Why is the bbc shoving the women game down our throats?

Archibald&Crooks

Aegina Expat
Admin
Joined
Feb 1, 2005
Messages
45,274
I also don't get the lack of quality argument. When I do watch it, I watch it for what it is, I'm not expecting to see the standard I see in the Premier League or anything, the quality doesn't bother me, it's two teams, playing football and trying hard to win it. If that's not your gig, switch channels, but it deserves its profile because more and more women are getting interested in the game.
 

DJS

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2006
Messages
23,612
Up until 1998 the job was done exclusively by men. Sort of understandable because it was nowhere near as high profile as it is now and we're going back to a time where the perception didn't really matter and was nowhere near as high profile. And in the 70's I'm not entirely sure there would have been any woman qualified to do the job or actually wanting to, but that's supposition on my part.

Then (in 1998) Hope Powell got the gig and she held the job for 15 years. Since resigning, there's been two caretakers (one male, one female), Mark Sampson and now Phil Neville. When you consider where it's come from that's not the worst record, but I would fully expect the next manager to be a woman.
Thanks A & C that's some top info there! :)
 

DJS

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2006
Messages
23,612
I also don't get the lack of quality argument. When I do watch it, I watch it for what it is, I'm not expecting to see the standard I see in the Premier League or anything, the quality doesn't bother me, it's two teams, playing football and trying hard to win it. If that's not your gig, switch channels, but it deserves its profile because more and more women are getting interested in the game.
I was reading that waiting for a pervy comment at some point but there was none forthcoming! :eek:
 

'O Zio

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2014
Messages
2,487
Gonna bump this as couldn't be arsed to start a new thread and related to women's football.

With this ongoing stuff with Phil Neville being appointed the national woman side's manager, I keep thinking why don't they actually appoint a woman to the post?

There must be plenty of ex-female footballers who could be worth a shot, especially compared to lurch...?

Why do men keep getting appointed?

And the FA show their dumbness as well as apparently announced his appointment on male side twitter rather than the one specifically set up for the women's team d'oh...
The whole thing sounds like a complete farce from beginning to end (unusual for the FA, I know!). They had someone on football weekly the other day talking about this exact issue and supposedly there were plenty of women interested in the job but didn't apply because the listing/advert put out by the FA set the bar so high i.e. said the applicants had to have 15 years managerial experience, an extensive knowledge of the women's game etc. so the women pretty much all thought they wouldn't get the job then so didn't bother applying because they didn't meet the criteria but now are pissed off because Neville meets the criteria even less than they do i.e. not at all. It's even more ridiculous when you consider he never even applied for the job and was only suggested as a joke by someone at a party or some shite. Absolute farce and really unforgivable given everything that's gone on over the past year or so/ They needed to get this right and have shown themselves to be out of touch and clueless yet again.
 

Johnny J

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2012
Messages
3,257
The whole thing sounds like a complete farce from beginning to end (unusual for the FA, I know!). They had someone on football weekly the other day talking about this exact issue and supposedly there were plenty of women interested in the job but didn't apply because the listing/advert put out by the FA set the bar so high i.e. said the applicants had to have 15 years managerial experience, an extensive knowledge of the women's game etc. so the women pretty much all thought they wouldn't get the job then so didn't bother applying because they didn't meet the criteria but now are pissed off because Neville meets the criteria even less than they do i.e. not at all. It's even more ridiculous when you consider he never even applied for the job and was only suggested as a joke by someone at a party or some shite. Absolute farce and really unforgivable given everything that's gone on over the past year or so/ They needed to get this right and have shown themselves to be out of touch and clueless yet again.
Exactly. I'd add to this that it's beyond ridiculous that we have a situation where the new women's manager is apologising on his FIRST DAY for what are clearly sexist (on the milder end, but still sexist) tweets, after the guy he replaced was sacked over concerns about allegedly inappropriate behaviour.

Here's the thing that these big organisations don't get: you not only need to give women (and ethnic minorities and so on) the same chance as men, you need to give them MORE of a chance, because the whole fucking system is stacked in favour of white men. And I say that as a white man. Phil Neville may have his coaching qualifications, so he's qualified in that sense, but what about all the female candidates who've worked their way up the coaching ranks? Who then get overlooked for a famous ex-pro who has never properly managed a men's team, let alone a women's team.
 

Hazardousman

Audere est Facere
Joined
Jul 24, 2013
Messages
4,619
This is the BBC, a corporation that still charges people for a TV licence even when they don’t watch the garbage they produce.

A company who constantly pushes social justice narratives and more importantly GENUINELY panders to the outraged idiots who believe there is a pay disparity between women and men in the same jobs despite the fact it has been disproved time and time again and any pay gap that exists simply comes down to the choices people make within their occupations rather than a patriarchal system working against them.

This has nothing to do with womens football of course but nonetheless, what do you expect from a company so utterly desperate to pander to people who are constantly screaming about inequality and sexism.

I agree that women’s football should get a platform and more women that become interested in the game the better as it will only increase the talent pool and maybe some day we could have a women’s premier league but anybody who genuinely thinks it is on equal footing with men’s football in terms of skill level and entertainment in it’s current state is completely blind or delusional, that’s like saying Sissoko is a good footballer.
 

Johnny J

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2012
Messages
3,257
This is the BBC, a corporation that still charges people for a TV licence even when they don’t watch the garbage they produce.

A company who constantly pushes social justice narratives and more importantly GENUINELY panders to the outraged idiots who believe there is a pay disparity between women and men in the same jobs despite the fact it has been disproved time and time again and any pay gap that exists simply comes down to the choices people make within their occupations rather than a patriarchal system working against them.

This has nothing to do with womens football of course but nonetheless, what do you expect from a company so utterly desperate to pander to people who are constantly screaming about inequality and sexism.

I agree that women’s football should get a platform and more women that become interested in the game the better as it will only increase the talent pool and maybe some day we could have a women’s premier league but anybody who genuinely thinks it is on equal footing with men’s football in terms of skill level and entertainment in it’s current state is completely blind or delusional, that’s like saying Sissoko is a good footballer.
Mate, I won't neg rate you and it's not the place for a discussion on it, but as someone who's been involved in equal pay work as a lawyer, there absolutely has been and is a patriarchal system that has worked against women. It was was more overt in the past, but it's still there and women simply don't get the same opportunities as men in many sectors and jobs.
 

Hazardousman

Audere est Facere
Joined
Jul 24, 2013
Messages
4,619
Mate, I won't neg rate you and it's not the place for a discussion on it, but as someone who's been involved in equal pay work as a lawyer, there absolutely has been and is a patriarchal system that has worked against women. It was was more overt in the past, but it's still there and women simply don't get the same opportunities as men in many sectors and jobs.
Sorry mate, I have will have to respectfully disagree with you. In the past I would most certainly say there was an issue but I do not believe in modern times it is an issue, Christina Hoff Summers is a known feminist and herself and many other professors have already discredited the pay gap with facts numerous times over the last couple of years.

Any gap that does exist is simply a matter of personal career choices.

That being said, you are right, this isn’t the place for this discussion but my overall point was, BBC are pandering right now and pretty much anything coming out of their offices is little more than an act of virtue signalling rather than having a truly vested interest in women’s football.

It’s the same as the FA, pretending to give a shit about women’s football and then hiring a sexist idiot to manage them, why couldn’t it have been a female manager?

All these big companies do, along with celebrities is talk a good game but when you dig deeper it’s always the same hollow pandering.
 

nailsy

SC Supporter
Joined
Jul 24, 2005
Messages
18,423
Gonna bump this as couldn't be arsed to start a new thread and related to women's football.

With this ongoing stuff with Phil Neville being appointed the national woman side's manager, I keep thinking why don't they actually appoint a woman to the post?

There must be plenty of ex-female footballers who could be worth a shot, especially compared to lurch...?

Why do men keep getting appointed?

And the FA show their dumbness as well as apparently announced his appointment on male side twitter rather than the one specifically set up for the women's team d'oh...
From what I've heard the FA started off ok by advertising the job, getting a shortlist of candidates and then interviewing them, but for some reason all of the top people that applied for the position then ruled themselves out. Apparently they didn't want the background checks, or didn't want to be involved after all the recent scandals in the women's game,etc. The FA have then decided to bring in some glamour so naturally turned to Phil Neville. Obviously he's got some coaching experience, but no management experience and very little knowledge of the women's game. There seem to be quite a few managers in the women's game who couldn't apply for the job because they didn't have the international experience that the FA wanted, but they obviously changed the criteria to let Neville into the job.
 

Johnny J

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2012
Messages
3,257
From what I've heard the FA started off ok by advertising the job, getting a shortlist of candidates and then interviewing them, but for some reason all of the top people that applied for the position then ruled themselves out. Apparently they didn't want the background checks, or didn't want to be involved after all the recent scandals in the women's game,etc. The FA have then decided to bring in some glamour so naturally turned to Phil Neville. Obviously he's got some coaching experience, but no management experience and very little knowledge of the women's game. There seem to be quite a few managers in the women's game who couldn't apply for the job because they didn't have the international experience that the FA wanted, but they obviously changed the criteria to let Neville into the job.
If true, I think all the other top candidates ruling themselves out immediately prior/around the time of Neville being sounded out is quite the coincidence.
 

aliyid

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2004
Messages
3,239
Eng 2-2 Ger still 10 mins to go on BBC iPlayer if anybody’s interested. V poor quality game but we’re looking more likely to score
 

'O Zio

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2014
Messages
2,487
OK sorry to bring up an old thread but I've had a classic example of this today. Scrolling through the Guardian website and there's an article at the top with the headline something like "Why City could be the victim of their own success" but then when you click on it it's all about the City women's team.

As I've said already, I'm all for them covering women's football if they think people are interested in it, which some people are, but if they really think enough people are interested in it to warrant articles about it being placed at the top of the sport section then why is there any need to try and "disguise" it as an article about men's football to trick people into clicking on it? If the interest in the article justified it's position on the page, then they wouldn't need all these tricks to get people to click it because people would click on it anyway. I know a lot of people say "if you don't like women's football you don't have to read about it" but this sort of thing is exactly why that isn't true. The keep sneaking in WSL articles in the main PL coverage just to try and be politically correct and that's true for the BBC as well.
 

Johnny J

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2012
Messages
3,257
OK sorry to bring up an old thread but I've had a classic example of this today. Scrolling through the Guardian website and there's an article at the top with the headline something like "Why City could be the victim of their own success" but then when you click on it it's all about the City women's team.

As I've said already, I'm all for them covering women's football if they think people are interested in it, which some people are, but if they really think enough people are interested in it to warrant articles about it being placed at the top of the sport section then why is there any need to try and "disguise" it as an article about men's football to trick people into clicking on it? If the interest in the article justified it's position on the page, then they wouldn't need all these tricks to get people to click it because people would click on it anyway. I know a lot of people say "if you don't like women's football you don't have to read about it" but this sort of thing is exactly why that isn't true. The keep sneaking in WSL articles in the main PL coverage just to try and be politically correct and that's true for the BBC as well.
It's more worrying that you are so concerned about having been "tricked" into having an article about women's football pass, no doubt momentarily, before your eyes.

The simple truth is that the Guardian, like any other reputable media outlet cover what they think is of interest. That includes women's football. It has absolutely nothing to do with "political correctness", which itself is a useless term.
 

'O Zio

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2014
Messages
2,487
It's more worrying that you are so concerned about having been "tricked" into having an article about women's football pass, no doubt momentarily, before your eyes.

The simple truth is that the Guardian, like any other reputable media outlet cover what they think is of interest. That includes women's football. It has absolutely nothing to do with "political correctness", which itself is a useless term.
I'm not "concerned" about it, I just think it backs up the point that there isn't an appropriate level of interest in the WSL for stories about it to be mixed in front and centre with the stories about the men's game. If there was then there wouldn't be any need to try and continually disguise WSL stories to make them look like they're about the men's game.

The way newspapers and their websites are organised is based on the predicted interest level in the respective stories. By having the article as, for argument's sake, the third most prominent story on the page, is more or less indicative that the editor feels it's the story that will attract the third most interest. Even a passionate WSL fan could never seriously argue that there is even remotely as much interest in WSL as the men's PL so there is no way in hell that the editor really feels the article really warrants that prominence but they've stuck it there in an attempt to promote the women's game, which is fair enough, but then why the need for the trickery all the time? This isn't just one article, they do it all the time. If they genuinely think the interest is there then just be honest about it and say "Why Man City Ladies could be the victim of their own success" rather than try and pretend it's about the men's team to force it down your throat?
 

SelbYido

Get rich or die fryin'...
Joined
Jan 31, 2007
Messages
3,086
How is that in the least bit related to what I said?
I just don't see what the issue is. Do you really think that the BBC is trying to trick you into paying attention to women's football? I'd say its more to do with the shift of televised football to pay services, so the BBC are promoting the few sports they can still provide coverage for. Channel4 are doing the same with the Paralympics, is that 'political correctness' as well? To most people its just good quality sport.

I admit I was being facetious with the initial comment but I'm mystified as to why this is an issue to anyone. I don't watch WSL myself but I happy for the BBC to cover it, for the people who enjoy watching it and it can't hurt for young girls to have female role models getting them into football and exercising in general.
 
Top