We’ve one of those whines in The Guardian. How the patriarchy just doesn’t take women seriously and leaves women’s football to mere charity. The thing being that there’s only charity or capitalism to rely upon here and I’m really very sure indeed that the capitalism would be regarded as the worse solution. This is presumably mansplaining:

Why should a female team have to rely on the charity of a male player? For the game to thrive, attitudes must change

Well, where else is the money going to come from?

We’re back to the old chicken-and-egg problem that we’ve been hearing for decades: “No one watches women’s football so we can’t fund it.” But if nobody is willing to put in the money to build it up, how can we expect the public to come to watch?

Well, OK. We might point to the way the male game grew, which was that people turned up to watch it some 80 years before the players started to get significant incomes from it. But that would again be mansplaining of course.

TV revenue drives the men’s game. Hundreds of millions of pounds pour into the Premier League from television companies, but it’s a struggle to even get the women’s game on air and there is a petition to force broadcasters to televise properly international women’s games.

OK, so, let’s accept the idea that there’s got to be money spent first, then the fans will turn up and money will flow back in. I doubt that the fans will but that’s just me. So, how can we get that money in? Well, there’s charity or there’s capitalism and there’s nowt else.

For where can that money come from? People can give it – that’s charity. Or maybe we take it from elsewhere and drop a part of that “give” bit. But it’ll still be the same, won’t it? Those who would previously have got that money now no longer will have it. Thus we can indeed say that those who have less money have given it to women’s football – even if we’re rather mashing the sense of the word give there.

The only alternative is that people actually invest. Decide that they’ll voluntarily give up some money now so that women’s football can be developed. But then they’d like their money back when it has been along with some profit. That’s capitalism.

And those are the only two ways it can be done, aren’t they? We can either gain the development money from other people with no return to them – charity – or we can do it with money offered for a return – capitalism.

Amazingly, our writer from the Women’s Equality Party doesn’t manage to grasp this simple point. So much for the Women’s Equality Party then, eh?

Subscribe to The CT Mailer!

2
Leave a Reply

Please Login to comment
1 Comment threads
1 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
2 Comment authors
SpikeBloke on M4 Recent comment authors

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Bloke on M4
Member
Bloke on M4

“but it’s a struggle to even get the women’s game on air ”

No. it isn’t. The BBC covered the whole of the women’s FA cup and they can’t fail to mention it. They clubs and the FA spend money on this too.

These are people who would struggle against non-league male sides.

Spike
Member

In other words, it is a lower-quality product. Author states that “attitudes must change” so that more people consume this product (and pay an equal price for it); because, Women’s Rights. Attitudes will change faster if we initiate force. Author should be required to state: Against whom?