Karen Carney review of women's football

[Lavinda Past]

It did in the past so I don't see why it wouldn't in the future.



Who said this is the aim? League 2 will never attract the same financial investment as league 1 or the championship, so why don't we just shut it down, if that's all that matters?


The point of the review was to identify where womens football needs to focus its energies to keep improving - in both standard and popularity - at the rate it is now.

I never said "shut it down". I just don’t believe that the women's game will progress to any great extent, no matter how much the female element of the sports media wants it to.

Just my opinion.

 

[Mon Autre]

I never said "shut it down". I just don’t believe that the women's game will progress to any great extent, no matter how much the female element of the sports media wants it to.

Just my opinion.

Is this "female element of the sports media" in the room with us now?

 

[TinFoilHat]

It's a bit of a utopic plan. I doubt the cheapskate FA will adopt it.

 

[Gorton_Tubster]

I paid £48 to watch City battering Real - £12 a goal. I'd have paid double. My season ticket renewal for MCWFC cost just £10 more. Nobody can tell me that it's the same game!

It's not the same game, though that's not the argument is it. The women's game is clearly improving.

Soon we're going to get a generation of girls that have played footy all their childhood and will have been encouraged. They will take it to the next level again.

I do think we will see women who are as football intelligent as the men and as skilled. Which is what football is about nowadays.

 

[Dave Ewing's Back 'eader]

It's not the same game, though that's not the argument is it. The women's game is clearly improving.

Soon we're going to get a generation of girls that have played footy all their childhood and will have been encouraged. They will take it to the next level again.

I do think we will see women who are as football intelligent as the men and as skilled. Which is what football is about nowadays.

I'm a little sceptical about women having the same level of skill as men. How long before we see a woman control the ball stone dead from a thirty or forty yard pass and then, in one continuous movement, maintain the attack as Mahrez, Bernardo, Kev or Foden can do? And then there is the question of pace and power. I've seen Stanway and Weir thump in a goal with some zest but will they ever have the zap that compares with a Haaland drive.

Looking at the games from the World Cup the majority have been devoid of much spectacle that would entertain the same way as, say City 4-0 Madrid or Rags 1-6 City or City 3-2 QPR or City 3-2 Villa!

Yer right about improvement. There's been massive improvement over the last five or ten seasons but they've still got a helluva way to go before we get a series of games in the group stages where two teams give as good as they get and we see, not particularly a goal fest but action in each penalty area and a sufficient number of goals to send people away thinking they've seen a football match.

 

[jimharri]

She was calling last night for club sponsors to divide the sponsorship money 50-50 between the men's team and the women's team. I fully agree....

... when the women's team brings in comparable (not necessarily identical) revenue as the men.

 

[feelymcfeel]

She was calling last night for club sponsors to divide the sponsorship money 50-50 between the men's team and the women's team. I fully agree....

... when the women's team brings in comparable (not necessarily identical) revenue as the men.

I swear Karen Carney doesn't think before the words fall out of her face.

He contributions as a pundit are negligible, and i would expect her to have more insight as an ex-professional.

A 50/50 split wouldn't even work on an administrative level - let's look as a team who will probably, in the very near future, attract huge sponsorships: Newcastle. They don't even have a women's team (well, they do, but in the 5th tier or something - should they get 50%? What an advantage over their leaguemates!). Would they be forced to start one? Have their sponsorship value limited to half what it might be otherwise (how would this be measured?)? Would this be unfair to smaller teams with smaller sponsorships that do have womens teams, like Reading? What about women's teams that don't have an associated men's team? Those questions came from about 20 seconds thought on my part.

She's clueless.

 

[domalino]

I swear Karen Carney doesn't think before the words fall out of her face.

Having seen the full program where Carney spoke about this I would very confidently say she knows a lot more and has spent a lot more time thinking about the future of women’s football than you.

A 50/50 split wouldn't even work on an administrative level - let's look as a team who will probably, in the very near future, attract huge sponsorships: Newcastle. They don't even have a women's team (well, they do, but in the 5th tier or something - should they get 50%? What an advantage over their leaguemates!). Would they be forced to start one? Have their sponsorship value limited to half what it might be otherwise (how would this be measured?)? Would this be unfair to smaller teams with smaller sponsorships that do have womens teams, like Reading? What about women's teams that don't have an associated men's team? Those questions came from about 20 seconds thought on my part.

It’s not surprising that you only spent 20 seconds thinking about this because literally none of it is relevant to what Carney said.

She wasn’t suggesting the women’s football team gets 50% of all sponsorship revenue for the entire club, which would be stupid. She was in fact suggesting that sponsors who want affiliation with the growing women’s game need to specify how much of their money goes to the men’s team and how much goes to the women’s team.


Again, I’d just love to remind you and the other members of the brains trust that Karen Carney has been involved in women’s football for 20 years and just spent the last few years chairing a review of women’s football aimed at finding new ways to bring money into the women’s game to keep the commercial, popular and technical growth going.

And despite a few weirdo posters on here repeatedly trying to insult her intelligence as if 1) they are geniuses or 2) football is run by brain surgeons and rocket physicists, her decades of experience and 2 masters degrees were the reason she got chosen to head the review.


The numbers coming out of the women’s game right now are incredible. 46% female viewers as opposed to <25% for the PL.

45% of people watching the lionesses for the first time last year went on to watch WSL or the women’s hundred regularly.

22 million people watched the final on Sunday.

It’s gone from being the 4th most popular women’s sport 8m regular viewers behind tennis to 1st in the space of a year.

The women’s game is an absolutely gold mine, it’s making insanely fast progress on and off the pitch which is why the FA and Premier a league are commission such reviews to try and capitalise on this both commercially and in terms of involvement and development of players.

All of this growth has been accomplished because people like Carney have stood up and asked for support, asked for money, demanded representation for women’s sports in the media and on TV, always accompanied by the patronising chuckles of know-nowt twats claiming no one cares about women's football or they can have more money after they bring in equal money.

And now that a decades worth of investment and support has lead to having unprecedented success the same idiots want to mock them for asking more to keep it going.


Edit - Oh and by the way, I don’t even like Karen Carney particularly, I don’t think she’s a good commentator, but she certainly more likeable than the misogynist arseholes laughing at her.

 

[feelymcfeel]

Having seen the full program where Carney spoke about this I would very confidently say she knows a lot more and has spent a lot more time thinking about the future of women’s football than you.



It’s not surprising that you only spent 20 seconds thinking about this because literally none of it is relevant to what Carney said.

She wasn’t suggesting the women’s football team gets 50% of all sponsorship revenue for the entire club, which would be stupid. She was in fact suggesting that sponsors who want affiliation with the growing women’s game need to specify how much of their money goes to the men’s team and how much goes to the women’s team.


Again, I’d just love to remind you and the other members of the brains trust that Karen Carney has been involved in women’s football for 20 years and just spent the last few years chairing a review of women’s football aimed at finding new ways to bring money into the women’s game to keep the commercial, popular and technical growth going.

And despite a few weirdo posters on here repeatedly trying to insult her intelligence as if 1) they are geniuses or 2) football is run by brain surgeons and rocket physicists, her decades of experience and 2 masters degrees were the reason she got chosen to head the review.


The numbers coming out of the women’s game right now are incredible. 46% female viewers as opposed to <25% for the PL.

45% of people watching the lionesses for the first time last year went on to watch WSL or the women’s hundred regularly.

22 million people watched the final on Sunday.

The women’s game is an absolutely gold mine, it’s making insanely fast progress on and off the pitch which is why the FA and Premier a league are commission such reviews to try and capitalise on this both commercially and in terms of involvement and development of players.

So just for clarity, if someone says that "they should give 50% to the men and 50% to the women," it doesn't actually mean than and in fact means something else entirely. Got it. Unless The above quote is incorrect, in which case I retract.

Also, I'm not entirely sure a masters in sports psychology with a dissertation on replays and team talks lends itself to expertise in football economics. Her MBA may do though depending on content.

I also didn't comment on the viability, quality, or potential of women's football.

And I stand by the sentence you interestingly ignored (edit: ultimately actually agree with) whereby I find she offers very little insight from a pundit and would expect much better discourse with someone with so many years (and 2 masters degrees) under her belt.

 

[domalino]

So just for clarity, if someone says that "they should give 50% to the men and 50% to the women," it doesn't actually mean than and in fact means something else entirely. Got it. Unless The above quote is incorrect, in which case I retract.

Also, I'm not entirely sure a masters in sports psychology with a dissertation on replays and team talks lends itself to expertise in football economics. Her MBA may do though depending on content.

I also didn't comment on the viability, quality, or potential of women's football.

And I stand by the sentence you interestingly ignored, whereby I find she offers very little insight from a pundit and would expect much better discourse with someone with so many years under her belt.

Yes, for your clarity, if someone says a sponsor who wants to be invovled in sponsoring the womens team should earmark a specific amount of their money that goes to the womens team it means exactly what it says. It's not a trick.

To address your bad faith "questions" -

Will Newcastle be forced to have a womens team? No. Stupid question and not even on topic.

[On Newcastles womens team] They don't even have a women's team (well, they do, but in the 5th tier or something - should they get 50%? They should get whatever % of the money the sponsor wants to give to the womens team.

Would this be unfair to smaller teams with smaller sponsorships that do have womens teams, like Reading? No. Stupid question, it's no more unfairfair that some womens teams get sponsorship money then it is that they get more funding from the parent club now.

What about women's teams that don't have an associated men's team? They can get 100% of the revenue sponsoring them obviously. Stupid question.


None of these were real questions of course, because you already knew the answer to all of them.

I do not understand why we still have these posters that don't care about womens football, never comment on the womens football forum, unless there's a chance to try and attack the concept of female sport or launch some sort of abuse at a prominent figure in women's football. It's absolutely pathetic.