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.