Is Woman's Football an actual real sport ?

[Elong]

Do you actually know any women? I'm asking because your views are so out of touch with reality that they can't be based on experience. Mind you with your attitude, I'm sure the experience would be a very short one.

Do you have any points are you just going to abuse him?

 

[Bruce Wayne]

I've just quoted the parts that are actually relevant.

Physically women and men cannot compete, that is correct. They also cannot compete when it comes to skill. If you watch any sport objectively it's blatantly obvious that the male side of any sport is at a higher skill level, largely down to the fact that physical aptitude plays a huge part in it. I've never seen a female footballer come close to the world's best male footballer. Same can be said for Tennis. If you watch any major final you'll see shots being pulled off by men which are absolutely down to their superior skill level, not just the fact that they can serve faster.

Now perhaps you would argue that the reason for that is the historic inequality and pay gap in tennis. But i'd happily wager that in a hundred years from now that even with equal pay women's tennis will not be played at the same skill level as the men's game.

In any other place of employment you would expect a job to be filled directly based on the candidate's ability to perform the role being asked of them. Equality is about making sure that women are paid the same wage and given the same opportunity to progress as men, based on performance. If you pay women the same as men in spite of a noticeable difference in performance then that is clearly not equality.

And yes, there is not equality in the workplace, change 'would' to 'should' in my original post and the point remains the same, that you would expect a woman to be paid the same as a man if she performs to the same standard.

Men and women don't compete against each other, so why is there a need to compare them? It's like saying a feather weight boxer would have no chance against a heavy weight. Compare women against the other women they're competing against. Men are irrelevant (to this discussion).

 

[Blue Cheese]

 

[Elong]

Men and women don't compete against each other, so why is there a need to compare them? It's like saying a feather weight boxer would have no chance against a heavy weight. Compare women against the other women they're competing against. Men are irrelevant (to this discussion).

Because women constantly compare their sport to men and want to be in men's competitions.

 

[Kiwi]

They're out there playing in a World Cup, which I suspect beats anything any of us have ever achieved in sport. Over in the fitness thread we have some fellas coming in saying they aren't as good as others or whatever, but it isn't about that, it's about being the best you can be. Are the girls in Canada doing that? I reckon they probably are, so what a bunch of blokes sat on their 'arris think is irrelevant

No doubt mate, they're playing at the highest level. I know women who are better than me at footy (play in the nz women's team like). But to say Womens professional footy and men's professional footy is comparable is just silly. There's a massive difference not only in overall quality in performance but also commercial viability and relevance. By no means should they be paid the same, because they are so disparate in the reasons I've pointed out above.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Because women constantly compare their sport to men and want to be in men's competitions.

Mate, I know one thing, at the Maratona next Sunday there will be women competing that will whip my sorry behind. I think the best woman last year knocked a good hour off my time. Sure, the best man beat that, but that doesn't make the women any less respectable as athletes by any stretch of the imagination, and I don't see why anyone should want to denigrate them for not competing with the best men.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

No doubt mate, they're playing at the highest level. I know women who are better than me at footy (play in the nz women's team like). But to say Womens professional footy and men's professional footy is comparable is just silly. There's a massive difference not only in overall quality in performance but also commercial viability and relevance. By no means should they be paid the same, because they are so disparate in the reasons I've pointed out above.

Suffice to say I haven't read the entire thread, but is anyone saying they are comparable? I see the womens world cup as the best female footballers competing. It's got bugger all to do with the mens game or any suggestion that they're on a par, so it seems rather silly to suggest otherwise.

 

[ToffeeMark]

Good quarter final, looking forward to the semi final, come on England!

 

[Elong]

Mate, I know one thing, at the Maratona next Sunday there will be women competing that will whip my sorry behind. I think the best woman last year knocked a good hour off my time. Sure, the best man beat that, but that doesn't make the women any less respectable as athletes by any stretch of the imagination, and I don't see why anyone should want to denigrate them for not competing with the best men.

I'm not saying women's sport doesn't have a place and isn't entertaining, competitive or skillful, that would be incredibly bigoted, but there's no denying that there's a reason men earn more in the sporting world and that's simply because they're better at it.

 

[tonyhorne]

Oh wow...the enlightened speak the troof.

Yea, a Daniel.....

 

[Moomin]

They should play five sets at Wimbledon.

Getting paid the same as men for doing less work is disgraceful.

I demand equality.

 

[Kiwi]

Suffice to say I haven't read the entire thread, but is anyone saying they are comparable? I see the womens world cup as the best female footballers competing. It's got bugger all to do with the mens game or any suggestion that they're on a par, so it seems rather silly to suggest otherwise.

Yeah.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

I'm not saying women's sport doesn't have a place and isn't entertaining, competitive or skillful, that would be incredibly bigoted, but there's no denying that there's a reason men earn more in the sporting world and that's simply because they're better at it.

The earnings level in sport often has less to do with skills, strength, speed or any of that as much as how entertaining it is. That's why women earn the same as men in tennis. It isn't because they could hold their own in a mixed draw as much as they attract the same level of interest from the media and the live audience.

You only have to look at cycling to see the difference. In track cycling the interest levels are similar and so I suspect the income levels are too. No one is saying Pendleton could beat Hoy, but I suspect at their peak they were earning similar sums.

In road cycling it isn't anywhere near comparable (for a number of reasons), and so the womens arm of road cycling is pretty poorly reflected, largely from the governing body imo, which then in turn is reflected in the broadcasting of the events and therefore the income of the cyclists.

 

[Elong]

The earnings level in sport often has less to do with skills, strength, speed or any of that as much as how entertaining it is. That's why women earn the same as men in tennis. It isn't because they could hold their own in a mixed draw as much as they attract the same level of interest from the media and the live audience.

You only have to look at cycling to see the difference. In track cycling the interest levels are similar and so I suspect the income levels are too. No one is saying Pendleton could beat Hoy, but I suspect at their peak they were earning similar sums.

In road cycling it isn't anywhere near comparable (for a number of reasons), and so the womens arm of road cycling is pretty poorly reflected, largely from the governing body imo, which then in turn is reflected in the broadcasting of the events and therefore the income of the cyclists.

Entertainment is in general measured by skill though isn't it? You pay more for the better product. Even in NZ, where the pay is terrible compared to the rest of the world for sportsmen, the All Blacks are still the highest paid players by a very wide margin.

You could make a case for organisations having sexist pasts and being poorly managed being the reason why women don't have a larger audience, but I still don't think that changes the fact that men (again, in general and looking at the top players) are stronger, faster and more skilful.

The two sexes shouldn't be compared either, but it naturally happens, I'm happy to either either but I know which is going to be better to view.

Regards to the OP who it's a cave dwelling WUM lol, of course it's a sport.

 

[Elong]

The earnings level in sport often has less to do with skills, strength, speed or any of that as much as how entertaining it is. That's why women earn the same as men in tennis. It isn't because they could hold their own in a mixed draw as much as they attract the same level of interest from the media and the live audience.

As a side note, the only reason women attract the same interest as men in tennis is because they wear short skirts and plenty of makeup, Serena couldn't beat a player in the top 100, again, not a view I condone but that's society.