Saturday 6 June 2015

New Blog started: JPieSports Cricket pictures blog!

Please check out my new cricket pictures blog which I hope to update throughout the summer with snaps I've taken from the stands!

http://jpiesports.blogspot.co.uk/

WoSo blog part 4 - FIFA and the FIFA16 game

FIFA, similarly, have also shown some problematic attitudes towards women's football exemplified by that perennial dinosaur Sepp Blatter. He claimed in a recent interview that women's football needed to use the showcase of WWC15 to produce an outstanding tournament. Let's examine that claim more closely.

I don't think that Blatter would challenge male footballers to produce a barnstorming competition to the same degree. It's taken as a given that whatever type of competition they produce, whether it be a memorable one like WC2014 or a relatively uninspiring one like EURO 2004, where no team, save eventual winners Greece seemed to play to their true potential; it's just what we get, and we can take it or leave it; like it, or wait until the next one. It's almost as if he's threatening to curb funding or cancel future competitions for the international women's game unless they pass his arbitrary standard of excitement. This is sexism, pure and simple.

But what else can you expect from the cringeworthily self-appointed "Godfather"of women's football, who once voiced the idea that women's football should broaden its appeal by making the players wear "tighter shorts"? Screw you, Blatter. The sooner we get shot of him and bring in someone more progressive, the better. You know, someone who stops telling women what to do and lets them express themselves. Actually, whatever happens at WWC15 will just have to do. There is no guarantee that it will be an exciting or memorable competition. But the high standards of the teams this time and more competitive leagues around the world suggest it will be excellent. Let's hope so.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2473483-sepp-blatter-had-no-idea-who-poty-finalist-alex-morgan-was-at-ceremony-in-2012

Unbelievably, Blatter still has his ardent defenders. People who think it's OK and not indicative of corruption AT ALL for the same man to be in charge of a large multinational organisation for 17 YEARS. People who will argue that it was actually OK for him not to recognise Alex Morgan, the most recognisable face of US women's soccer, star striker and all-round international superstar with 1.6 million Twitter followers. Let's go over some of their Blatter apologetics. So yes there may have been an element of "do you know who I am" here, but she was probably expecting some sort of recognition from Blatter. Even her bikini modelling is brought up. 

"Oh look at the attention whore! That's why she's known - as a babe not a footballer". 

Let's get this straight - that has nothing to do with football. Beckham was fine for all his extra-curricular activities. 

"But she has not won anything". Irrelevant- as the non-recognition was at an event for Player of the Year in 2012 in which she was one of the finalists . 

But even if we accept all the Blatter apologetics' points, we're left with it simply being Blatter's job to know the most influential people in football. It's clear where his definition of influence lies (i.e. those who'll help him continue his reign) if he can't be bothered to find out who Alex Morgan is. 

I'm sorry but Blatter is just someone who sees absolutely no obligation on himself to do anything to help grow his sport for his half the world's population. However, he's perfectly OK to allow a pretty ridiculous selection for a host of the 2020 world cup which will have it's final around Christmas time because of the heat! And, by extension, OK for mistreated workers to die slaving away in ridiculous heat with no worker's rights to protect them.



------
FIFA16 game to feature WoSo players for first time


I had no interest in getting a FIFA game, but now, despite FIFA's current worries, I do.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/32915815

Needless to say, the critics were out in their droves taking to social media to decry this outrage. Most arguments are not worthy of mentioning, but I will anyway, as there are a few unnecessary responses from advocates of WoSo that I'd like to look at. For example, the point was made that a player of the game could lose their star striker for 9 months if she got pregnant. The response to this was that actually women can play on for a while into their pregnancy and come back quite quickly after giving birth, so actually the time out was only about seven months. Excuse me? That has not tackled the principle of the objection, just shortened the length of the problem to 7 months not 9. 

It's better to examine the philosophical angle the point is coming from than argue its factual content. The issue of pregnancy is routinely dealt with within WoSo. It is actually quite rare. Of the 22 woman England World Cup squad, only 2 players have any children. Believe it or not, most of the top players who are serious about their careers either have their children before they become (semi) professional, or after they've retired. This is an issue of female bodily autonomy - women rightly have the ability to decide when this huge change to their lives occurs, if it does at all. We now have family planning, contraception and even abortion as options to allow women to have autonomy. This is very important, and I question the person who made this point's respect for female bodily autonomy if he doesn't think that it is women and not men that should control when women become pregnant.

There are exceptions to footballers not becoming pregnant during their career, notably players like England's Katie Chapman, but these can be managed within the framework of most teams. Pregnant players should be given all the support they need, and be able to fulfil alternative roles during their time away, but it should be made clear that a quick return to the team is not guaranteed unless they can make it on merit. It may seem harsh, but at the end of the day a player goes and gets pregnant during the height of their career, then they will have to deal with those consequences. For a manager (or a player of FIFA) this should simply be seen as an extra challenge in terms of managing your personnel. Most gamers revel at the thought of extra challenges, and do not offer them as an excuse not to participate. At most, it is another reason why WoSo requires a different support structure, and possibly why wages for players will forever remain at slightly depressed levels compared to the men's game.

Quick responses to other arguments.

We didn't want women we wanted better reliability/stability and more fun! 

You'll always want more reliability/stability and more fun no matter what new features are introduced. You could say the same if they improved the game's visuals with a new graphics engine. It's an irrelevant point.

Resources could have been better spent elsewhere! 

Better for who? And again, this argument could be made for any change they decided to make that you didn't agree with. In fact, the game makers have massive resources available for development, with FIFA football's huge sales, and have had for years. This is demonstrated by  the way they scan in each player's likenesses into the game and do movement tracking models. Such luxuries could be easily omitted if resources were the limiting factor to development.

Let me say that it was pretty ridiculous to not have the option of female players and teams in a football game. Whether or not there was much demand for it (and I'm not going to burden myself by claiming that there was much demand) if there was any demand at all, then the first developer to introduce it was going to get at least a small advantage in content, props for equality and the media interest that goes with it. These things are worth it alone. Maybe we could excuse smaller developers who'd have to put resources into new character models for not getting on WoSo in their games sooner. 

The FIFA developers have a lot of resources though, so have no such excuses. But the FIFA franchise still has issues - why do all the players have to be scanned in? I know it's standard for the male stars, but some brevity would be acceptable in the interests of getting things moving. This seems to me to be an excuse for a slow rate of inclusion for WoSo. Develop some generic models with 4 or 5 faces and hairstyles etc. and just put out a fully featured game with the players names and teams, or even non-names (remember Ryan Goggs?) with altered team names if they can't get the licences / rights or whatever to use the official ones. And footie management games? No excuse for no WoSo really, especially if they had no or limited viewable match engines.

WoSo blog part 3 - Media attitudes and Attendances

And as for the problem of low female attendances at WoSo, I don't think it's too unreasonable to assume that the attention from a female audience is commensurate with the overall media focus on the game. If it were a limiting factor, this could soon be discovered by simply getting higher attendances and tracking if female attendances trail off. And even then, that is simply a reflection of the current state of affairs and says nothing about how things should be; in short, it should not change our focus. 

It would not be surprising to discover that just as playing football is less popular among women than it is among men, then supporting it would be as well. And yet, the lack of female attendances is touted as some huge show-stopper by opponents of WoSo. But a reasonable argument can be made that the game must be grown to change this. Notice that the onus of action in the narrative of WoSo critics is always on the players and fans of the minority sport to impart change, and there's no suggestion that anyone among the critics of women's football themselves may need to think about what they do or heaven forbid, actually change what they do. Again, strange, that.

Maybe we need to stand up for the change we want to see.

Increasing coverage on TV and radio is to some extent a positive feedback loop - broadcast a half-hour programme on how women's football is getting more coverage and you can point to that and say it's getting even more coverage. And the networks broadcasting those programmes have a well-known agenda for being socialist and social justice friendly. But this does not really enhance the game, nor does it help attendances. I cannot watch (nor even pay to watch) any FAWSL game I want on TV or online (or even listen on radio), and that says something about the state of the game I'm afraid. Very limited coverage on the BBC and BT Sport and occasional radio broadcasts are very welcome, don't get me wrong, but we need to do more. I can still watch every match of the US NWSL for free on YouTube, which is a lot more coverage than the English WSL gets. Matches happening 1000s of miles away are far easier and cheaper to watch than games being played 10s of miles away in my own county. One thing's for sure - there is a problem somewhere, I'm afraid.

Recent examples of high attendances at women's matches, for example the recent international friendly between England and Germany at Wembley, which I'm proud to say I attended, are, unfortunately, largely predicated on extremely cheap tickets. There is a focus on bringing as many kids as possible by bussing in whole sports teams and schools from all over the country at discounted rates. It helps the numbers, and the grassroots perhaps, but does little to bring in extra cash. And it does not reflect, I'm afraid to say,  genuine interest from the general populace. Even the recent men's conference playoff won by Bristol Rovers, hardly a premium fixture for that great venue, reached similar numbers (44000) and passes relatively unnoticed amongst the myriad matches that grace that turf.

The fact that we have such a massive range of strong men's teams, all vying for our support, is the biggest challenge of all to compete with. This is why the choice to support women's football is to some extent a philosophical one: it's a left field alternative, something that not too many other people do,  and something of an antidote to the megabucks clubs, diving , play acting , disgusting chants and extortionate wages we see in the upper tier of the men's game. Those who see nothing wrong with those things, are less likely to be attracted to WoSo. And any cuts to the BBC which have recently been mooted, will inevitably hinder things more, as they at least sometimes live broadcast WSL on the radio. Any cuts are of course likely to be made to such "non-essential services". In fact, the upcoming WWC15 in Canada may be the last major tournament that the BBC are able to cover to a full degree if the Tories get their way. These are the hard truths, but it needs to be said. 

My negativity, you might suggest, is surely out of kilter with the bullish narrative of the pundits and players we hear speaking every now and again. They are all too keen to point out how their game is expanding and getting more coverage and attendances. This is not surprising. To a large extent, they need to believe their own rhetoric. And they are not completely wrong. Those things are, slowly, happening. But, I suggest, the real situation is more nuanced. I maintain that any year-on-year  improvements to exposure of the women's game are largely cosmetic, and are being dragged back by resistance from other quarters, meaning the overall progress is glacially slow. We are still some distance from where we need to be.

It frustrates me to hear certain feminist BBC broadcasters like Emma Barnett misusing attendance figures. They point to the Germany game getting higher audience than the later Norway friendly with Hodgson's team.What is she trying to demonstrate? It was clear that Hodgson was suffering a post World Cup dip in popularity at this point, and it was England women's first game at Wembley, their first match since a 10 win out of 10 World Cup qualifying campaign. Plus Germany are a bigger draw than Norway. This, to me, was not that surprising. In my view telling people WoSo is where it's at, fully "down with the kids" so to speak, and there is some huge untapped market, is misleading. In fact , we need to see a big change in attitudes before this market can be tapped. I only need to go to a WSL2 game with full FA match officials, local radio broadcaster and medical support, but only 200 people there, to know that the women's game is currently vastly under attended. Either these untapped masses are mysteriously being held up each week, or they don't exist yet. There may be a huge untapped market, but it is largely inaccessible until some intrinsic attitudes change. So no problem with promoting WoSo, but don't try and deceive people.

Again, these are the hard truths, but it needs to be said. And just to be clear I have no problem with WSL2, quite the opposite in fact  - it's great and I love it; and no problem with Barnett - again, I respect her and agree with her most of the time.

WoSo blog part 2 - Examining the game and its changing face in more detail

Why women's football is not more popular would seem to be a perennial mystery.

Notice I said that the lack of popularity for women's football seems to be a mystery, not that it actually was. My model of reality is not so unrealistic that I can't come up with any good reasons why this might be so. 

Likewise, why pin-up posters of the top players aren't emblazoned across the bedroom walls of every young football-loving heterosexual male in the country is equally perplexing. It's certainly not because of their looks - many of the players could surely make a second career of modelling if they needed to. It would be tempting at this juncture, to turn to the familiar feminist narrative that women just aren't valued as much in society as they should be. I think this is probably true, however, I also think there might be something else going on as well.

Firstly, it may partly be simply because posters of any type depicting women's football are pretty hard to come by. I've certainly struggled to find many, and believe me, I've tried. Feminists, one might think, may even want it this way - if the depiction is viewed as objectification. I would argue this is not the case - the players are choosing how they are imaged and they are being viewed strictly within the football sphere. They are football players first and women second.

This may explain part of what's lead to the lack of interest from many men towards women's football. There is an underlying sense of disapproval about anything that goes against the standard model of a straight relationship. Men must remain committed to their girlfriends/wives and not engage in extra-curricular activities with other women (and vice versa). There is a huge stigma about "cheating" and jealousy often wins the emotional war. I am a big critic of this outdated and rigid doctrine by the way. But it would be difficult to prove that even if more men wanted to go see WoSo, their other halves might be suspicious and not too happy about it. This goes partway to explaining the supporter dynamics of WoSo clubs - there are several groups of fans usually present. 
-Friends and Family members of the players
-Women and girls (e.g. mother/daughter)
-Teachers and school groups / coaches and developing junior players
-Fathers and sons/daughters (notice that families have been heavily featured so far)
-Single men - I hate to stereotype, but these often seem to be the geeky or anorak types with cameras, often bald and ageing, who often sit or stand alone.

Unfortunately many would class me into this latter category (although I don't bring a camera to football). Now, one major group who attend men's football in their droves but who are conspicuously absent from the women's game, are groups of young to middle-aged males, the type who might sing or chant profusely at their local ground. Take from that what you will - but this shows why the WoSo attendance problem exists. My provisional conclusion is that WoSo is not masculine enough for the main attendants of football to be drawn away from their routines. They already probably go to 1-2 matches per week and simply don't have the time for more. Especially if there is any hint that it might appear "dodgy" for them to do so in their current relationships. And I don't just mean with their wives - as I'll discuss later, there is a perceptible stutter involved in admitting your appreciation for WoSo to male friends. 

As an interesting aside, I noticed that due to the summer nature of women's football in the UK, there is a period at the end of May until about the end of July (the main close-season) where women's football is sometimes the only game in town, so to speak. Here, we see a small boost in attendances (I would gather the figure is around 10-30% based on a few anecdotes - believe me this is fairly small, 10% of not much is not much) notably from groups of young males who bring along noisy support like singing, and musical instruments. Not that these things weren't already there at times, but there is an increase in them. Now, if it were the case that WoSo were completely unappealing to the average male fan, I doubt this increase would be observed. Likewise, if the reason for low attendances was simply that men's football was on at the same time (a point sometimes espoused as very significant by more muddled commentators), or simply that some fans wanted to attend but didn't have enough time (a point I made earlier as part of the equation only) then we'd expect to see a massive increase in off-season attendances. Rather, we see a small increase as some of the more progressive, or at least inquisitive, fans of local clubs (often the associated men's team) take advantage of the chance to shake things up at the end of a long season and have a bit of fun. I would submit that although this is welcome and can certainly do no harm, it's not the boon that some commentators would make it out to be. There is some doubt in my eyes that these extra numbers are genuinely interested in WoSo long term. Finally, note that even the observed small increases are often predicated on free entry to season ticket holders of the local men's teams.

Most men would rather stick to what they know unless given express reason to do otherwise - having a interested daughter, for instance, is enough of an excuse to break the stigma of admitted WoSo support. Likewise, most men (I for one) would rather not bring up in casual conversation the fact that they are going to see Watford Ladies play this weekend. It's not right I know, and I can't really explain it, but there you are. My only thought is that It could perhaps be that because our disposition towards feminism is not something commonly discussed between men, we are not willing to show our hand first. There's nothing that screams "pro-feminist" like saying you're going to see the ladies' team play. Being exposed like this is a huge risk to a relationship if your friend happens to be a member of the philosophical opposition. People don't like losing friends. Hence, I hope you can see the problem. The desire to be accepted by your friends is often too great.

If you require further evidence to believe that a problem exists in the perception of parents concerning young children, you need look no further than the ridiculous situation that has emerged at certain nature reserves in recent years. Here, single men or small groups of 2-3 men who wanted to walk round and photograph the wildlife are denied entry by jobsworth park staff. The argument given, in a strange and a bit perverse reflection of the common meme, is that adults must be accompanied by children. The clear connection being made here is that if you're a parent, you're not a paedophile. Therefore they don't need to worry about supervising you. The logical analog being that single males are more likely to be paedos. This is why I sometimes scoff at MRA arguments - if ever there were a risk to men's rights, it's here right in front of us at our local nature reserves. But I get the feeling that we're not a million miles away from this in WoSo either. It's not that I don't feel welcome at the grounds I've been to though.

To complicate matters, with many players being so very young, under 18 or 19 years of age, we need to be very careful about how we think about them. It's no good saying the star striker is your dream girl if she's 17. I for one cannot simply switch from one type of thought about a very attractive female player to another over the course of her 18th birthday, for example. I've always found it best to compartmentalise these spheres of activity from personal or sexual thoughts entirely. This, in large part, explains why I have little interest in the players' Instagram accounts, and indeed shy away from, for example, seeing Alex Morgan in a bikini. My overriding emotion about the players in general is one of great admiration and respect.

Let's perform a thought experiment. Two young male friends go round each other's houses (and each other's rooms) and need to put up some posters, that their friend will inevitably see and comment on. Do they put up the Eni Aluko poster or the Danny Welbeck poster? 

At the end of the day the Welbeck poster is more likely to be chosen simply because it is just considered more normal, more socially safe. It shouldn't be of course, and on top of this I see no reason for people to try and be "normal" above trying to do what they think is right. Again, the desire to be accepted by your friends is often too great. I submit this is a problem with relationships as much as anything else. I'm going to see women's football and to my shame I deliberately avoid mentioning it to anyone. I won't lie about it if pressed, but equally I won't volunteer the information unnecessarily.

The fact that if promoted properly, and seen by many people, this post would get downvoted and any negative comments would get upvoted (or even if as a male reader, you disagree with me), are reflective of many men's intransigence to change things, tacit celebration of the status quo, and proves my point that the UK is a relatively backwards and unsupportive environment for women's sport. That's not the fault of everyone, of course, there are thousands of wonderful, generous and committed people who go out of their way every week to make the games happen around the country for little or no reward. And that last part is the problem.

It is especially true compared to for example the US, where men's and women's football are on a much more equal footing, having been introduced relatively recently and close together. Top US women's players like Alex Morgan (look her up if you've not heard of her - you'll not be disappointed) are treated like absolute superstars. They are marketable brands in their own right that attract much interest from sponsors. The NWSL is live streamed on YouTube for free - something tells me the FA would never even consider that for the FAWSL, despite their claims to be wanting to promote women's football. And the arrogance of the FA and many British football commentators to think the Americans could never do anything in "soccer" better than us. 

News flash: they just did. 

All this means, of course, that those of us who do support women's football, have to work even harder against the current to make any progress. 

There have been some recent negative events and a troubling tendency that need to be discussed. These events threaten the philosophical attraction of WoSo. Particularly at Manchester CIty WFC, two of England's top players, Karen Bardsley and Jill Scott, were recently sent off for violent conduct, previously thought unbecoming of women's football. Some argued they brought the game into disrepute. I disagree - although they needed to have the book thrown at them so to speak, I do not have as much of a problem with WoSo becoming more physically aggressive. It has never been MY claim that women's football is cleaner with less bad tackles and fouls. Indeed, the claim that it is, should become more dubious, as the game become more competitive and players find themselves being more frustrated, more often against more taxing opposition. Still, it is unfortunate to see this violent play as these two players are supposed to be role models with exemplary behaviour. And normally, they are. What actually worries me more is the very recent tendency for play-acting to creep into the game. I've seen it a couple of times in WSL2. If the worst aspects of the men's game keep creeping into women's football, what will be the basis for its particular attraction? It will just be a less popular version of the men's game with much lower wages.

Maybe though, such a statement could only come from a purist. Maybe things like diving, play acting and arguing with the referee are the things that actually need to happen to advance the game, as they will mean it is becoming more competitive. Or, put another way, signs of these features coming through mean that the matches are simply more competitive - they are emergent features of sport and are not unique to men. Such a scenario has its advantages, minimising the gender differences as it does. 

I hears it said on a WoSO podcast quite recently that celebrated England international striker Kelly Smith was such a good player "because she played like a man". I always wondered what was meant exactly by that, and I was puzzled by it at the time, but now I think I might finally be starting to get it. My immediate reaction was "what the hell is that supposed to mean?". I had assumed, even after some careful thought,  that he just meant she didn't pull out of tackles; but it's more than that. I think he might have meant that she exemplified the competitive spirit we see in men's football. Maybe he had something of a point. It's an interesting philosophical consideration, certainly, and goes some way towards easing concerns that the changes we're seeing in WoSo will be bad for the game.

WoSo blog part 1 - Introduction and general thoughts

Hey, I admit it OK. I like women's football. No, actually. I love it. 

It came as a surprise to me as well, since I've always had a passing interest in football I've never been an avid fan of the world's most popular game. It's all happened in the last 9 months or so. A year ago, I still knew next to nothing about it.

I thought the start of the 2015 FIFA Women's World Cup in Canada would be a good time to talk about this. In case you didn't already know, the four-yearly competition is kicking off in Canada tonight and features 24 teams rather than 16 for the first time.

Here is quite a cool article on some basics of women's football.

It blows its own trumpet a bit, which as I will discuss later is something we see quite often in women's football. However, this is not surprising, and is understandable given the difficulties the sport has faced.

What follows is something of an essay on women's football - which I hope you will notice I have gone out of my way to be as critical as possible and say the difficult things that some people will not want to hear. My piece is divided up into four (distinctly unequal) parts due to it being so long.

What do I like about WoSo? Women's Soccer (WoSo) is quite a bit different to men's. For about £5 every Sunday during the FA Women's Super League (WSL2) season I can get a coffee and sit or stand (my choice) to watch 22 very fit, attractive and competitive young women who train hard, on top of their day jobs, play in a fully officiated and FA-controlled match in the second highest possible tier of football, from about 2 yards away from the touchline.

The players generally seem to have a calm determination. Emotions run high at times but are generally kept in check. Players pay a passing word of protest to referees at times but the way they just get up and get on with the game is truly admirable. The game obviously means a lot to them and they try incredibly hard. They have my utmost respect. The players may not be as strong or fast as even men's under-19s sides, but they want to win just as much, and it shows. 

Sure, there is some playground stuff at times. The defending is not always the best, and there is some naivety in the way some sides go about their game, but the general standard is actually quite impressive. Some teams have very young average ages of sub-20 and so a large amount of inexperience is expected. It's immediately obvious that the players have a lot of talent though and many of them are only just getting to the point of being able to show that.

And on top of this, I've found that just getting in to WoSo will soon soften the hard views developed over years of expecting the best from men's teams .You see a more nuanced picture of player's struggles. No longer is the opposition team's striker a *!"£$ for missing that chance. This attitude follows directly from the supportive and non-abusive atmosphere of WoSo. You can't shout out "You *!"£$ bitch!" to a 19 year old playing in her spare time who misses an open goal. The worst I've heard is "You MILF!", and as the response was a wry smile, that should tell you something.

Much is said about the standards. As I made clear in my blogposts on women's cricket, this is largely irrelevant to how we should perceive the game. I can believe that they are as good as U19s, or as bad as U15s, as long as the product is watchable and competitive and truly represents women's abilities, this distinction is of little consequence to me. And it frustrates me to hear WoSo advocates trying to talk up the gender wars. WoSo should be more popular than U19 men's football not because it's better, but because women are a larger demographic than U19 men, and U19 sides are always transitory by nature -each year the players must change.

Let's start by looking at an example of a financially struggling women's club, Nottingham Forest Ladies FC (NFLFC) who play in the third tier of the league (the Women's Premier League). In the following story, the club's struggles are contrasted with the success of another local team, Notts County Ladies FC, who play in the top tier of English league football (WSL1) and have made it to the Women's FA cup final this year.

http://www.nottinghampost.com/Forest-need-add-girl-power-complete-family/story-26486594-detail/story.html

It's something of a familiar story for, say, the third to fifth tiers of women's football in the UK - all sorts of teams to support and no money to do it with. Clubs like Nottingham Forest Ladies FC (NFLFC) run development sides and a large range of girls teams from U18s down to U11s and U9s. The attendances for the first side in WPL are almost non-existent, and they still have to train and  travel quite long distances every other week. These things are not cheap. The players do not get paid, but there are still outgoings, and next to no income. It's something of a travesty to be honest.

I have donated to NFLFC's survival fund before and will do so again if and when they get in trouble. They are a good side with talented players. It goes to show how bad the situation is with women's football in this country when you need to be in at least the second tier (in other words, among the best 18 sides) to get any attention and investment from the FA. As the rewards for being an FAWSL 2 team, they could still only expect match day attendances of around 200 and the right to charge a nominal fee for tickets. Some in the game don't like to admit it, but I don't find that acceptable. Instead of playing the elitism card and revelling in these facts as WoSo critics seem eager to, I'd rather try and put it right.

Anyone who follows women's football will know that NCLFC is where the change is happening at the moment - they have one of the best and most exciting teams in the country. Trying to emulate that is good aspirational goal, I'd think, but judging by other comments on this story, apparently it's unsupportable and unacceptable charity to raise a few thousand to see NFLFC through a whole season, but not any form of charity at all to pump millions into a men's club that's leaking money like water from a sieve. 

For the thinkers of such thoughts, those I tend to call "philosophical foes", the following situation is all fine and dandy and nothing needs to be done about it. 

1. WoSo does not attract crowds/interest because the standard is not high enough and matches are not competitive enough. 
2. The standard is not competitive / high enough because it does attract enough interest to inject finance into the game to allow players to actually be paid or have decent, full-time  training facilities and arrangements. 
3. Indeed, women need to prove that they can on their own produce a workable and marketable product before we go to any lengths to assist in the development of WoSo. 

This is the definition of catch-22. Such sentiments are as packed with truisms as they are utterly unhelpful. The claim is often made that women's football needs to find a way of attracting attention all its own. Something to differentiate it from men's football. However, examples of what may be done to bring this into effect are strangely omitted from the discussion by such procrastinators. It's almost as if they had a vested interest in ensuring that it never succeeds. Strange, that.