Woman’s sport - I will get slated here!

You implied it, if you liked women's sports then you wouldn't have an issue with them being on TV, which you clearly do.
You implied it, if you liked women's sports then you wouldn't have an issue with them being on TV, which you clearly do.
Back to my original post, I said I expect to see the best quality if I'm paying a hefty subscription. You interpret that's how you want.
 
Makes me laugh at some having a go at the standard of womens football. Its attractive to watch but if someone came on here and said i prefer watching premier league to Blackpool because its a better standard , they would get absolute pelters. If we all worried about quality we would just watch the champions league every week.
 
There's probably some truth in that Wilbur, like any broadcaster, the BBC will promote it's own 'product' and try and enhance it's relevance. Fair enough on their part.

Where that becomes more of an issue is in the perception of those who just want to see fairness represented on all sides. If you take the WSL, it's come along in massive leaps and bounds - and will continue to do so because more girls are playing every year. But, I'd take issue with the Chelsea manager, Emma Hayes, who when recently linked with the AFC Wimbledon job, said it would be a step down from her current role.

Well if she's being paid more, that's pure tokenism on Chelsea's behalf and if she thinks it's a better role through quality because she's managing internationals, then she's either deluded or being deliberately defensive.

And I don't put these points out to be anti-women or controversial. I just don't like the way that certain women's sports are being presented in an ultra-positive and non-critical way. Every goal is brilliant, even when we can all see that the keeper was terrible. The depth of quality is hugely overdone, even though we can all see that the standout players are having it too easy. Teams shouldn't regularly win by 4, 5 or 6+ goals against different opposition in a professional league. Yes, time will improve that, but have the balls to stand up and be transparent about it too.

To move it to a different context, i'm all for inclusivity in everything. And as part of that, we have to provide some allowances for development of those who are new to a field or industry. But we also have to be brave enough to recognize where improvements can still be made, because by not allowing for that, surely we are patronising the people we're supposed to be helping?
 
Interesting thread, but it is all down to opinion.
Some will like certain sports (whether male or female) and some won’t. Just as some like certain film genres or TV shows and others don’t.
As regards the vid printer throughout the news, let’s say they displayed a Scottish FA cup shock result. Maud (10th Tier In Scottish football, which shows how bad they must be) knocking out Rangers. I’m not interested in the slightest about Scottish football but it wouldn’t bother me that it is on there. Likewise, on Gillette Soccer Saturday why do they have live updates from some Scottish games? I’m not interested but it doesn’t bother me.
Incidentally any of the English woman’s team would probably beat quite a few teams in the lower leagues in Scotland.
Personally I think women footballers at the top level are good. Ok, they don’t have the physical attributes of their male counterparts but they aren’t playing men.
Professional women golfers are talented and would probably thrash some men even if they played off the longer tees.
I don’t like women’s rugby and I think netball is one of the most boring sports ever but that’s my choice.
Seaside one, don’t look at the vid printer and just press mute if you don’t want to listen to anything you don’t like. Simples.

LaLa and Poulton Lass ( and any other female posters we may have on here who post incognito) get on here and give us your views.
 
I still don't understand how the woman get the same pay at Wimbledon yet only play best of 3 sets, whilst the men best of 5 sets.
The woman commentating or pundits are not as good as most the men. there is a few males pundits that are crap as well, some of the male pundits have improved over the years.
 
They can show whatever they want, if you don't like it you can cancel your subscription. They're not doing it for moral reasons, they're doing it to attract a wider audience and make more money. If people who don't like it just moan to their friends but carry on paying for their subscription regardless, probably A. Shows they don't really care that much, just run out of things to moan about and B. Means Sky have won.

Regards not wanting women to commentate on a man's game -- I wouldn't want Michael Owen to commentate a supermarket tannoy announcement but it's not up to us. Stop popping a vein over nothing and put your bloody handbags away.
 
I still don't understand how the woman get the same pay at Wimbledon yet only play best of 3 sets, whilst the men best of 5 sets.
The woman commentating or pundits are not as good as most the men. there is a few males pundits that are crap as well, some of the male pundits have improved over the years.
Because they are not labourers on a building site, maybe.
 
I'd rather listen to a woman commentating than Glen Hoddle or worse still Garth Crooks OBE.(One boring entity)
 
Last edited:
I wonder what the response would be if the same comments were made about black male athletes as are being made about women? 🤪
 
Interesting thread, but it is all down to opinion.
Some will like certain sports (whether male or female) and some won’t. Just as some like certain film genres or TV shows and others don’t.
As regards the vid printer throughout the news, let’s say they displayed a Scottish FA cup shock result. Maud (10th Tier In Scottish football, which shows how bad they must be) knocking out Rangers. I’m not interested in the slightest about Scottish football but it wouldn’t bother me that it is on there. Likewise, on Gillette Soccer Saturday why do they have live updates from some Scottish games? I’m not interested but it doesn’t bother me.
Incidentally any of the English woman’s team would probably beat quite a few teams in the lower leagues in Scotland.
Personally I think women footballers at the top level are good. Ok, they don’t have the physical attributes of their male counterparts but they aren’t playing men.
Professional women golfers are talented and would probably thrash some men even if they played off the longer tees.
I don’t like women’s rugby and I think netball is one of the most boring sports ever but that’s my choice.
Seaside one, don’t look at the vid printer and just press mute if you don’t want to listen to anything you don’t like. Simples.

LaLa and Poulton Lass ( and any other female posters we may have on here who post incognito) get on here and give us your views.
You miss one of my points - Spurs were on the vidi printer in two games.

Neither were marked as WSL or EPL and both teams Spurs were playing were in the mens prem - hence my issue.
 
Makes me laugh at some having a go at the standard of womens football. Its attractive to watch but if someone came on here and said i prefer watching premier league to Blackpool because its a better standard , they would get absolute pelters. If we all worried about quality we would just watch the champions league every week.

There are not that many posts on here regarding the standard of womens football.

Your post questions the standard of womens football.
 
Thought I'd do some research.

WSL games on the BBC average 285,000 viewers, 85,000 on BT. The highlights show on Sunday on BBC averages 500,000. The World Cup semi drew 11.7m.

The WSL has signed an international rights deal recently. In fact it appears it may have signed several as both SKY Mexico and an Atlanta based US tv network are mentioned in different articles.

This does all suggest there is an audience and whilst Sky are very cagy about viewing figures, it's definitely the case that some of the less edifying EPL games don't get big numbers. The idea that all men's football is a big draw isn't true.

The WSL set a new attendance record (38k Arsenal v Tottenham) recently and according to the telegraph, TV audiences have doubled since 2017.

What I couldn't find anywhere was the cost of the TV rights.

Sources: Telegraph, Sun, some random sports media news pages.

td53

I think it might be an idea for you to get yourself on the next plane to India as England could do with a good spinner out there.
 
Why single out national hunt racing ?

Surely all sports in which the female participants generate as much revenue as the male participants warrant equal pay ?
In National Hunt racing they compete in the same races as men, so should be the same pay/prize money, the same if the compete in darts.
If they good enough to compete in mens sports and under the same rules then yes the same money. But when they not at such a level why get the same pay?
 
In National Hunt racing they compete in the same races as men, so should be the same pay/prize money, the same if the compete in darts.
If they good enough to compete in mens sports and under the same rules then yes the same money. But when they not at such a level why get the same pay?

Please don't get me wrong, I have no problem with equal pay in national hunt racing.

It's just you are appearing to suggest that it's the only sport in the universe in which women compete against men ?

As I said before, I think that women deserve equal pay in all sports where they generate equal revenues.
 
Please don't get me wrong, I have no problem with equal pay in national hunt racing.

It's just you are appearing to suggest that it's the only sport in the universe in which women compete against men ?

As I said before, I think that women deserve equal pay in all sports where they generate equal revenues.

I didn't suggest that it should be the only sport that should get equal pay, if they compete as an equal with the same rules or against men then yes fine give them the same money.

In the grand slams of tennis men play best of 5 sets woman best of 3 sets and get equal pay.

A man to win has to play a maximum of 35 sets or a minimum of 21 sets.
A woman to win plays a maximum of 21 sets or a minimum of 14 set.
So even as at the bare minimum a man has to play a 3rd more sets.
 
td53

I think it might be an idea for you to get yourself on the next plane to India as England could do with a good spinner out there.
Not spin la, facts.

Still, we've discovered you don't need to turn it to get people out so maybe!
 
I didn't suggest that it should be the only sport that should get equal pay, if they compete as an equal with the same rules or against men then yes fine give them the same money.

In the grand slams of tennis men play best of 5 sets woman best of 3 sets and get equal pay.

A man to win has to play a maximum of 35 sets or a minimum of 21 sets.
A woman to win plays a maximum of 21 sets or a minimum of 14 set.
So even as at the bare minimum a man has to play a 3rd more sets.

Apologies Whenthepool.

FlytoKavala said the only sport that warranted equal pay was national hunt racing and not your good self.


Tennis

The 3 set / 5 set thing gets mentioned all the time but I don't think that should be a factor in deciding how the revenues are split.

Before anybody gets on their high horse I am not suggesting that women are not capable of playing 5 sets but at some point a decision was made that ladies matches should be played over 3 sets and I'd rather they competed over a duration that had been deemed acceptable by the tennis officials than extend matches to 5 sets just to match men.

Men and women are not the same as each other, men are physically stronger than women, that is NOT to say that males are superior to females, it is to say that women should not be penalised financially because they are not as physically strong.

For everyone trying to pick holes in what I say, I am fully aware that there are plenty of women on the planet who are physically stronger than me.
 
Not spin la, facts.

Still, we've discovered you don't need to turn it to get people out so maybe!

td53

They are facts, you might have added some opinion but you have definitely stated facts as you suggest.

You have spun your facts very well and I'm sure you know that.

You failed to mention another rather important fact:

The womens game that you tell us is bouncing is heavily subsidised by the male game that is failing.

The only times womens football is discussed on this forum are when threads like this are started and some folk feign an interest because they feel it's their duty to do so or when the World Cup is on, in between nobody has the slightest interest - and that's despite the increased coverage from the likes of the BBC, womens transfer appear in the headlines, etc, etc.

Please don't get me wrong, I certainly have no desire to see the womens game fail but I think we just disagree on the popularity.

I think Straighters says it better above.
 
Last edited:
td53

They are facts, you might have added some opinion but you have definitely stated facts as you suggest.

You have spun your facts very well and I'm sure you know that.

You failed to mention another rather important fact:

The womens game that you tell us is bouncing is heavily subsidised by the male game that is failing.

The only times womens football is discussed on this forum are when threads like this when folk feign interest because it's their duty to or when the World Cup is on, in between nobody has the slightest interest - and that's despite the increased coverage from the likes of the BBC.

Please don't get me wrong, I certainly have no desire to see the womens game fail but I think we just disagree on the popularity.
I haven't spun a ** thing pal. I googled something in three minutes before I started work cos I was ignorant of the facts and stated the numbers here. Please don't accuse me of something disingenuous thank you.

I don't neglect anything. I've covered all the stuff you mention before on this thread at length.

You just keep repeating the same opinion over and over with nothing to add to it. As you are so clear about the 'heavy subsidy' - what is it?

How much is the woman's game subsidized to the tune of by the men's game as you put it? What are the figures? Thousands? Millions? Billions?

You also haven't once addressed the historic roots of why the woman's game is starting from so far behind. What do you think of that? How should the women's game expand after the sabotage it suffered for 50 years and is it the FAs responsibility? (There's only an FA not a woman's and men's FA)

Blackpool get a 'subsidy' of 700k per year from premier league tv rights. Is this equally wrong?

Your points seems to be 'i don't like it' so I'll repeat it over and over again.

I don't watch woman's football either mate. But the facts are, someone else does and more people are doing so. Take that up with the telegraph, the sun and the random website I got the facts from rather than accusing me of 'spin' ta.
 
How much is the woman's game subsidized to the tune of by the men's game as you put it? What are the figures? Thousands? Millions? Billions?

You also haven't once addressed the historic roots of why the woman's game is starting from so far behind. What do you think of that? How should the women's game expand after the sabotage it suffered for 50 years and is it the FAs responsibility? (There's only an FA not a woman's and men's FA)

Blackpool get a 'subsidy' of 700k per year from premier league tv rights. Is this equally wrong?

Your points seems to be 'i don't like it' so I'll repeat it over and over again.
This point about subsidies is absolute bollocks. The bit of football that is massively subsidised - to an obscene degree - is the EPL. But of course that is where the men play, so that's alright.

The thing about elite sport is that it takes a fair amount of dedication, application and skill to get to the very top. Whether you are male or female shouldn't really matter.

I just can't get over the double standard applied by men who will wilfully ignore sporting excellence in one half of the population, but drool over Spurs v Burnley. **

** just an illustrative example, before 20s mobilises the Panzer Division.
 
This point about subsidies is absolute bollocks. The bit of football that is massively subsidised - to an obscene degree - is the EPL. But of course that is where the men play, so that's alright.

The thing about elite sport is that it takes a fair amount of dedication, application and skill to get to the very top. Whether you are male or female shouldn't really matter.

I just can't get over the double standard applied by men who will wilfully ignore sporting excellence in one half of the population, but drool over Spurs v Burnley. **

** just an illustrative example, before 20s mobilises the Panzer Division.
I just want, as @SEASIDE2020 has confidently stated it as a fact time and again him to at least support his assertion with the meerest veneer of evidence. He's said it over and over, so I'll await his facts then call them spin.
 
I haven't spun a ** thing pal. I googled something in three minutes before I started work cos I was ignorant of the facts and stated the numbers here. Please don't accuse me of something disingenuous thank you.

I don't neglect anything. I've covered all the stuff you mention before on this thread at length.

You just keep repeating the same opinion over and over with nothing to add to it. As you are so clear about the 'heavy subsidy' - what is it?

How much is the woman's game subsidized to the tune of by the men's game as you put it? What are the figures? Thousands? Millions? Billions?

You also haven't once addressed the historic roots of why the woman's game is starting from so far behind. What do you think of that? How should the women's game expand after the sabotage it suffered for 50 years and is it the FAs responsibility? (There's only an FA not a woman's and men's FA)

Blackpool get a 'subsidy' of 700k per year from premier league tv rights. Is this equally wrong?

Your points seems to be 'i don't like it' so I'll repeat it over and over again.

I don't watch woman's football either mate. But the facts are, someone else does and more people are doing so. Take that up with the telegraph, the sun and the random website I got the facts from rather than accusing me of 'spin' ta.

Sorry td, I certainly didn't mean to be overly critical of you but just felt that you stated facts but hid the real picture, a bit like you are now accusing me of above re history etc.

I also apologise for repeating myself, it's just I go through alerts and address them one at a time - this takes me ages, is it my computer or this site ?

You clearly didn't like me accusing you of spinning but I did already acknowledge in previous posts that you had used facts.

I won't go on and I do think that you made good points, I just don't think we will agree on the matter.
 
I just want, as @SEASIDE2020 has confidently stated it as a fact time and again him to at least support his assertion with the meerest veneer of evidence. He's said it over and over, so I'll await his facts then call them spin.

td53

I have not got the time to go through the accounts of all the British football clubs and see how much they subsidise their womens sides.

I am sure we can both agree that the male football teams receive massive broadcasting revenues, some of which are used to subsidise their female teams.

If we don't agree on that and you feel that the female teams are self sustaining then that's fair enough then we just don't agree.

The subsidies which enable them to be professional - via full time training and the employment of more experienced and skilled officials - may very well enable them to be self sustaining in the future and as I have already stated in previous posts I have no desire to see the womens game fail and there are other benefits of a successful professional womens game.

I apologise again for upsetting you by accusing you of spin but I did not suggest that the facts you quoted were incorrect, in fact I acknowledged that they were facts without verification.

One final apology for my chunnering td53, I have enjoyed discussing the matter with you without agreeing and I think the final paragraph of Straighters post above says all I really needed to say on the matter.
 
td53

I have not got the time to go through the accounts of all the British football clubs and see how much they subsidise their womens sides.

I am sure we can both agree that the male football teams receive massive broadcasting revenues, some of which are used to subsidise their female teams.

If we don't agree on that and you feel that the female teams are self sustaining then that's fair enough then we just don't agree.

The subsidies which enable them to be professional - via full time training and the employment of more experienced and skilled officials - may very well enable them to be self sustaining in the future and as I have already stated in previous posts I have no desire to see the womens game fail and there are other benefits of a successful professional womens game.

I apologise again for upsetting you by accusing you of spin but I did not suggest that the facts you quoted were incorrect, in fact I acknowledged that they were facts without verification.

One final apology for my chunnering td53, I have enjoyed discussing the matter with you without agreeing and I think the final paragraph of Straighters post above says all I really needed to say on the matter.
So you don't know?

You've confidently asserted a fact repeatedly but you don't actually know?

Man City ladies operated at a loss of 1.06 million in 2019. That's less than 1 third of the cost of an average premier league player.

That was the biggest loss in the entire women's game by some degree.

Your assertion that the men's game is being harmed by the women's game is palpably false. I would assume that Man City see that loss a worthwile under writing, given the brand value to them in terms of future opportunities from a more established women's game where they are the main power.

What happens generally if a woman's team doesn't make the cut financially - i.e ? Is it "subsidised'?" - No, it usually goes part time like Yeovil did. They were successful but there's no free money if the men's club don't want to or can't afford to sub it. Liverpool got relegated because they spent sweet FA on their woman's side.

It's also worth saying that no club is forced to run a woman's team.

Compare the meagre losses above to the 670 million Chelsea lost in the first 9 years of Roman's reign.

Presumably you'd describe that as investment?

Could possibly people *choose* to invest in the woman's game? Is that a difficult thing to believe? I don't think so...

What would be your problem with that? Or do you really believe that the 1 million pounds City women lost could be better spent on the hard up premier league players at Man City?

The top clubs are interesting commercial prospects - lots of females have been commercially very successful icons in various sports. UK football hasn't produced many breakthrough stars yet, but it's a very young game really. The game needs new markets as it is over reliant on aging middled aged white men like me. If you can sell the game to even 5% more women, that's a huge market for shirts, tickets, TV etc etc. Sponsors like that. Clubs like sponsors.

Worth a punt really. Can run a top level woman's side for the price of one Gareth bale loan for 15 years, even if they continue to make losses.

There we go. Again, it's not 'wokism' It's money.

Capitalism I believe it's called. Go and complain to the City board... Tell them it's a bad investment.
 
So you don't know?

You've confidently asserted a fact repeatedly but you don't actually know?

Man City ladies operated at a loss of 1.06 million in 2019. That's less than 1 third of the cost of an average premier league player.

That was the biggest loss in the entire women's game by some degree.

Your assertion that the men's game is being harmed by the women's game is palpably false. I would assume that Man City see that loss a worthwile under writing, given the brand value to them in terms of future opportunities from a more established women's game where they are the main power.

What happens generally if a woman's team doesn't make the cut financially - i.e ? Is it "subsidised'?" - No, it usually goes part time like Yeovil did. They were successful but there's no free money if the men's club don't want to or can't afford to sub it. Liverpool got relegated because they spent sweet FA on their woman's side.

It's also worth saying that no club is forced to run a woman's team.

Compare the meagre losses above to the 670 million Chelsea lost in the first 9 years of Roman's reign.

Presumably you'd describe that as investment?

Could possibly people *choose* to invest in the woman's game? Is that a difficult thing to believe? I don't think so...

What would be your problem with that? Or do you really believe that the 1 million pounds City women lost could be better spent on the hard up premier league players at Man City?

The top clubs are interesting commercial prospects - lots of females have been commercially very successful icons in various sports. UK football hasn't produced many breakthrough stars yet, but it's a very young game really. The game needs new markets as it is over reliant on aging middled aged white men like me. If you can sell the game to even 5% more women, that's a huge market for shirts, tickets, TV etc etc. Sponsors like that. Clubs like sponsors.

Worth a punt really. Can run a top level woman's side for the price of one Gareth bale loan for 15 years, even if they continue to make losses.

There we go. Again, it's not 'wokism' It's money.
F
Capitalism I believe it's called. Go and complain to the City board... Tell them it's a bad investment.

td53

I don't what you are looking for now ?

I never once said that the womens game was harming the mens game or even suggested that, they provide relatively small sums of money to make it look as if they are interested in it.

They male game subsidises the female game and this has enabled the female game to become full time in this country.

I am of the opinion that Manchester City can do whatever they like with their money so why on earth would I want to complain ?

As I have already made it clear, I have absolutely no desire to see the womens game fail but I am not going to feign interest in it like so many others on this forum do.

Womens football is discussed on this forum when people who think it's chite start threads like this and when the World Cup is on.

It's a football forum that discusses all levels of football but it is clear that - at this moment of time - there is very little interest in the womens game.

I hear what you say regarding the fact that the increased investment in the womens game might see a boom and ultimately to the game being able to sustain itself but I don't share your optimism, that is not to say that you are wrong and I am right.

We are not going to agree on this td53.
 

Just watching Sky Sports News and Spurs are on the vid printer twice, with no description of which is mens and womans.

Woman are shite in the sports I care about - Cricket, Football and Rugby Union.

....and by the way I do not want someone who has not played at the mens highest level commentating or being a pundit on top end mens sport.

Come on sky, let me pay for just mens sport - and I wonder what percentage of my subscription you will still want?

I think the answer will say it all.

Tin hat on to all wokes out there.
I agree most women's sport is not something i would choose to watch, but i will watch women's golf (majors), gymnastics and athletics but little else as i find it slow and boring compared to the men's equivalent sport. Additionally there are plenty of men's sports i wont watch as it bore's the pants off me such as baseball, basketball, horse racing (I know some women ride), sailing and cycling.
On a side note i love boxing and appreciate the skill levels of the female boxers (Katie Taylor especially) but i don't enjoy watching it in the same way i don't enjoy watching the lighter weights in men's boxing. I like to see the possibility of a knockout/stoppage in boxing and women's and lighter mans weight categories don't really offer this hence i can appreciate them but not enjoy watching it.

As for commentators please employ the best person for the role irrespective of race, creed, colour, gender or sexual preference. I have zero time for rubbish commentators or pundits. I would not care if Michael Owen, Owen Hargrieves, Graham Souness, Paul Scholes or most of the female football pundits never appeared on TV again. I do think there are some very good female pundits such as Ebony Rainford-Brent, but there are also many poor ones.
 
This point about subsidies is absolute bollocks. The bit of football that is massively subsidised - to an obscene degree - is the EPL. But of course that is where the men play, so that's alright.

The thing about elite sport is that it takes a fair amount of dedication, application and skill to get to the very top. Whether you are male or female shouldn't really matter.

I just can't get over the double standard applied by men who will wilfully ignore sporting excellence in one half of the population, but drool over Spurs v Burnley. **

** just an illustrative example, before 20s mobilises the Panzer Division.

The EPL is subsidized or receives broadcasting revenues that are in tune with the global revenue generation it provides to the media networks who broadcast it?

To follow your "illustrative example", i could counter your point by noting that you wilfully ignore the sporting excellence of players in the EPL, but drool over the same kind of overhyped 'sportainment' that is offered up by the NFL - the very definition of content over quality in sporting terms - merely because that floats your boat and fits your view of how a sporting contest should work. What's the difference between the 2 organisations? Not much as far as I can see.

Nothing to do with the OP of course, but thought I'd reply...
 
The EPL is subsidized or receives broadcasting revenues that are in tune with the global revenue generation it provides to the media networks who broadcast it?

To follow your "illustrative example", i could counter your point by noting that you wilfully ignore the sporting excellence of players in the EPL, but drool over the same kind of overhyped 'sportainment' that is offered up by the NFL - the very definition of content over quality in sporting terms - merely because that floats your boat and fits your view of how a sporting contest should work. What's the difference between the 2 organisations? Not much as far as I can see.

Nothing to do with the OP of course, but thought I'd reply...

Interesting post.

I take your point about the EPL and revenues versus subsidy. However, I regard it as being "subsidised" because I think the levels of remuneration on offer for players and clubs is wildly out of proportion to their actual ability, or the quality of what they serve up (if comments on this forum are anything to go by). And it encourages - actually incites - levels of spending that put the very sustainability of the sport in doubt. That is for everyone, at all levels, not just a gilded elite.

Which is where the comparison with the NFL becomes spurious. That is a competition where all the rules are designed to promote parity and strengthen competition. You may regard it as "overhyped sportainment" - but I'd say that is a phrase that reflects YOUR view of how sporting contests should work. And it reflects a sporting culture in the USA that is completely different from our own in any case.

As for the difference between the two organisations ; the NFL raises hundreds of millions of dollars every year for breast cancer and veterans' charities. It operates a strong regulatory code that sanctions players and franchises for poor behaviour . I'm struggling to see how the EPL matches up on either front.

The main issue here is that one or two posters can't accept a nuanced argument - namely, that you can have ambition for your club, and want it to do as well as possible, whilst still being aware of the many deep-seated flaws in the way that the EPL operates. It isn't a binary issue, even if some posters insist in seeing it that way.
 
I don't like American Football but the core point is - the NFL has addressed issues around competitiveness. The EPL hasn't. That's it in a nutshell. All the other comparisons are just fluff.
 
Back
Top