fast game and can pivot quickly from defence to attack. This was in contrast to much of the women’s football which was slow and ponderous.

Netball has been a grassroots game for years and there is well developed coaching structure. Coaches have given years of their life, often unpaid, to bring the game on and they deserved better from sports journalists.

The obvious reason why there was so little coverage, was that the game could not be weaponised by feminist journalists. They couldn’t write their articles about how ill served women netball players are compared to their male counterparts because they have no male counterparts. And so, the final was largely ignored. This was grossly unfair and shows that these journalist are not really interested in women’s sport. Their sport is competitive grievance and it is one at which they excel.

In contrast, the women’s football World Cup final got extensive coverage on the front, back and middle pages of UK newspapers. Many of the articles about were as much about men’s football (mostly unfavourable comparisons) as they were about the women’s World Cup. In truth, the success of the women’s game is on the back of the men’s game. They have benefitted from men’s football.

Not being interested equates to misogyny

Many women, my mother would have been one of them, dislike men’s football. They may have good reasons too. There is perhaps too much money in the game, on field behaviour leaves something to be desired and conduct towards referees is, at times, inexcusable. These would, quite properly, be viewed as good faith objections and not evidence of misandry. Conversely, when discussing the women’s game, anything short of uncritical adulation is interpreted as misogyny. Is indifference towards the women’s game really equivalent to activities of Andrew Tate? That would appear to be the view of some journalists, Marina Hyde for example, and even London Mayor, Sadique Khan.

Another reason for a lack of interest, apart from the dire quality of most of the play, may be that we form our tribal team affiliations before the age of 9 and, after that age, they become almost impossible to change. For that reason, a generation who were not exposed to women’s football during the ‘critical period’ may not be particularly interested. There is no need to invoke misogyny.

Most of the coverage was not about the football

There was little analysis of the actual games or the strengths and weaknesses of the respective teams or players. Instead, football was merely a template for journalist to air their largely confected grievances.

There were articles about endometriosis, periods, pay gaps, male coaches. Thoughtful analysis of the games was hard to find.

Men prevented women from playing football

Not really true. The Football League did not support the women’s game in the past and that was a big mistake. However, there was nothing stopping women from playing football and forming their own leagues and administrative structures. In truth, there wasn’t a great deal of enthusiasm. In the 1970’s, when I was at University, there were women’s five-a-side football teams, although there wasn’t much interest compared to hockey, netball, tennis and squash. Indeed, we (the male students) we curious why there wasn’t more interest in women’s football. There is no oppression narrative surrounding women’s football.

The England women’s team was white and middle class

The women’s team was much less diverse than the men’s team. Though diversity is a secular religion of ‘progressives’ it didn’t seam to matter much in this case – then again, diversity is defined by some BBC journalists by the absence of white men.

Englands female football players are predominantly white and middle class, just like the journalists reporting on the women’s game.

Women footballers are payed less than the men.

Obviously true, but not necessarily evidence of discrimination. At present, there is much less interest in the women’s game particularly outside the international level. When 30K people turn up on a wet Wednesday night in Burnley to watch a women’s game it will have reached some kind of parity in terms of attendance. Until then, it is impossible to make comparisons. Furthermore, the mens game, for most if its history, treated players badly. They were viewed as commodities to be traded and then dumped when they had passed their peak. Pay was, in general, poor and most players had second jobs. Women’s competitive football is at a very early stage of its evolution and I hope it bypasses the exploitative stage that the mens game went through.

You also have to compare the base of the pyramid. The reach the elite in mens football is an immense challenge and only a tiny fraction who embark on the journey through academies make it to the top. That competitive structure does not yet exist on the women’s game and that was reflected in the quality of much of the football. Perhaps that will change over time, but it remains to be seen.

It has been argued that as proportion of the turnover of the game, women footballers are already payed more than the men. It may be impossible to pay them more without a cross subsidy from the men’s game and there would be little support for that from the average fan.

When comparing the pay of male and female players you are not comparing like with like. Female fashion models are paid more than their male counterparts, not because of oppression by the ‘matriarchy’, but because there is more interest in female fashions.

The future

I care little whether women football is a success or a failure in the longer term. I only hope most of the coverage is about the game itself.

Since writing this piece I received a ‘like’ notification from a blogger about women’s football. I was pleased that some people actually do want to write about the game rather than use it as a forum to air their grievances. I hope her blog, that you can find here, is a big success.