Post

The Cypher Nine wrote:

Specifically for soccer it is a often repeated talking point that isn’t quite that cut and dry.

I'm not really sure what point you're making, but the average Premier League salary per week is in the region of double or triple the Women's Super League annual salary. Some of the top-earning female football players have to work second jobs to bolster their earnings (88% of Women's Super League players earn less than £18,000 a year). I think Lura hit the nail on the head, really - women's football is "less important" so they receive much less funding than men's leagues and the chronic under-funding means that they receive lower viewership which results in them receiving less funding and so on and so forth. The cards have been stacked against female football players from day one, and you'd have to be sticking your head in the sand to deny that. The "if women's sports were better then they would get more funding" line is faulty because they can't get better without funding. You're criticising them for not breaking through barriers defined by a bunch of all-powerful super-rich old men.

Of course, things are changing (sloooooowly)... but that doesn't excuse any of the above.

Oh, and a great thing about women's football, and most likely other women's sports, is that women piss about less on the pitch. Statistically speaking, there's less play-acting, fewer faked injuries and less timewasting - three things I really hate about football - because there's no incentive to play up for the cameras.