Who knows but that's for another day.Bandwagon here we come! It's almost like Italia 90 and Euro 96(Without the win) where the middle class found football fashionable and turned it to the media driven, corporate ''brand'', and costing a working man a weeks wages to attend that men's professional football is today.
Up to this month the Women's game was seen as an antidote to the above but can it hold out to the surge in interest and wealth it'll gain and remain a grounded and not forget it's roots?
Girls have absolutely the same right to play football as boys. They also deserve exactly the same level of adulation when they are successful. However the public will decide as to whether it will become big business.This will revolutionise womens football
Too true but in an entertainment business its the support and interest that'll determine income and that's drawn to those with the greatest ability to play the sport and wages will reflect that. It's a lot slower and similar in standard to a men's U16's or Youth league if it sold out to SKY or BT or thought it could start charging even League Two prices it'd shoot itself in the foot.Girls have absolutely the same right to play football as boys. They also deserve exactly the same level of adulation when they are successful. However the public will decide as to whether it will become big business.
My gut feeling is that it won't take off as the MSM are predicting. Standards of play are just nowhere near good enough to obtain the type of following that the men's game regularly receive.
However....the kudos today is that they played with no fear and have a manager that isn't tainted with failure.
I disagree. It does end 56 years of hurt. An English team has at long last won a major tournament. The gender of that team is an irrelevance IMO. Well done Lionesses.Very well done ladies.
But let's not pretend it ends 56 years of hurt. It ends the ladies' 38 years of hurt since they first entered the women's Euros in 1984 followed by the women's world cup in 1995.
Though if anyone associated with the Men's team tries to bask in the reflected glory of the lasses, I imagine they'd be given very short shrift!I disagree. It does end 56 years of hurt. An English team has at long last won a major tournament. The gender of that team is an irrelevance IMO. Well done Lionesses.
Trans women banned from full-contact rugby
Pro-trans protesters gathered outside Twickenham before a narrow vote on the RFU council
The Rugby Football Union has narrowly voted to ban trans women from full-contact women’s rugby union.
Protestors gathered outside Twickenham ahead of the vote, which was finalised early on Friday afternoon and confirmed via a statement from the governing body. There were 33 members in favour of what the RFU said was a “precautionary” approach to prioritise safety. The result was far from unanimous, with 26 members voting against and two abstaining.
Julie Curtiss, one of seven trans women to have been registered in England, was among the group that gathered at the stadium and voiced her disappointment immediately.
“They have missed a one-time only opportunity to demonstrate their genuine commitment to diversity in the sport,” she said. “They have refused to engage with a minority group to try to find a way to expand the game into new areas.”
Last week, the RFU recommended that its council vote through the changes to the participation policy after a period of consultation that had taken into account 11,000 submissions. Initially, after World Rugby published guidelines that trans women should be banned from women’s rugby union in 2020, the RFU had essentially operated on a case-by-case basis. The move to abandon that has been a chief frustration.
Earlier on Friday, Charley Brunton, a teammate of Curtiss at Hove RFC, said that the previous policy “was not perfect but was working” and suggested that the sport’s inclusive image was under threat. She stressed that there had not been a recorded instance of a trans woman causing injury to a woman’s player. “Julie is not a threat to anyone,” said Brunton. “She’s an amazing person and an amazing teammate and she should not be excluded from sport at all.”
Prior to the vote, Curtiss had called on the RFU to “engage” and cooperate. “Trans women can’t play the men’s game,” she said. “I would be decimated. But they’re saying I should play with them and shower with them too. That aspect of it is ridiculous.
“The RFU needs to work with us. They have a moment in time right now to demonstrate their commitment to diversity. They can take a season, do all the monitoring they want. They haven’t bothered until now to do that. At the end of the season, we can look at the statistics, make a decision based on that and create a pathway for trans women in this game.”
Verity Smith, who was left in a wheelchair by a spinal injury suffered in women’s rugby in 2018 before transitioning to become a trans man, is another integral member of the protest. On his last visit to Twickenham, Smith was presented with an award by England Women icon Rochelle Clark. The Rhino Prop Star celebrated his commitment to inclusion in sport.
“There are seven trans women registered but there are three playing - two full-time and one every now and then,” said Smith, who works for Mermaids, an organisation that supports transgender, non-binary and gender-diverse children.
“A 14-year-old girl has just been banned. Telling a child that they can’t play sport is telling them they are a second-class citizen. We need to start from a point of inclusion.
“Nobody is actually listening to the trans community. None of the people making the vote today have met with or spoken to any of the women.
“It’s not my life, it’s their lives being affected and we need to show these girls that it’s OK to dream to be in rugby. Not every trans person is good at sport, but every child should have a chance to play it.”
The RFU President, His Honour Jeff Blackett, said regarding the decision: “I would like to thank everyone for the passion, time and effort that has been put in to consulting with us and informing this policy review. Inclusion is at the heart of rugby values and we will continue to work with everyone to keep listening, learning and finding ways to demonstrate there is a place for everyone in our game.
“We know that many will be disappointed by this decision however, it has been based on all the scientific evidence available. Our game can be strengthened by everyone who is involved; be it in coaching, refereeing, administration or supporting and playing non-contact forms of the game.”
My position on the "Trans-women in sports" debate is that there's an inherent unfairness (and risk of injury) if people who have gone through male puberty are sharing a field/court/pitch/pool/ring with cisgender women. More importantly though, nobody is entitled to reach the upper echelons of a sport: those that do reach the top have done so through hard work and dedication to their goals. If you're a transwoman who went through male puberty, then you would have an unfair advantage in the vast majority of sports even when hormone levels have been adjusted... so I'm afraid that you're unable to participate competitively. Just like the 99.9% of the population who just aren't healthy or skilled enough. If you love the sport, you can still participate for enjoyment... but we have female categories in competitive sport for a reason, and that reason isn't trivial, nor driven by hatred.I notice everyone is skirting round the issue of whether trans women (people born male, but who have transitioned to female to a certain extent) should be allowed to play women's football.
In rugby, trans women have been banned from playing full contact womens rugby, and I imagine there would be similar issues in football.
Trans women banned from full-contact rugby
Pro-trans protesters gathered outside Twickenham before a narrow vote on the RFU councilwww.telegraph.co.uk
One of the big barriers to that is making men's football a more inclusive and less blatantly homo- and trans-phobic place. Trans people deserve to play somewhere which is welcoming and accepting in the same way the football setup is accepting to me as a player.I notice everyone is skirting round the issue of whether trans women (people born male, but who have transitioned to female to a certain extent) should be allowed to play women's football.
My position on the "Trans-women in sports" debate is that there's an inherent unfairness (and risk of injury) if people who have gone through male puberty are sharing a field/court/pitch/pool/ring with cisgender women. More importantly though, nobody is entitled to reach the upper echelons of a sport: those that do reach the top have done so through hard work and dedication to their goals. If you're a transwoman who went through male puberty, then you would have an unfair advantage in the vast majority of sports even when hormone levels have been adjusted... so I'm afraid that you're unable to participate competitively. Just like the 99.9% of the population who just aren't healthy or skilled enough. If you love the sport, you can still participate for enjoyment... but we have female categories in competitive sport for a reason, and that reason isn't trivial, nor driven by hatred.
As a comparative example, I grew up wanting to be a train driver, and if offered the chance to do so even now at the age of 40 I'd jump at the chance... however I have a medical condition (type 1 diabetes) that would place unjustified additional risks upon the job, so I'm rightly barred from such work. I have no say or control over this, in the same way that people don't "choose" their gender identity, but the rules exist for a reason. It isn't all about me.
Around 7,000 supporters celebrated the win with the England team in Trafalgar Square this afternoon after they beat Germany 2-1 in extra-time at Wembley last night - the country's first major title since 1966. But there is growing anger that there will be no traditional bus parade - an honour bestowed on the England men's team on several occasions despite not winning a title since 1966 - with critics pointing the finger at Mayor of London Sadiq Khan and the FA in a decision branded 'disgusting'. There were also major bus parades through London both in 2003 after England won the Rugby World Cup, and in 2005 when England's cricketers won The Ashes. BBC1 coverage of the Trafalgar Square event today was limited to a 20-minute slot, causing more anger. There was also no Downing Street reception because Boris Johnson is at David Trimble's funeral. The PM was not at Wembley due to a Cotswolds party to celebrate his secret marriage to Carrie Johnson last year. Former sports minister Tracey Crouch, Tory MP for Chatham and Aylesford, told MailOnline: 'If we are going to grasp the opportunity on equality, we really must do better. There may be a good reason for it, but I do not know why there was no parade for the Lionesses. There will have been plans in place for the men in the event they had won the euros last year'. Supporters condemned the decision not to hold a parade, saying on social media that it was a 'real shame' and it would be the 'least that England deserve'. Others labelled it 'shocking' and 'absolutely disgusting from @MayorofLondon and others in a position to affect this', with one adding: 'Someone have a word.'
Not giving the England women's team an open-top bus ride is disgraceful, given that the men get one even though they're terminal bottlers.I agree with you.
The (alleged) "right" of trans women to participate in womens sport conflicts with the right of women (ie. people who were born female) not to be put at an unfair disadvantage.
Sometimes you just can't please everyone, and this subject has become very emotive and toxic, with "activists" being vicious and nasty on social media (look at what has happened to JK Rowling) to anyone who disagrees with them.
Meanwhile some people are complaining that the Lionesses were not treated to a bus parade
from the Daily Mail
Not giving the England women's team an open-top bus ride is disgraceful, given that the men get one even though they're terminal bottlers.
That's certainly more of a scandal than the trans-women in sport situation, given that it discriminates against 51% of the population as opposed to the <1% affected by the trans debate.
Safety reasons have been cited for the decision not to hold an open-top bus parade, by sources close to the celebration event.
Whose safety are they worried about? We already know that the government doesn't actually care a jot for the average person on the street.Ah, "safety".
The usual catch all excuse for anyone who doesn't want to do anything.
I think it would be nice if The Queen and Prince William could hold a reception for them at Windsor Castle later in the year.
And you needn't bother having a vote for the BBC Sports Personality of the Year Team Award this year.
And you needn't bother having a vote for the BBC Sports Personality of the Year Team Award this year.
86% of England residents are white.Well....given that a section of the MSM were openly questioning the ethnic make up of the England football team don't take anything for granted.
The overall squad was of that proportion. Jess Carter, Demi Stokes, and Nikita Parris aren't white. However they didn't get a lot of game time, so weren't very visible.86% of England residents are white.
The squad size is 23 so I’d expect 20/23 to be white players if proportionately represented.
Now considering certain cultures don’t allow their females to play football that will increase the proportion a little more of white players so say 21/23 would be expected to be white.
As she's a Dutch woman, I'd be surprised if Wiegman had any regressive views on race given how diverse their men's team has been over the last couple of decades. I vaguely recall there being some unrest in their men's squad a while back before a tournament (Euro '96?) that had a racial element to it, but other than that I can't remember ever hearing of race being a contentious issue in Dutch football. I don't remember Ajax or Feyenoord fans making monkey noises when playing against English club sides. Funnily enough the player you mention who is white but didn't play has a rather Dutch-sounding name, and Wiegman clearly didn't show favouritism there.The overall squad was of that proportion. Jess Carter, Demi Stokes, and Nikita Parris aren't white. However they didn't get a lot of game time, so weren't very visible.
But this was probably inevitable when the manager has her preferred 11 that started every match and 3 of the 5 available substitutions are again the same players and none of those are black. Lotte Wubben-Moy never got on the pitch during the tournament and she's white.
As England won, I think Wiegman should be given the benefit of the doubt that she was picking the best players. I've not kept a close eye on the WSL to say if there's been any black players who've been in such form that their omission looks wrong.
Seemed like a perfectly reasonable question. Why aren’t there many black women playing professional football, when we know black men are very well represented in the male side of the game?Well....given that a section of the MSM were openly questioning the ethnic make up of the England football team don't take anything for granted.
Are there fewer than would be expected, given the demographics of the country? How do the statistics look when considering all the clubs in the top two tiers of the pyramid in the women's game, rather than just the England squad?Seemed like a perfectly reasonable question. Why aren’t there many black women playing professional football, when we know black men are very well represented in the male side of the game?
That’s not the question. The team is never going to reflect the demographics of the country. England’s men’s team doesn’t.Are there fewer than would be expected, given the demographics of the country?
It is empowering for people who are minorities to see people who are from the same background succeeding. That is indeed white privilege - not being able to see that instinctively.One thing that came out of the ill-judged comments at the end of England's opening game, was a further BBC article about whether a "lack of diversity" means that those from diverse backgrounds aren't able to "identify" with the team. This may be the dreaded "White Privilege" speaking, but I find this notion utterly baffling. I don't need to "see myself" in someone in order to admire or respect them, and this reductive idea strikes me as being potentially harmful.
I agree that there could well be issues under the surface, and I don't see the harm in investigating those potential issues and finding solutions to them if they exist. Increased participation can only be a good thing, after all.That’s not the question. The team is never going to reflect the demographics of the country. England’s men’s team doesn’t.
The question is rather, that given the men’s English professional football game has a large number of black players, why does the women’s game not have this?
There’s really no harm in finding out why this is. As you allude to: Do they have cultural barriers to athletic participation? Are they choosing other sports or athletics instead? Does the fact that women’s football has a heavy over-representation of gay women have a bearing on whether black women choose to play the sport professionally? Are they struggling to find professional sponsorship? Do they not see enough role models?
Women’s football has a much more significant participation deficit than the men’s game, which is the world’s most popular sport. Getting a larger pool of players actually ensures that you’ll be more competitive in the future.
I consider myself quite an un-woke person (for want of a better word) but there’s definitely more to be explored when it comes to women’s football and BAME participation.
I get that, indeed I acknowledged that it could be my lack of experience of being a visible minority that shelters me from that. However, is there something specific about my "White Privilege" that allows me to identify with people regardless of their background being the same as mine, yet non-white people are somehow incapable of doing the same? Once you analyse the logic of that argument, does it not come across as rather patronising?It is empowering for people who are minorities to see people who are from the same background succeeding. That is indeed white privilege - not being able to see that instinctively.