NFR: Women's Sport

[OxfordWhite]

Well, I moved to Sweden three months ago, the Womens Euros here were massive news and got large tv audiences newspaper front page coverage and crowds with sensible family friendly ticketing. One of the English players commented accordingly about how big womens football was here; big league games get 3,000 crowds akin to Conference level but in a country of 9 mill that is impressive.
The Swedes view Damfotboll (Womens football) as a separate entity to the mens game ie. Goalies not as big, less long balls, more focus on intricate technical ability.
Its a question of equality in society - a large proportion if not majority of politicians, lawyers, business people are women in Sweden.  Refreshingly one of the least sexist places on earth without a doubt.
However I am biased as I am a coach for girls in northern Stockholm. (they play in black and white I may add - Sollentuna FK)
Either way sport for both genders is a great thing and gives life meaning. :54:

Thats great. I genuinely love women playing sport (my girlfriend is a high level trampolinist). My point isn't that women can't play sport! I am just saying that I think we should, now sexism from (most sports) is hopefully leaving, leave things to work themselves out. By all means pay women MORE if they bring in bigger crowds etc. but I think that it is wrong to pay anyone more attention/money/press space JUST because they are female?

It is an interesting point and a good conversation.

[OxfordWhite]

It depends on the sport - tennis, athletics, swimming, gymnastics, equestrian, cycling etc all draw a decent sized audience and have produced iconic and inspirational stars.

I wouldn't choose to watch a lot of women's cricket, football or rugby but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be given coverage. Like it or not its only going to become more prominent. In turn I can see more young women getting into sport and their being less stigma around it.

If the interest is there then go for it, I feel sometimes we try and CREATE interest rather than it being there already under the banner of "political correctness".

[OxfordWhite]

I'm equally good at some things as men, other things i am better at, and somethings they are better than me at

Exactly, so if you are better you should get more recognition for those things surely?

[OxfordWhite]

This is simple. Turn the channel if  you don't like it and to each their own.

I am talking more about the equal prize money at Wimbledon, calls to have equality in coverage of the Ashes and football tournaments and the frequent outrage that people don't care enough about women's sport.

As I said to each their own. I am more likely to watch women's tennis than I am men's because there is far too little of the serve and volley for my taste. Because I like that better should the women be paid more?

While were changing things could we ban these composite rackets and bring back wooden ones instead. There is something worth having a rant over.

If the majority agree with you then yes, viewing figures suggest that this is not the case.

[Holders]

I have no wish whatever to watch men's beach volleyball.

Seriously, it's horses for courses. I watched some of the women's world cup and enjoyed it. Because of their lesser general strength, other aspects of the game came to the fore. I was chuffed to nuts for Jess Ennis, a wonderful all-round athlete and Vicky Pendleton, consistent winner over many years. But above all, I challenge anyone to say that the men's gymnastics was as good to watch as the sheer grace and precision of Beth Tweddle.

[Jimpav]

It depends on the sport - tennis, athletics, swimming, gymnastics, equestrian, cycling etc all draw a decent sized audience and have produced iconic and inspirational stars.

I wouldn't choose to watch a lot of women's cricket, football or rugby but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be given coverage. Like it or not its only going to become more prominent. In turn I can see more young women getting into sport and their being less stigma around it.

If the interest is there then go for it, I feel sometimes we try and CREATE interest rather than it being there already under the banner of "political correctness".

That's true, the BBC's coverage of the Women's ashes has been thrust upon its website in a way of creating interest.

The Olympics did wonders for women's sport though. I found myself watching lots of events via red button. Hockey and basketball were both exciting team sports.

[BarryP]

This is simple. Turn the channel if  you don't like it and to each their own.

I am talking more about the equal prize money at Wimbledon, calls to have equality in coverage of the Ashes and football tournaments and the frequent outrage that people don't care enough about women's sport.

As I said to each their own. I am more likely to watch women's tennis than I am men's because there is far too little of the serve and volley for my taste. Because I like that better should the women be paid more?

While were changing things could we ban these composite rackets and bring back wooden ones instead. There is something worth having a rant over.

If the majority agree with you then yes, viewing figures suggest that this is not the case.

I couldn't find Wimbeldon ratings but based on the US Open viewership equal pay doesn't look that far off for tennis.

http://observer.com/2010/09/tennis-television-ratings-tumble/

U.S. OPEN MEN'S FINALS, HIGHEST RATED SINCE 1995:
1. 1999, Andre Agassi d. Todd Martin, 6.3
2. 2002, Pete Sampras d. Andre Agassi, 6.2
3. 1996, Pete Sampras d. Michael Chang, 6.1

U.S. OPEN MEN'S FINALS, LOWEST RATED:
1. 2008, Roger Federer d. Andy Murray, 1.7
2. 2009, Juan Martin del Potro d. Roger Federer, 2.3
3. 2004, Roger Federer d. Lleyton Hewitt, 2.5

U.S. OPEN WOMEN'S FINALS, HIGHEST RATED SINCE 1995:
1. 2001, Venus Williams d. Serena Williams, 6.8
2. 1999, Serena Williams d. Martina Hingis, 6.3
3. 1995, Steffi Graf d. Monica Seles, 5.2

U.S. OPEN WOMEN'S FINALS, LOWEST RATED:
1. 2009, Kim Clijsters d. Caroline Wozniacki, 1.1
2. 2007, Justine Henin d. Svetlana Kuznetsova, 2.1
3. 2004, Svetlana Kuznetsova d. Elena Dementieva, 2.3

[epsomraver]

I can see what Oxford White is getting at, if at Wimbledon the woman's champion was paid the same as the mens' then they should play 5 sets as well, The BBC in their bid for " equality" are always now using women to report sports, not just womens' events which are exclusively commentated by women , ie the football and the test matches, they tried  Jacky Oakly on MOTD and that failed dismally, I  watch the men's final at Wimbledon but not the womens' purely on entertainment value, equality should evolve, not be forced by positive discrimination

[Holders]

I doubt if women want "postive discrimination" (awful expression), I expect they just want to be assessed on their own merit. A great case in point is the female linesman who is excellent. I'd be pleased to see her promoted to take charge of a match. If someone's good it doesn't matter what gender they are.

[epsomraver]

That is not what he is referring to, we all know if a woman is good then they are good in their gender,However  I cannot name a sport where the woman's champion could beat the male  equivalent but that is what the media are trying to say now.look how we were supposed to rave about the olympic women's boxing, people were trying to ban it not many years ago,  and the gold medalist  pushed to feature in  sports personality of the year although no one had ever heard of her before

[OxfordWhite]

It depends on the sport - tennis, athletics, swimming, gymnastics, equestrian, cycling etc all draw a decent sized audience and have produced iconic and inspirational stars.

I wouldn't choose to watch a lot of women's cricket, football or rugby but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be given coverage. Like it or not its only going to become more prominent. In turn I can see more young women getting into sport and their being less stigma around it.

If the interest is there then go for it, I feel sometimes we try and CREATE interest rather than it being there already under the banner of "political correctness".

That's true, the BBC's coverage of the Women's ashes has been thrust upon its website in a way of creating interest.

The Olympics did wonders for women's sport though. I found myself watching lots of events via red button. Hockey and basketball were both exciting team sports.

As a former hockey player I know a lot of the male olympians admit female hockey is better to watch (especially for those new to the sport) as it is slower and easier to take in

[OxfordWhite]

I can see what Oxford White is getting at, if at Wimbledon the woman's champion was paid the same as the mens' then they should play 5 sets as well, The BBC in their bid for " equality" are always now using women to report sports, not just womens' events which are exclusively commentated by women , ie the football and the test matches, they tried  Jacky Oakly on MOTD and that failed dismally, I  watch the men's final at Wimbledon but not the womens' purely on entertainment value, equality should evolve, not be forced by positive discrimination

+1 and Holders positive discrimination is a very important concept, one that can be as damaging as "negative" discrimination.

[Lighthouse]

Well there are a few women commentators I prefer. I think Gary Lineker is a very lucky chap because I find him appalling. He was a player so the discrimination for ex sports stars to be commentators is annoying but then again some are very good. SO back to the point. Women are different in sports and fronting sport commentating. Different and not as good and some are better.

Life is full of discrimination.