The BBC website really seems to be prioritising and championing Women's football.
I've no problem with that, but the reporting seems to be selective. It's constantly going on about the record-breaking support and campaigning about pay parity with the mens game.
What they fail to mention that to see the women's Arsenal Tottenham game costs £15 for a family of 4 (even cheaper if you're a season ticket holder). A season ticket costs £45 (even less ith a mens ST discount) You couldn't even watch non-league mens for that price, much less in the centre of London at a premier stadium.
How many people would turn up to see wba if we charged £15 for a family of four at our category A games? Just as importantly, how big a loss would we make if we adopted that pricing strategy?
Interestingly, all expenditure on women's football is excluded from FFP, so it doesn't even need to make a profit. It's accepted it can't. That means women players already get more than they would in a 'free market'.
Leaving aside the quality difference, I wonder how they can legitimately justify pay parity with the men based on that? Would this record-breaking attendance make a profit or even be possible if it wasn't subsidised by the men's game?
Yet on my browser, the BBC website (the US version) devotes half its leading football stories to Women's football.
Promoting Women's football is a great idea, but be honest about its quality and current appeal, instead of pushing an agenda.
In time, I hope it achieves quality, popularity and therefore parity, but it's not there yet and that, despite what the BBC tries to imply, is the inconvenient truth.
Just thought - maybe women's football dominates the headlines because this is served to the US where women's football isn't far off the men's game in popularity. Which would make sense to show it. If that's the case, oops....
The articles still don't tell the whole story, though and imply more popularity than there is.
I've no problem with that, but the reporting seems to be selective. It's constantly going on about the record-breaking support and campaigning about pay parity with the mens game.
What they fail to mention that to see the women's Arsenal Tottenham game costs £15 for a family of 4 (even cheaper if you're a season ticket holder). A season ticket costs £45 (even less ith a mens ST discount) You couldn't even watch non-league mens for that price, much less in the centre of London at a premier stadium.
How many people would turn up to see wba if we charged £15 for a family of four at our category A games? Just as importantly, how big a loss would we make if we adopted that pricing strategy?
Interestingly, all expenditure on women's football is excluded from FFP, so it doesn't even need to make a profit. It's accepted it can't. That means women players already get more than they would in a 'free market'.
Leaving aside the quality difference, I wonder how they can legitimately justify pay parity with the men based on that? Would this record-breaking attendance make a profit or even be possible if it wasn't subsidised by the men's game?
Yet on my browser, the BBC website (the US version) devotes half its leading football stories to Women's football.
Promoting Women's football is a great idea, but be honest about its quality and current appeal, instead of pushing an agenda.
In time, I hope it achieves quality, popularity and therefore parity, but it's not there yet and that, despite what the BBC tries to imply, is the inconvenient truth.
Just thought - maybe women's football dominates the headlines because this is served to the US where women's football isn't far off the men's game in popularity. Which would make sense to show it. If that's the case, oops....
The articles still don't tell the whole story, though and imply more popularity than there is.
