International Football

The women’s game has been set up – and it might just be the media’s fault

Einfaches CMYKEngland’s women have done what the men couldn’t do – win a couple of games in the World Cup. For sheer endeavour and “heart-on-sleeve” commitment, you cannot fault the “Lionesses,” and it has been good to see that the competition, as a whole, has been free of some of the dirty tricks we normally associate with FIFA events.

But it’s also notable that the siege mentality normally adopted by England teams when they come under fire is starting to filter into the Women’s game. Chelsea’s Eniola Aluko, for example, has hit out at those people who have criticised the quality of the World Cup and tried to make comparisons with the men’s game.

Comparisons are inevitable, but Aluko’s comment that such views are “uneducated” will do little to change opinion, neither will her conclusion: “If you don’t like women’s football, then my message would be: don’t watch it. I know that sounds controversial and we have a responsibility to grow the game but actually the product is very good and I think that people saying negative things about women’s football are now in the minority.” Surely it’s about changing, rather than excluding, minds?

Aluko may be confusing “negative” with “opinion” – a common mistake across society these days. Actually, there’s a book being published about the 21st century trend of people being afraid to express an opinion for fear of offending – we don’t say what we mean anymore, because people don’t want to hear “negative things”.

There’s absolutely no place for mindless abuse about the quality of women’s football – and the twittersphere has been full of trolling about the game – but I have watched quite a lot of women’s football and, although it’s better than it was 20 years ago, it still lacks mass appeal as a spectator sport.

Let’s first look at the standard of the World Cup as a whole. It’s really just above English non-league step 3 or 4 (that’s Southern League/Ryman League/Northern Premier) level. As a spectator sport, it’s the committed who are going to get most pleasure from it. For example, the myopic can watch a step 3 game and be totally engrossed in their own team’s performance, but if they see non-league football on TV it is invariably brushed aside as “crap”. In other words, this level of football is – mostly, I will add, there are exceptions – for those that play it, those that are connected or related to it. As much as it hurts those that fall into those categories, those outside that exclusive band find it hard to accept that their pastime has only limited appeal in the wider world. At the moment, women’s football falls very much into that category.

If you want one reason why Women’s football will struggle to capture a bigger, more diverse, audience it is this: aggression. Football is a physical sport – admittedly, not as physical as Rugby and some other team sports – and there’s a distinct lack of combat in the ladies’ game. Technically, some players look very gifted, but the rough and tumble of the men’s game, which does act as a spur to the crowd to get involved (and I am not talking pitch invasions), is [mostly] missing.

What’s happened with World Cup 2015 is that the women’s game has stuck its head above the parapet and has exposed itself to global scrutiny. And the judgement so far is not 100% positive. It’s a genre of the game that is still developing and is probably not ready for the visibility it is getting. The BBC has been championing the cause for some time, in fact you might argue that the sport is getting disproportionate coverage. The FA Women’s Super League attendances are still very poor, although there was a marked increase in 2014 to around 700 a game. That’s not bad at all for non-league football, but given this is for the top end of the ladies’ game, they perhaps deserve more.

Gates at the FIFA World Cup have been criticised, but when you compare the average to the FA Super League, they are amazing. True, the figures are skewed because of the support for Canada, the host nation, but without the Canadians’ games, the average is just under 23,000. That’s lower than the “minus host” average in the last World Cup and 10,000 per game down on the China-hosted competition. But still, 23,000 is good going.

One solution to cavernous stadiums with no atmosphere would be to host the competition in more realistic settings. England’s last game drew 13,000 people – you don’t need a vast bowl to play a game with minimal public interest. Far better to host these games at small stadiums that are full, making for a better environment. However big and prestigious a venue might be, there’s no value in an empty venue.

The sort of media coverage this competition has received has probably come a World Cup too early. The Women’s game has made big strides, but in a summer where there’s no World Cup or European Championship to distract the sweaty masses, it has almost become centre stage. The question is, was it ready for that kind of attention?

 

4 replies »

  1. If this is the standard of writing I can expect to find on this site then I’ll avoid it in the future. The standard of football in the WWC is far better than anything I’ve ever seen at step 3 or 4, and its helped by the 3G surface. To suggest otherwise is to demonstrate a lack of experience of football at that level and the sort of prejudice which the women’s game needs to overcome to be truly successful. I’m with Aluko on this – if you don’t like it, don’t watch it. But I’d also add don’t pontificate on it.

    • Thanks for the comment. Step 3 and 4? I was involved in a club at that level for 20 years, and I’ve reported on ladies football games suing that period for publications. I have no prejudice, in fact, I have championed the cause, but I sincerely don’t think the game has developed to the level that commands the sort of exposure it’s had. Thanks again for your feedback.

  2. On national level there’s a big gulf between the top ten(ish) countries in the world in women’s soccer and the rest, who are very much in a building phase. When the better nations play each other you generally get exciting competitive games. Probably the best, (certainly the most dramatic) match — men’s or women’s’ — I’ve seen in the past few years (and I watch a lot of football!) was the Olympic semi-final between the USA and Canada.

    Direct comparisons with the men’s game are invidious. Not only are they played by people of differing body types and capacities, they are also evolving in different ways. Tactics are emerging that are unique to the women’s game. In the men’s football you would never see eight or nine players in the eight yard box during a corner kick, for instance, because it wouldn’t work. But you do in women’s soccer. To this point you rarely see players feigning injury to draw cards, the impetus is to continue as fast as possible either in open play, or via a free-kick.

    Finally — and this is true here in Canada and the US, not sure about elsewhere — it doesn’t really matter what you or I think about women’s soccer. Listen to the crowds, those voices are overwhelmingly female. These games belong to them. BC Place was filled to near capacity when the US played Nigeria this week. It will be the same for as long as Canada remains in the competition, as their remaining matches are here, that’s 60,000 (mostly) girls and women celebrating their own teams in their own sport.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s