|
Post by Moose on Jan 25, 2016 23:54:30 GMT
I read an article a couple of days ago - lost it now so can't link to it - that said that in future transgender athletes will be able to compete in the Olympics and similar as the gender they identify as, irrespective of whether they've had surgery or not. THoughts? I personally dont know. The thing is, I would imagine that the average person who was born a male and transitions to a female is likely to be stronger than someone who is born a female... I could be wrong of course.
|
|
|
Post by juju on Jan 26, 2016 8:02:48 GMT
I'm really surprised at this. In the past there have been checks on some athletes who were suspected of being men (Fatima Whitbread etc) because it would have been seen as unfair.
Most men (not all, of course) are physically stronger than women, and their musculature is different, so how could it be fair?
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Jan 26, 2016 10:33:56 GMT
I can see systematic abuse.
|
|
|
Post by JoeP on Jan 26, 2016 19:12:00 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Jan 26, 2016 19:26:14 GMT
Ah I remember that .. though she was not trans but intersex I believe. Is physical strength linked to testosterone then?
|
|
|
Post by JoeP on Jan 26, 2016 21:21:22 GMT
True (intersex), but the issues for both the athletes in question and their opponents are surely similar.
And testosterone - yes, definitely. Lots of scandals over athletes (male at least) doping with testosterone or other anabolic steroids.
|
|
|
Post by Alvamiga on Jan 27, 2016 11:58:24 GMT
Maybe we should categorize by something more objective, such as ability. Would make the events more interesting, instead of seeing what often turns into a very wildly spread range anyway.
|
|
|
Post by raspberrybullets on Feb 3, 2016 7:31:24 GMT
Seems fair to me.
On another athletic note - the sports minister (who is a woman for once) has just gone and told Australian sports teams that if they want all their precious money they better fly female atheletes in the same class as males, and provide the same level of accommodation.
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Feb 4, 2016 22:42:51 GMT
Um well, I see no problem with that and I doubt you do I am surprised however that that is not what happens at the moment?!
|
|
|
Post by raspberrybullets on Feb 8, 2016 8:45:01 GMT
Yeah, that's what shocked me! They were flying the guys in first class and the women in economy. Now they won't be getting millions of dollars if they keep that up. That was a happy moment.
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Feb 8, 2016 10:07:08 GMT
I can't see how they ever got away with that.
|
|
|
Post by Mari on Feb 24, 2016 13:06:39 GMT
In the Netherlands the male national football team is flown first class to wherever they need to play and their accommodation is top notch as well. They also get a salary. The female national team has to pay for their own tickets and accommodation and most of them have a job to pay for playing football. They spend a lot of time looking for sponsors, but the big ones prefer the male version. It's insane and unfair.
|
|
|
Post by raspberrybullets on Feb 27, 2016 9:58:35 GMT
Jeez that's even worse than the Aussies!
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Feb 27, 2016 19:57:41 GMT
Can't believe that about the women in economy .. .sheesh! I wonder if the same sort of thing happens here .. I've not heard of it if so but it's unfortunately not beyond the realms of possibility
|
|
|
Post by kingedmund on Mar 11, 2016 5:52:06 GMT
Wow! Sponsor obviously are biased. But after 100+ years of men playing, kind of hard to get people to change. Not sure how transgender will work and I wonder the same thing about the strength, agility men vs. women.
|
|
|
Post by ProdigalAlan on Mar 11, 2016 10:49:39 GMT
At first glance it can look like discrimination based on gender. But professional sport in this country is first and foremost about money. Last year the local ladies team ( Notts County ) got to the final of the ladies FA cup. Wembley tickets went on sale for £30.00. That is about one tenth of the cost of a Wembley ticket for the men's FA cup. Even then Wembley was not sold out to capacity. The harsh fact is that ladies soccer does not generate revenue and without both financial assistance and the use of the men's teams facilities, the ladies would still be playing on the local park. If you don't generate the revenue you can't expect the rewards.
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Mar 11, 2016 19:03:40 GMT
and why don't they generate the revenue? Are women's matches televised? Advertised? Are female soccer players interviewed in the paper? Maybe if women's football was promoted a bit more effectively more people would be interested.
|
|
|
Post by Alvamiga on Mar 11, 2016 19:13:08 GMT
|
|
|
Post by ProdigalAlan on Mar 11, 2016 19:58:10 GMT
and why don't they generate the revenue? Are women's matches televised? Advertised? Are female soccer players interviewed in the paper? Maybe if women's football was promoted a bit more effectively more people would be interested. Erm Jo - the answer to all those questions is a resounding "yes". I mean "seriously"? Take a major world club like Arsenal. They have a ladies squad. That costs money. They want a return on that money. It's not in their financial interest to do anything other than promote to the maximum their investment. The BBC and Sky televise the matches ( and make a loss in doing it ). You can't ask Sky to run at a loss forever, they've done their best and promoted it to the heavens on Sky Sports.
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Mar 11, 2016 20:42:41 GMT
I don't have a TV .. I would not know.
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Mar 11, 2016 22:04:10 GMT
Women's athletics programmes appear to be as popular as men's, although that might be because they alternative with the men's events. Women's tennis, likewise, is just as popular. I think it might be that there is very little tradition in women's football and cricket, and therefore a much lower level of skill in general.
|
|
|
Post by Alvamiga on Mar 11, 2016 22:47:31 GMT
Women's tennis is certainly more interesting to me than the men's which I think is just a boring slogfest!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2016 17:57:32 GMT
I find tennis boring, no matter who plays it.
|
|
|
Post by ProdigalAlan on Mar 12, 2016 20:28:57 GMT
Cricket has a well established reputation, the English game really took off with Rachael Heyhoe-Flint back in the 70s. The truth is that women don't get the rewards the men get in Rugby, Footy and Cricket because nobody wants to pay to watch it. Women's tennis is interesting, women's athletics is interesting, so they get the financial rewards and the sporting recognition. Nobody pays to watch boring games.
|
|
|
Post by raspberrybullets on Mar 12, 2016 21:33:14 GMT
It's not discrimination, it's sexism. On the ABC here, they're really promoting women's sport and there is a huge interest. Most of the time it's more interesting than men's these days and the women are doing much better. They need support form media and sponsors and a cultural shift away from things that show women as being only of interest to women, whereas things that show men are of interest to everyone. You see the same in film and TV.
|
|
|
Post by raspberrybullets on Mar 12, 2016 21:34:48 GMT
And, if playing women sport on TV makes the network run at a loss, they should do something to make it more profitable that doesn't include not treating women equally.
|
|
|
Post by ProdigalAlan on Mar 12, 2016 22:08:41 GMT
In principle I agree with all you're saying. But what exactly can the networks do? If something is dull it's just dull. Take the female 'ashes' series. You've got an old rivalry, long traditions etc. Yet even in sports mad Oz it plays to poor audiences and half empty grounds. You can't make a silk purse out of a sows ear. If it's not exciting, well it's just not exciting.
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Mar 12, 2016 22:24:03 GMT
But why would men's football be considered exciting when women's is not? Surely you either like the game or you don't? I don't, personally, but I don't see why women's is boring but men's isn't
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2016 23:16:43 GMT
But why would men's football be considered exciting when women's is not? Surely you either like the game or you don't? I don't, personally, but I don't see why women's is boring but men's isn't I think one reason might be that men's football has become such a big event that the important games are watched even by people who are generally not interested in football, like during the world cup. Even I watched a few games, everyone was just talking about it. I don't find men's football more interesting, though. I generally don't find football interesting. But it seems to have a tradition with a lot of money and a certain image involved by now and that hasn't developed for women's football and many other sports (yet).Maybe it needs more time to develop, but I'm not sure if that is it. From what I have heard, all the money and the pressure involved have had very negative consequences on the men (being dropped if they get injured and using doping or exercising too much to prevent that from happening and suffering from the damage a few years later, hitting their head too often and later getting ill), so maybe in a way they are paying for it.
|
|
|
Post by raspberrybullets on Mar 13, 2016 5:01:36 GMT
In principle I agree with all you're saying. But what exactly can the networks do? If something is dull it's just dull. Take the female 'ashes' series. You've got an old rivalry, long traditions etc. Yet even in sports mad Oz it plays to poor audiences and half empty grounds. You can't make a silk purse out of a sows ear. If it's not exciting, well it's just not exciting. Well I'd say cricket is just boring in general. However, I know that the Big Bash cricket did really well and got brilliant ratings both for men and women. And from what I understand, men's international cricket is losing ratings here too. The fans like the faster, more actiony cricket.
|
|