Women's Football

[Reekie_Red]

https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/articles/czvjpk7gny9o 

Just read the above article querying whether the Women's Semifinals should continue to be hosted at Hampden given the low attendances recently. 

For me, it's not about the physical size of the venue, it's about giving players the chance to enjoy the occasion on The Hampden Turf. For many of these players, playing on that surface is the pinnacle of their playing careers. 

I ran out onto a too grade rugby field a couple of years ago. Didn't matter that there were only a few hundred folk in the stands, it was more about the occasion, getting changed where some of the world's best have changed, running down the tunnel at the start, having some friends and family there to cheers as I ran put, playing on a surface that felt like a carpet under my feet (rather than a coo field that I'm used to).

Shouldn't matter about how many turn up, it's the chance to play at the national stadium. 

[RicoS321]

Maybe just ask the players what they want? I was at pittodrie last night for the women v Montrose and it was a great game and atmosphere despite only the main stand being filled. Having been to several of their other games at Balmoral, last night's crowd was bigger because of the change in venue, with a decent away support too. I'm guessing that despite the venue being too big, the crowds are still always larger than they otherwise would have been. 

[Elgindon]

Why not play at a better stadium in proportion to the popularity of the sport. If theyre used to playing at grounds like Balmoor or Cove,then play finals at a step up Stadium like Fir Park or McDermid that would suit the potential crowd?.Hampden seems a bit OTT

Edited May 1 by Elgindon

[RicoS321]

2 hours ago, Elgindon said:

Why not play at a better stadium in proportion to the popularity of the sport. If theyre used to playing at grounds like Balmoor or Cove,then play finals at a step up Stadium like Fir Park or McDermid that would suit the potential crowd?.Hampden seems a bit OTT

If it's good enough for queens park....

Again, it should go back to what the players themselves want. If it's been their dream to play the national stadium, then it does seem a little shite to piss on that because of image, or whatever the justification would be for moving it. However I think, more generally, the women's game has missed an opportunity in this country by aligning itself with the clubs in the men's game. They've actually looked at the game in this country (and the wider men's game) and thought that was a model worth emulating. In that sense, you're correct, they could have toured their game across the country and not centred on Glasgow. They could have produced a model based on fairness and sporting integrity and marketed themselves as the antithesis of the men's game. Now that it is effectively amalgamated with the men's game, the question then turns to one of why don't we (the women) have what they (the men) have, rather than: this a women's game designed by women along our principles and for that reason it is different (and in our opinion, better). Questions about Hampden shouldn't even be on their radar.

[Elgindon]

Fair points.They could have exposed the mens game that way,and potentially embarassed us into doing the right things

[Panda]

I go to a lot of women's football, have done for over a decade. What many can't accept is there isn't a massive untapped women's football support in Scotland just waiting to be enticed along. There's a bit of an entitlement in this debate that fans who are spending fortunes following men's football should now be obliged to go to women's football too.

Crowds rise when there's a bit of a novelty - cup final, league deciders, playing in a decent stadium. 

The women's national team will likely see bigger crowds should they be more successful because it has that novelty aspect to it, in the same way Murrayfield sells out for the Six Nations but club rugby isn't close to being as popular.

A lot of fans went over to France for the World Cup and everyone wrongly thought they would now be hooked for life. However, the "stars" aren't playing club football in Scotland like they are in England. Going to Paris for a World Cup game isn't the same as the Balmoral Stadium in November.

So what stadium they play in makes little difference. My only criticism would be they don't need Hampden's capacity so should move the national games about a bit to give young girls around the country more chance to go. They're limited in that UEFA rules dictate the away team must be a certain distance from an airport to save on unnecessary travel to & from the venue, but the national team should be playing at Pittodrie at least once a campaign.

[RicoS321]

49 minutes ago, Panda said:

There's a bit of an entitlement in this debate that fans who are spending fortunes following men's football should now be obliged to go to women's football too

What do you mean by this? There are women (I assume) that think, say, Dons' fans should actively support both men and women? 

[Panda]

3 hours ago, RicoS321 said:

What do you mean by this? There are women (I assume) that think, say, Dons' fans should actively support both men and women? 

Not quite because I didn't point the finger specifically at women. But, yes, though I don't really hear it levelled at Aberdeen fans to be fair.

One example - and I have massive respect for her and she's also a Dons fan - but I disagree with this.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/articles/crgy9m7epkeo.amp

Essentially, it's "Rangers and Celtic sell out for men's games, they should be getting bigger crowds at women's games." But, they aren't stay at home women's football fans, they are men's football fans who pay their money to follow their team, and you're now placing an expectation on them to go and watch women's football too.

 

 

 

[Goldie03]

I was in France in 2019 and Wembley for the Euro final in 2022 and have been to a few Scotland internationals here ( not since they moved to Hampden permanently) but for some reason I have absolutely no interest in club football in the slightest. 

Dunno if it's just cause we are saturated with football these days and I like to leave room for some other sports, also none of my daughters played football so that may have made a difference if I had seen them play every week.

I think each to their own tbh 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 4 by Goldie03

[RicoS321]

4 hours ago, Panda said:

Not quite because I didn't point the finger specifically at women. But, yes, though I don't really hear it levelled at Aberdeen fans to be fair.

One example - and I have massive respect for her and she's also a Dons fan - but I disagree with this.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/articles/crgy9m7epkeo.amp

Essentially, it's "Rangers and Celtic sell out for men's games, they should be getting bigger crowds at women's games." But, they aren't stay at home women's football fans, they are men's football fans who pay their money to follow their team, and you're now placing an expectation on them to go and watch women's football too.

More importantly, if she's a Dons fan, why isn't she saying that she couldn't give a fuck about thon weegie pish?

Again, it goes back to the point I made. The women's game had the opportunity to be something completely different to the men's game. As you say, it's a different type of person that attends the women's game and it should be marketed that way and built around expanding that demographic, without expectation. They should have built upon not being the men's game rather than expecting equality for something entirely different. I much prefer taking my daughter to women's games than men's games. I'd prefer it more if they pushed their differences as a positive. Of course, maybe they do but I'm not seeing it, but a glance at the huge disparities across the league already would suggest otherwise.

[OrlandoDon]

I know I’ll probably get push back here but close to logging out of afc updates on social media, Scotland updates, and bbc sport etc. I have no interest in women’s football yet it’s now coed sites where we get both men’s and women’s posts/updates. Why? They are very different sports. I now get so much shit on my facebook page that I’m soon walking away from these sites/pages. Can’t they have separate men’s and women’s pages to follow? Just because I like sport doesn’t mean I like all sport, and just because I like the dons doesn’t mean I want to follow every team…… am I wrong?

[RicoS321]

4 hours ago, OrlandoDon said:

I know I’ll probably get push back here but close to logging out of afc updates on social media, Scotland updates, and bbc sport etc. I have no interest in women’s football yet it’s now coed sites where we get both men’s and women’s posts/updates. Why? They are very different sports. I now get so much shit on my facebook page that I’m soon walking away from these sites/pages. Can’t they have separate men’s and women’s pages to follow? Just because I like sport doesn’t mean I like all sport, and just because I like the dons doesn’t mean I want to follow every team…… am I wrong?

Yes, you're wrong! But not totally. BBC aside, you're currently opting in to a marketing platform. The business of AFC includes women's football, and they would prefer it not to be a loss maker (it maybe currently is). They have a sponsor, Boskalis, who's package likely includes these advertising opportunities. I think that if you were to critically evaluate the updates you get for the men's team, you'd likely find that 99% of it was shite too, so ditching the updates is probably not a bad idea - it's all just marketing. 

When I use the BBC page, I just check the SPFL premiership page (where there is no women's stuff) and then the Scottish football one (where there is). Occasionally I look at the Dons individually, but not often. I have more interest in Dons' women than who the Huns or Tims signing target from last season has signed for and what Kenny Miller thinks about it. It's rare to get a perfectly curated news feed (you can't follow Scottish football without getting tonnes of shite about the scum). 

I think the women's game should have taken a separate path from the men's in all avenues, they could have created something much better. The affiliation with clubs is a bad thing in my opinion.

[wee toon red]

I'm relatively ambivalent towards women's football but it does catch my attention from time to time. Mainly the Scotland team and then if I see a score update on some of the Dons socials then I'll check it out. Maybe helped by having two young daughters who play but I certainly don't have any ill will towards it and I find it more interesting than some of the guff that you'll find on BBC Sport, that's for sure.

Rico's point about trying to copy men's football is spot on. When Glasgow City were the top women's team it felt natural to hope that they do well. Now that Celtic and Rangers have their own teams who are doing well you can't help but want them to lose, which is a pity for the players but so be it. Glasgow City and other Scottish teams would be much easier to "support" without the rivalries that come from the men's game.

[SeeBass]

I would never be without my team the Southern New Hampshire University Women's Soccer Program who I've followed and watched online since late 2018.  I even put some music to a goal I missed in 2021 because stadium link went down for a quarter of an hour.

They have literally saved my life when I was at rock bottom and have formed a lovely connection with the below girl Jordan via our Facebook profiles.

I hope one day somebody makes a film about the journey I've had with them.

[Jute]

23 hours ago, RicoS321 said:

Yes, you're wrong! But not totally. BBC aside, you're currently opting in to a marketing platform. The business of AFC includes women's football, and they would prefer it not to be a loss maker (it maybe currently is). They have a sponsor, Boskalis, who's package likely includes these advertising opportunities. I think that if you were to critically evaluate the updates you get for the men's team, you'd likely find that 99% of it was shite too, so ditching the updates is probably not a bad idea - it's all just marketing. 

When I use the BBC page, I just check the SPFL premiership page (where there is no women's stuff) and then the Scottish football one (where there is). Occasionally I look at the Dons individually, but not often. I have more interest in Dons' women than who the Huns or Tims signing target from last season has signed for and what Kenny Miller thinks about it. It's rare to get a perfectly curated news feed (you can't follow Scottish football without getting tonnes of shite about the scum). 

I think the women's game should have taken a separate path from the men's in all avenues, they could have created something much better. The affiliation with clubs is a bad thing in my opinion.

Thing is it is probably the affiliation with the men’s clubs that helps attract bigger and larger sponsorship deals. Also gives the women’s teams increased profiles. I don’t think you get the same level of tv coverage of the women’s game if there wasn’t the connection to the men’s teams. To grow the sport they probably do need that connection. 

[Panda]

On 13/06/2024 at 03:58, OrlandoDon said:

I know I’ll probably get push back here but close to logging out of afc updates on social media, Scotland updates, and bbc sport etc. I have no interest in women’s football yet it’s now coed sites where we get both men’s and women’s posts/updates. Why? They are very different sports. I now get so much shit on my facebook page that I’m soon walking away from these sites/pages. Can’t they have separate men’s and women’s pages to follow? Just because I like sport doesn’t mean I like all sport, and just because I like the dons doesn’t mean I want to follow every team…… am I wrong?

I get what you're saying.

BBC - we get stick if we push women's football and we get stick if we don't. But you probably have no interest in half the Scots going to the Olympics, but strap yourself in because we'll be posting lots about them.

But the Aberdeen twitter - I don't want to see "here's our fixtures this month" and it's the men's and women's fixtures mixed in together on the same graphic. Like my first post on this thread, it's creating an expectation that because you support the men's team than you automatically support the women's team because "we're the same, we wear the same strip, we're the same club". 

But it's not the same. As far as I'm concerned, Aberdeen have never been relegated. Do we make accept we have relegation on our record now because the women's team got relegated?