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.
No comments:
Post a Comment