![[Tom Garry] Manchester United’s women’s team will be moved into portable buildings at the club’s Carrington training complex this season to allow the men’s squad to use the women’s building while the men’s building is being revamped.](https://external-preview.redd.it/TdBebzmRQH-c1b8pVaHRm9qAnvzn0irJ8r6iGI2tO0A.jpg?auto=webp&s=c9010b89867605a3da4299ec6fc9167ff08cda7b)
www.theguardian.com/football/article/2024/jun/25/manchester-united-women-moved-out-of-training-building-to-accommodate-men-carrington
[Tom Garry] Manchester United’s women’s team will be moved into portable buildings at the club’s Carrington training complex this season to allow the men’s squad to use the women’s building while the men’s building is being revamped.
Just so every misogynist caveman in this thread can be reminded:
(In 1921, the Football Association (FA) banned women's soccer from all FA-affiliated grounds, saying that the sport was "quite unsuitable for females" and shouldn't be encouraged. The FA did this because the money raised from women's matches was supporting working-class causes instead of war efforts, which threatened the establishment's power.)
The Football Association (FA) lifted its ban on women's football in 1971 after 50 years. The ban had been in place since 1921, when the FA prohibited women from playing organized football at FA-affiliated grounds, using professional facilities, and being officiated by registered referees. The FA cited a number of reasons for the ban, including complaints about the game, match conditions, and charitable donations. However, some say the ban was motivated by a perceived threat to the game's "masculinity")
This is why women's football is much better in the USA, and the USWNT dominated for so long. Male created laws in the UK and Europe abroad ceased the traction of women's football for decades. 50 years, to be exact. The only possible reason the women don't make more money, revenue, and are behind athletically is literal sexism in the sport and in government. What is being done to the Women's First Team would be a violation of anti-trust laws in the United States, which would result in a massive lawsuit. Idk what kind of shitty laws you have in the UK allowing this to continue. No wonder we whooped your ass in the revolutionary war, then saved your ass in WWII.
Get a fucking education you sexist wankers. Everyone who downvoted comments supporting the rights of the women's team need to delete their comments and upvote the proper factual viewpoint. Suck a fart out of Mason Greenwood's ass while you're at it.
I'm a man, by the way. I just happen to read and engage in critical thinking, and I actually love and respect the beautiful, intelligent, strong-willed women in my life, including the one I was shat out of.
I don't understand why you're bringing WWII and the Revolutionary War into it, nobody's positioning this as a UK vs USA thing except you and doing so is really fucking weird.
Everyone would agree with you that the reason the USWNT has been so dominant over the years is because women's sport was taken more seriously and invested in accordingly. You don't need to bring people dying in combat two centuries earlier into it. (Also, describing childbirth as 'being shat out of' is grim, I'm eating here)
You're right. It's totally my fault I'm making you guys feel gross about reinforcing patriarchal rape culture. Feels gross and weird doesn't it? USA vs UK? "GROSS, dude!" Man vs Woman? Totally fine.
Like the war stuff and the being shat out of is gross, but the blatant misogynist behavior...nah, not that at all.
Maybe don't eat while you read reddit? Or don't read my comment, or maybe just grow up, and stop being a little baby about it?
The only gross thing going on here is the way the club is treating the women and the way the men on this thread are trying to make it out to be everything but that.
My grandfather (USA) helped liberate a concentration camp and found documents that put Nazi's to death at Nuremberg, so we didn't have to deal with fragile male fascist idealogy, and argue about this bullshit in German. Sorry you don't take it that seriously, but that's how it starts. Little angry men who hate their mommies and have to prove themselves to an extreme because mommy didn't love them enough for their liking.
I'm a woman, you daft cunt. I agree with you that people are being absolute arseholes about the womens' team and women's football in general, and if I was a player for them and the Greenwood stuff hadn't made me feel like they couldn't care less about their female players and staff, this absolutely would. I'm not surprised Mary Earps is gone. I'd be gone too. I'd have gone some time ago if I were a fan.
I still think that bringing weird rah rah USA we are best at war stuff into it is very fucking weird and completely detracts from the perfectly valid points you're making. I don't know what that's all meant to be about.
At what point did I call you a man??? Dont put words in my mouth, because you didn't read, like a "daft cunt", then call me one. The point is we didn't have laws that restricted women from playing football/soccer. Britain likes to act high and mighty like it's somehow more sophisticated. My point is that our laws created conditions that allowed marginalized groups to seek equity and maybe see results within their lifetimes. I'm sorry your country lacks decent freedoms and is the biggest colonizer in the history of the world. Your culture and laws created that climate. God Save the King.
This is not a good use of your time xx
It was time well wasted. But if it is such a waste of time, why reply again just to say that?
You know, an eye for an eye makes the whole world go blind.
But love is blind, and hate is deaf.
WWII? Anti-trust laws? WTF are you going on about? Just calm down a bit. Personally, I'd wait to see what the temporary accommodation was like before I started ranting about it.
That's the point. It doesn't matter how great the accommodations are. The men are being accommodated in a better fashion than the women at the expense of the women's team's performance. Which is exactly what banning women from football did, and it's only just now changing a little over 100 years later. The PFA is already trying to investigate it. Why? Because it's discrimination.
https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5597313/2024/06/27/manchester-united-women-team-pfa/
Trying to reason it away with the logic that the men's team are more popular/wealthy/athletic completely misses the core point that women were literally banned by most governments in Europe from playing football from 1921-1971. So the men's team had a jump on the women in every aspect for 50 years. You didn't read any of that because you don't want to listen and you want to be catered to as a man. Sorry that your Nan wasn't there to read it for you with a warm glass of milk and cookies she made slaving over the stove in her portakitchen.
Don't be an ignorant troll just because the reality isn't favorable to your bias.
Mate, just relax a bit. You sound unhinged.
No. I sound logical with real facts, and I brought the proof to back it up. You're just upset that it's true.
OK.
"OK"
You hate women, we get it. I bet you can't wait until Mason Greenwood quietly gets reintroduced to the men's squad, right? Because he's totally innocent, right? Because we all didn't hear him coerce and rape someone, did we?
You're a sad, sad person. You need help. Good luck with the future.
Missed opportunity to call this Project Greenwood
Everybody really hate female athletes
Why? Let the men change in fucking portacabins. Its their facilities being rebuilt.
Moderator removed comment
8d
Your post has been removed for violating Reddiquette.
We encourage all members to adhere to these guidelines to maintain a positive and inclusive environment for everyone.
For a comprehensive understanding of Reddiquette, please refer to the Reddiquette guidelines provided by Reddit.
If you have any questions or concerns, feel free to reach out.
Thank you for your understanding and cooperation.
I hope this doesn't affect their women team because they are a joy to watch.
There are a lot of piss poor takes on this thread. We have more than enough funds to take care of both the men's and women's first teams and then some. We have for years. Equal accommodations could have been made for both sides, it's that simple.
The only real point in all this to focus on and what most of the people taking the side of the women's team are trying to relay (albeit poorly imho) is that we have enough money to take care of both sides equally during renovations, but the ownership/management is choosing not to. They are being cheap and giving biased stone age treatment to the women's side. A club this big needs to do better.
It doesn't matter if the men make all the money and prop up the women's first team and facilities. The new ownership values the women's side far less than the Glazers ever did, and you can see where this is going. We just lost the core of an FA cup winning team. Women's football is here to stay, and I'm not sure what kind of message we're trying to send to our young female supporters/aspiring footballers across the globe as potentially the biggest and most famous club in the English speaking world. It's an absolute egregious rhetoric for these times.
"White Knights" my ass. It's just men behaving poorly as per usual and trying to deflect blame on financial constraints that don't exist. I'm a man, but between the Greenwood fiasco, the treatment of the women's team, forcing employees to return from at home work or resign, the hypocritical Todibo issues, etc. Jim is just as bad as any right-wing oil tycoon I've ever seen, and is making big waves in a bad way, that make the club look worse by the day. I have high hopes, but jesus, we are turning in to Wife-Beater FC at a rapid pace. Football isn't more important than basic human rights and equality. Go to therapy and grow up.
And this surprises people why? The women's team is completely propped up by the men's, its very existence is predicated on the success of the men's team. The only argument for the opposite of what United are doing is "but women" and some odd morally grandstanding
Why can't the men's team go into temporary buildings? Why does it always have to be this way?
Because the men's team contribute the vast majority of the United's income and their success has far more impact on how the club functions, including how much money can be spent on the women's team.
But once the management have established the women's team and decided to bask in the glory of the women's team whenever they win, the men's team and women's team have to be treated at par as individual entities. So no justification here please.
Without the men‘s success there is no women’s team. They subsidize the women’s team with about 50% of their whole income via a loan - and they indirectly pay for infrastructure, the training facilities, staff, chefs, doctors, pitches, stadium, get the big name sponsors and pay all the upkeep - let alone building the women‘s facilities in the first place.
They provide 99,9% of the financial power. If they struggle due to performing even 1% worse, the first money they‘ll pull is from the women‘s team and youth team, hence the women will benefit more from the men’s team performing well.
If the u23 or youth team would have to move, nobody would say anything. There is no equality and it has nothing to do with sexism, just like the u23 will get less resources than the pros.
the men's team and women's team have to be treated at par as individual entities
Why?
They don't contribute equally. The women facilities wouldn't exist without the contribution from the income of the men's team.
If United women's team win the league next season it makes almost no difference to the club's bottom line, if the men's team to do well it can add 100's of millions to the finances, some of which can be spent on the women's team.
The men's team doing well will have more impact on how much the women get paid than if the women's team do well.
Also incredibly naive to expect women to buy into “oh if the men are making money, they will help out the women’s team” when clearly they don’t care about the women. The women aren’t asking for anything extra and they are not a charity. Stop treating them like one.
It's also incredibly naive so expect the team who is paying for all the facilities and bringing in all the income to not get the best facilities.
The women's team could win the league next season and it wouldn't make any material difference to the club's finances. If the first team using our best facilities means they get into UCL that will be worth 100s of millions to the bottom line.
It all boils down to the women's team wouldn't exist or have these amazing facilities if it wasn't for the first team. Why should the first team make all of the money and not get the services their team financed?
Why the men can’t use different facilities when they are the ones getting a renovation is a valid question. If someone paid more for a hotel room than you and it was destroyed, would you be okay with management moving you to a shittier room so the higher paying customer gets your room? I sincerely doubt you would be. So why should women be okay with this? Come on man
If someone paid more for a hotel room than you and it was destroyed, would you be okay with management moving you to a shittier room so the higher paying customer gets your room?
That's not what's happening here though. It's more like the men's team built the entire hotel and allowed the women's team to have the penthouse at no cost.
Now the hotel needs to go through renovation so the people who paid for and built the entire hotel are saying "we need the penthouse back for a bit so we can continue to earn and pay for the hotel you're staying in for free."
Sexist scum, put the men's team out in the porter cabins...
Nothing to do with sexism, without a men‘s team there is no women‘s team. If the u23 or youth team had to move you wouldn’t say anything.
Or rather in the parking place
Men sports provides for women sports… 😂😅🤣
Pretty simple. Men's team brings in all the money. A successful men's team and the money trickles down to the women's and youth teams. You may not like it, but that's reality.
The women's team was essentially breakeven. The team’s revenue made up just over one per cent of Manchester United’s total club revenue for 2022-23.
They were breakeven without the responsibility of paying for infrastructure and upkeep. Training facilities, workers, staff, doctors, stadium, transportation, buildings, greenkeepers. They are all being paid by the men’s team, the women’s team would be bankrupt within a month if the they had to pay for the upkeep - let alone building it in the first place.
It’s just like the first team gets more resources than the U23 - it has nothing to do with sexism. If the U23 or youth teams would have to move, nobody would say anything.
While it sounds ridiculous at first, what else do you expect them to do? The men‘s department is pretty much paying for all other teams, youth teams, other sports, women‘s football and all the infrastructure.
Youth would have to move as well if the male first team needed the facilities.
In the end, without a successful male team, there can’t be funds allocated to the other facilities. Without Manchester being somewhat financially successful, there wouldn’t be any facilities for women‘s football.
The right thing would have been to find alternative accommodation for the men rather than to force out the women.
I can only imagine that the the women's team will be forced to use temp accommodation not only during the time it takes to renovate/rebuild where the men currently are located, but also once that's finished and they start on the women's building as well.
Btw, Brentford have been in temp accommodation for the past few years, and still are, and it's not like that's been stopping them from beating Man Utd.
There are also numerous problems with your way of thinking.
1: most WSL sides are profitable and do not need any "support" from the men.
2: successful youth academies pay themselves many times over through transfers of players who aren't good enough for the first team.
3: While I don't know what it's like for a club of Man Utd's scale, but for cubs that aren't quite as big i do in fact know that clubs are able to get sponsors and sponsorship contracts worth a hell of a lot more thanks to their women's team. Contracts which are completely disproportionate to how much the women get paid.
4: most other clubs are scrambling to get their women's team into the WSL. The way Man Utd are acting they'll be the ones who are sorry when all their players leave, they get relegated, and they miss out on the profits and goodwill the WSL would have given them.
In the end everything Man Utd is doing with this is shooting themselves in the foot. Moving the men's team to temporary accommodation would probably have done wonders to fix their broken culture since I'm sure a big part of it is that the male players are spoiled brats who think they're world stars based on the wages they receive.
This.
And how would that work with the press and fans if they move out the complex? They have to be as close to the pitch and protected from people from outside.
That people make some sexism talk out of this is ridiculous. It’s about the money that both teams earn for the club. The youth team would have to move out for the pros as well and I swear none of you would say anything against this. There is no full equality when the men bring in 99,9% and pay for everything the women are using and used.
It’s very clear: there is no infrastructure, no pitch, no stadium, and retrospective no women‘s team if the men‘s team weren’t so rich.
The men‘s team is paying for the upkeep of all the infrastructure that the women are using. They are paying for the stadium, for the grass, for the greenkeepers, for everything. Even if the women now became profitable, they are still using the infrastructure that the men‘s team paid for.
Would you argue as well when the youth team would have to move out?
It’s madness, the men are paid for everything the women are using.
The men are bringing in 99% of the revenue. They are bringing the publicity, they are attracting sponsors and they built ALL the infrastructure. If the women‘s team is getting a new building, it would ALSO be paid by the men‘s team.
It would be complete nonsense to risk the men‘s performance for such a thing when they are the sole reason all the team exist. Even if it’s just 1% less performance, it’s not worth the risk.
It’s as simple as that: without a men‘s Manchester team, there is no female team. It doesn’t matter if they just became profitable, the men‘s spent millions over millions on the female team, the infrastructure and everything. The women‘s team don’t have to pay for none of that, otherwise they couldn’t even support themselves. If they had to pay for the infrastructure they use, they would be bankrupt within a year.
So dont bring up the illusions of the female teams being able to carry themselves when they are using the pitch, buildings, training grounds, stadiums, chefs, doctors, staff and everything else by the men’s team. Not even talking about the pull factor ,,man United“ for sponsors.
You're wrong. It's also not the men's team who paid for all of that - it's the fans.
You have a completely fucked up idea of what a club is supposed to be and there's obviously no point in arguing it with you.
I hope you have a good day.
The men's team paid for it by being man united. That's what the fans pay to see. Your whole argument was completely baseless and just saying "you're wrong, but there's no point" is a long way of saying you've been completely shown up
Yeah, and quite a lot from sponsorship, merchandise and content. According to some of the comments here, there's a belief that the men's team organise and seal all those sponsorship deals and do all the marketing and sales work.
And they are still not profitable. Even though they don’t have to pay for infrastructure, stadium, training grounds, chefs, Physios, doctors, pitches, logistics, management and upkeep or building it in the first place. They barely broke even only because they got a 3,9 million pound loan from the men‘s department - and that is without paying for any of the above which depends on the financial success of the men’s team.
Without a men‘s team, there is no women’s pro team at United.
While it’s not ideal, the club has a responsibility to give the most resources to the team that brings in 99,9% of the money. Just like u23 and youth get less resources than pros, has nothing to do with gender.
The MENS TEAM FANS. Stop pulling stuff out of your ass. Is it good that this happens? No. But the men‘s team is bringing in the money so the whole club has the duty to make sure they are able to bring in more money.
Of course you have to make some stupid sexism talk about it. I can guarantee the women don’t care because they know who’s funding their success.
If men‘s team perform worse and miss the champions league, they just managed to lose over 100 million due to sponsorship deals, player‘s worth and uefa prize money. That would hurt the women‘s team more indirectly than the women‘s team performing worse.
And if you say Brentford didn’t perform worse (which you wouldn’t know anyway), why is it an issue the women have to move, they won’t perform worse either?
The women‘s team doesn’t even have the money to build their own infrastructure.
And no matter how much money Manchester is missing due to worse performance of the female team (which is laughable, the female team can only survive due to the infrastructure and indirect financial aid the male’s team gives), I can guarantee it’s far less than if the male team performs worse. I would go so far that United wouldn’t even notice the difference, no matter how good or bad the female team performs, while the female team would notice right away when the men‘s pull their funding for infrastructure and staff.
I would bet that NONE of the female Manchester players are complaining about this. But you want to make a fucking sexism topic about it.
Again: it’s not ideal but the only logical answer is to focus on the performance of the team that brings in the money. And your argument about the youth team is stupid. They wouldnt have a perfect youth intake if the men’s team didn’t build the infrastructure for it. Without the men’s success, no youth team or women’s team.
Denying that is ridiculous.
I agree with you. And to turn it around, do we think United's administration decided to move the men's team into the women's facilities because they are sexist? Nah, it's always about the money, and this is the solution that (they think) is best for their business.
Exactly.
It’s just like the first team gets more funding than the u23. It’s not sexism, it’s business.
But people like that just have to make it about gender and sexism instead of thinking logically. And once they have no answers, they‘ll back out and call you sexist.
Optics ain’t great on that one
That’s not very united of them
Well someone told me it's Man United not Woman United 🤷♂️
noice
Disgraceful if it is true.
Why? There wouldn’t be any female, reserve, or youth teams without the men’s… if they can’t keep the main team happy and healthy then the other teams suffer far more than needing to use temporary facilities.
People want this to be sexist so much when it’s reality a financial decision that has ramifications across the board
This. Yeah it doesn’t look nice, but without the male‘s success there is NO infrastructure or staff for women‘s or youth teams. If youth teams had to move nobody would bat an eye.
The women’s team would suffer more if the men‘s team wasn’t successful enough to provide funding for all the infrastructure, the staff, chef, transportation, hotels, publicity for sponsors and and and.
But of course someone makes some sexist topic about it.
Not really
i love being a guy
Going to be tough for the women’s team to recruit elite players whilst based in portables, especially in comparison with other teams facilities.
Women players don’t make much money and there isn’t that much competition - if they’re offered a chance to play for one of the worlds top clubs and a decent paycheck then it won’t matter that for 12 months they may need to use temp dressing rooms. It’s not nearly as important as men’s football (I mean the state of facilities) p
They are professional athletes and are treated as such in every country with a professional women’s league, of course facilities are important. We’re not talking about the difference between one having a private rehab clinic and the other not, they are being put in portables.
It’s not some charity, if players are being recruited by top teams they are good enough to consider facilities as an important factor.
Hahahahaha let them share showers and changing rooms, equality after all
WHERE IS LE EQUALITEH!!
Nobody would give a flying fuck if the u23 had to use them or literally anyone else but reddit white knights love to make anything about gender discrimination
Portable buildings isn’t the issue, it’s the fact the women are being moved rather than just putting the men in the portable buildings
You can act all mighty and noble but the main team is and will always be a priority in every club in the world.
100%. Without the financial success of the male team, there is NO infrastructure for youth and female team. Even if we - for the sake of it - pretend that they can pay their own wages, they 1000% can’t pay for infrastructure, all the staff, training facilities, transportation, stadium and don’t have the pull factor for sponsors that the name Manchester United grants them.
Without a successful men’s team, there is no women‘s team because there is no infrastructure and extra money to support.
Nobody in their right mind would risk the men‘s performance when they are bringing in over 99% of the revenue. One bad year and it’s over a hundred million in lost opportunities that would ultimately indirectly affect the funding for youth and women‘s teams
But of course someone has to make a sexist topic off it when it’s just logical thinking. It’s not ideal but to pretend like the teams are equal in importance for the financial of the club is disingenuous.
If they displaced the women team to house u23 it would be even more fucked up, what is bro yapping about
Do they still have to make the sandwiches....
This thread confused me. So do we expect the women’s team to have better facilities than the men now? How, the fuck, does that make sense?
Don't think that's the point. It's that you would think to not disturb the women's team because of a renovation happening to the men's building. It's like kicking someone else out of their living room while yours is being renovated, you can justify it but it still comes across quite bad.
But it’s likely not seen as men / women’s sections so the women are just in an area of Carrington and men in a other so when Carrington is being renovated it’s every teams training facility,
I support women’s football and all that but you just can’t have women’s team in better facilities than men’s. If the u21s were asked to move across would their be uproar despite it have the same principle applied?
Whether it’s morally right or wrong (I think wrong but also completely get why it’s happening) isn’t really the point.
Man U pay people a lot of money to look at the PR point of view of every decision they make, and this just looks terrible. Every team in the country is taking steps to show that they are trying to raise their women’s teams to the level of the men’s, taking measures to make sure that no one devalues them - and here are Man U clearing out the women from their training area to make way for their men’s team because their training area is getting renovated - a very clear indication that they absolutely do not value the women’s team anywhere near the men’s. It might be necessary, it might be media spin, or it might be that there’s another side to it that isn’t being reported, but it’s really not a good look.
I support women’s football and all that but you just can’t have women’s team in better facilities than men’s.
God forbid they temporarily had nicer facilities, it could bring about the end times.
I don’t think this one really supports the women’s team.
Imagine we went into a season where our players were coming out of portacabins.
In what universe has any womens team had better facilities than the men? People treating this as abnormal are only doing so because one journo pretended this is out of the ordinary.
User deleted comment
11d
Because: the female game doesn’t bring in money or profit - the main team definitely pays for the rest there. Why would a net expense have better facilities than your most profitable department where it’s competitive to get players on things besides wage, like facilities
User deleted comment
10d
What ignorance? While the guys above did a bad job at explaining it properly, the core is true. It’s not about who gets the nicer buildings, it’s who‘s success is paying for the buildings. All the infrastructure the female team is using is paid for by the men. They might be able to support their own wages now after indirect and direct support, which is awesome, but in the end the men’s team is crucial for the success of the female team. Without the success of the men‘s team, there would be no infrastructure for the women’s team. No training facilities, no pitch, no buildings, no stadium, no big name sponsors that sponsor both teams, no chef, no doctors, no Physios.
To deny that is absolutely ridiculous. If the men‘s team went bankrupt (let’s pretend a single team could) today, the women‘s team would have to close down. If the women‘s team went bankrupt, nothing would change.
Would you cry if the youth team or u23 had to move for the male or female pros? No you wouldn’t. But because it’s the women’s team moving, you just HAVE to make it about gender.
Reminder: ITS NOT ABOUT GENDER, ITS ABOUT WHO IS NEEDED TO PAY FOR EVERYTHING. One bad season of the men’s team is more than a hundred million in lost money. That would indirectly not be available to support the infrastructure that is being used by women. So if they fail, the women‘s team would be hurting as well/
Is this ideal? No. It’s not a good thing. But if it comes down to it, you have to give the best you have to the one that is paying the bills.
Hey I did ok I thought ;)
Manchester United had a net revenue of 6.9m pounds - almost half of that was a loan from the men’s club (common practice for the premier clubs and their women’s teams) to help build the game. When you account for expenses like wages of players and staff, and what the cost of facilities (which they wouldn’t have without being a part of the broader ManU family), traveling, etc - then no they aren’t bringing in money or profitable (or at least not enough to have facilities like they do etc)
Youre trying to make this a dig as if I’m being sexist - I’m saying they don’t bring in money, as in enough to exist if there weren’t a mens team. Overtime this will change (hopefully) but that isn’t the case yet. The mens team is largest factor of their being a women’s, reserve, youth, and general employment of staff - having nice facilities is actually important to recruit players - making sure they are successful as possible in the PL leads to more money for the women’s team which hopefully builds it out into a sustainable and profitable leagu. But hey thanks for calling me ignorant
He won’t answer to this, as soon as logic and facts come and he can’t in his right mind argue against it, he’ll call you a sexist and flee.
If the u23 or youth would have to move, he would have kept his mouth shut. It’s not sexism.
Imagine we went into a season where our players were coming out of portacabins.
Oh the inhumanity! Better make others suffer it on their behalf.
In what universe has any womens team had better facilities than the men?
You're right, why haven't we enshrined this into law yet? Henceforth no women's team shall ever have better facilities than the men's team, not even temporarily, not while u/PunkDrunk777 draw's breath.
People treating this as abnormal are only doing so because one journo pretended this is out of the ordinary.
No, like I said, it's justifiable. The men's team is more important, it's a business, we all get it, but it still comes across quite bad.
You just fucking want to make this about gender, don’t you?
Picking Singular sentences out of long answers to make it sound like they ONLY do it because it’s women.
If a youth team or u23 had to move for the first team, you wouldn’t open your mouth.
Maybe the worse performing team should have the portable building
I didn’t even know they had a women’s team until now
Yeah exactly, I watch the Womens tournaments but I'd rather watch the Championship than the women's prem
I mean, they won the FA Cup this year, and have been battling hard at the top of the league for a while now. It's not like they're some amateur/semi-pro team completely unsupported by the wider organisation.
Regardless of gender this is how it works. In my hometown the Woman’s team is levels above the men’s and when they were laying new grass & building lockers rooms they moved in to the next best. (Which was the men’s)
Woman’s team is probably a lot easier to accommodate. But also a major factor should be who collects the most revenue.
Another example of this is at work we’re selling an entire floor. Instead of relocating the staff for that floor, the entire staff will all move up a floor.
I‘m saying the same. Of course PR wise this is a disaster but in the end the male team is paying for all the infrastructure, the facilities for male, youth and female teams and everything that the women can use as well. If there is no financial success in the men‘s department, there women‘s facilities wouldn’t be anywhere near the level they are now.
They could have done a better PR job nonetheless.
It's difficult to argue the United mens team is leagues above the women's though in anything other than revenue, they are both in the top league, both won the FA cup last season, women's team finished 5th and mens team 8th
They are though, totally different competitions. If the two faced the score would reach double digits.
And Manchester United is an incredibly indebted corporation who sells entertainment and fashion based on the support and viewership of its teams
Sure, but that revenue is what paid and paved the way for there to even be a Woman’s team.
If the last few years have shown anything, it's the United men's team are amongst the most overpaid, unprofessional brats in the game. Move them into portable buildings for a while.
The women’s team pulls in no money and the men’s team is well Manchester United. So it makes perfect sense to do it this way
The women's team is also "well Manchester United"
They are but I mean it in the sense without the men’s team the club would not be what it is at all. We could lose the women’s team and still have old Trafford and be one of the biggest clubs in the world
£8 million revenue last season, expected to be larger this season.
Average cost of £440,000 amongst WSL clubs in 2023.
This whole ‘they are not profitable’ blabber is exactly that, blabber.
Yet without the men‘s team they wouldn‘t be anywhere where they are now. All the facilities, the training grounds, the staff, the stadium. All of it was paid for by the men‘s team for a long long long long time.
This is still a PR disaster and could have been solved better. But to pretend like it’s sexism or inequality is stupid when the male team is bringing in 99,9% of the revenue and providing all the infrastructure for the women to use. So it only makes sense, just like the youth team would have to move out if the pros need the facilities.
Not sure what that £440k figure is from but the Manchester United Women's team wages are about £3.5m. According to their latest set of accounts they made a loss in 22/23.
That’s because it’s a straw man argument.
Nobody said they weren't profitable. They just bring in very little revenue compared to the men team. £8 million is a lot less than £600 million.
Also around 50% of the 7 million revenue was a loan from…. The men‘s team. If I didn’t have to pay for any infrastructure, buildings, pitches, staff, stadium, management, legal and so on, I would also be profitable. Pretending like they are profitable is disingenuous.
The decision is questionable, but it has nothing to do with sexism like many here want to make it sound. Just like the u23 or youth get less resources than both pro teams.
The men's team made more than £8m just with their terrible performances in the Champions League this season...
They almost made more with two home gamesto be honest, which should probably rake in 4-6 m per game. Probably more with sales around the stadium.
Somehow I really don't think the profitability of Man United is down to the on-field performance of the men's team.
Manchester United has a lot of guaranteed revenue through commercial deals, but a lot of that revenue is also performance based, in the sense that the better United perform the more matches they will play and they will then have more matches broadcasted. Many bonuses from commercial partners are directly related to their (the partners) exposure, which again is directly tied to how many matches United play and how many times their matches are broadcasted.
Match-day revenue is also very important, especially for a club who has a big stadium like United. The better they perform the more matches they play the more match day revenue they'll make.
A really bad performance can turn a club from profit the last season to go in minus the following season. And almost all of United's revenue is tied to the men's team (which is only natural as women's football has only recently started to gain traction).
No but the means team literally pays for the women’s team. As in the women wouldn’t have carrington or the new training ground when it’s built if they weren’t being subsidised. The women’s team make 1% of the income.
Easy thing to check is how many people do you see wearing women’s players names on their football shirts vs men’s team players?
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
In the short term this is probably for the best. It’s unlikely the woman’s team is profitable so it makes sense to do this as it should allow the men’s team to perform better
Then they should stop being misogynists and step and support the women.
For what, charity?
Maybe they should bring in more money then
Its the mens team who brings in the money and makes it possible to even have a womens team. Women should start watching womens football so it becomes more viable financially, they are half the population, but the sad truth is that not even women are interested in womens football.
I’ve been to a bunch of women’s team games with my daughter, and it’s great for her to have players to look up to. The stadia are always full of women and girls too tbh.
Hopefully your daughters generation will make womens football great again. I notice an attitude change among people when it comes to the womens game and thats good to see
The money is in tv and advertising not ticket sales
I just know that the "journalist" who got a hold of this story first was laughing maniacally while writing this shit down. What a perfect story to generate engagement, fucking trash
The journalist who wrote this article purely covers women's football, so obviously they're going to write an article based on their experiences of how women's football is treated in this country.
I'm not entirely sure I'd put them in the same cesspit as all the journos who were spouting shit all season about #TenHagOut and that he was 100% guaranteed gone... only to then have to write an article about him staying and being in contract talks with the club lol
wow that explains a lot actually
So glad to see a rival say this
I hate y'all. But I despise journalists. Actual common enemy
I knew Ineos were not going to take the women's team seriously when they gave Marc Skinner a new contract. The chap is an absolute spoofer. Mary Earp's is now off to PSG.
Jimmy Rathcliffe was also meant to start a women's cycling team and brought in Pauline Ferrand Prevot. Then basically just left her to her own devices to train and compete alone in Mountain Bike and Cyclo-cross, and never got around to getting her a Road Race team to ride with. She's leaving now.
I wouldn't be shocked if they let the women's team fold or gives it separation from the Man Utd business to function on its own, whilst just taking the Man It's branding.
Man Utd refuse to pay their women's players fair wages. I mean last season they refused a transfer offer for Russo, refused to give her a new contract, and then lost her on a free transfer anyway. So yeah... I was kinda hoping that the "sporting review" done by Ineos would spot these issues and do something to fix them, not just let them continue.
I will say, that they probably can't afford the bad publicity of losing the women's team. They will continue to give them the minimal amount of support it requires to compete at a pretty competitive level. Just enough to make it look like they care.
She's basically still the best in the world and on her own it's crazy.
User deleted comment
11d
Articles like these are as sure as night following day down at the Guardian. They'd have lost their own morality points if they'd failed to mention it.
As a woman, a lot of these comments are so disappointing (though not surprising).
How do you expect women to compete on crowds/revenue when this is the way they’re constantly treated? How can they improve their product on the field without investment into their coaching and medical staff, facilities, etc.?
I would just ask you to keep in mind that for those of us having a negative response to this, it’s not a response to this as an isolated event. This is part of a worldwide pattern – so yes, it is very frustrating to see this sort of thing happen again and again and again.
And then to have to see all the “but the revenue!” comments, as though nobody should ever invest in something that isn’t already wildly profitable…it’s just really disheartening to be completely honest.
You is expecting womens football to compete with men in crowd and revenue you cleary have no idea of how football and sports in general works.
Even if womens football had the same infrastructure as mens football since the beggining still would be way worse still would be at the same level as u17 boys football and no one would watch
Moderator removed comment
10d
Your post has been removed for violating Reddiquette.
We encourage all members to adhere to these guidelines to maintain a positive and inclusive environment for everyone.
For a comprehensive understanding of Reddiquette, please refer to the Reddiquette guidelines provided by Reddit.
If you have any questions or concerns, feel free to reach out.
Thank you for your understanding and cooperation.
They're temporarily moving out of a newly constructed top of the range facility purpose built for them, they still have access to a lot of it as well.
I agree it's not a good optic to be moving them out even temporarily, but I don't really see what they could have done, whatever backlash they get for this decision will be less than they receive if they'd put the men's team in temporary buildings. I think a lot of people are also picturing some horrible dingy portable cabin like we had in school which I highly doubt they will be
Built for them by the men‘s team. While all of this is not ideal, let’s not pretend that the women’s team would exist without the men‘s team. All the infrastructure they use was built from the money the men‘s team brought it. Stadiums, training facilities, chefs, doctors, staff, transportation, all indirectly paid by the men‘s team.
So while there might be some team that can support their own wages, everything off the pitch is paid by the men‘s team. If the men‘s team vanished today, the women‘s team couldn’t pay the bills and upkeep of the facilities for a year.
It’s not about gender, nobody would cry if the u23 or youth would move out for the men’s team.
Give it a rest, I’ve read all these comments and really no one has mentioned sexism. You want to bring it up.
The points are fair and they exist because of the men’s team. We get it. Doesn’t make it any more or less justified and it is what it is.
But let’s not act like the men’s team are high and mighty to a point that moving those brats to a temporary facility wouldn’t be beneficial to both teams. They’re not going to lose profit because of that. As you mentioned earlier, having them train elsewhere would only look bad for optics, but one could argue that this is worse for optics. They wouldn’t suffer, and would be fine training at a decent facility close by. They’re not in Europe anyways. They’ll still have OT and they’ll always be raking in money with their brand, I mean club.
Utter nonsense. Firstly, the top of this thread made it about a "worldwide issue" of sexism. Secondly, they could quite easily lose profit if they are trying to sign a player and have to show them temporary training facilities, that could be the difference in a signing. Thirdly "they are not in Europe anyway" so? They play in the most intense, difficult league in the world, a league often decided by margins. You have absolutely no evidence to suggest "it wouldn't affect them anyway". Finally, absolutely hilarious a Chelsea fan could talk about a team of "brats" unironically Jesus christ.
How can they lose profit on a player they havent signed by showing them facilities? Signing a player doesn’t directly give them profit. Next.
Training facilities could affect them. But they’re still playing in front of OT and will have their commercial success either way. If they’re out of Europe, that’s the long run of the PL, which they couldn’t show up for even without temporary facilities this year.
Get a grip, dear lord. I’m calling out their attitude and “fight” (if you call it that) for the club badge. Man U’s players have A LOT of self reflection to do to reach that standard they’re so used to. They could use a reallity and attitude check, clearly last year wasn’t it. They’ve got a squad to do it and no reason they should be playing like they were last year.
Chelsea has a young, undeveloped squad. While I can acknowledge there’s a lot they need to work on, we can attest that to mainly being so young and less experienced.
First point: signing a player absolutely does directly give profit. Sponsorship deals, advertisement deals, shirt sales, I could go on, can all transform overnight with the right player. United have bought players literally for this purpose for years, why do you think they keep buying massive name players they don't need, who aren't going to impact the squad in the right way? For the commercial aspect. If a player is in two minds, and one club has temporary facilities and the other doesn't, that could easily be a deal breaker. Weird argument you just tried to make.
You've just tried to tie in commercial and performance aspects. Training facilities can affect them, and that's not somehow refuted by "they still play at OT". They played relatively poorly last season in the league, but that was an exception. Google how many times united have finished outside the top 4 in the past 20 years. Even last season, we won the FA cup in a final I can guarantee you said we would get hammered in. I won't even mention Chelseas absolutely abysmal performances because it's irrelevant.
Calling out their "fight"... why? What's your opinion on how hard they tried got to do with whether the men or women should change facilities? If facility decisions were decided by heart, you'd have every clubs training ground full of u10s who run around loads. Again, it's a very very strange thing for a Chelsea fan to bring up, you haven't had a single player play for the badge since.... well, I couldn't even tell you. Chelsea are the biggest mercenary team in the entire league.
You’re a Man U fan, I get it now. You’ve got fair points, as are mine, but I couldn’t be bothered to go on about them. I can at least tell you we’ve finished above you after “abysmal” performances, have a handful of academy players (and more talent there than you Man U could dream of) more than willing to fight for the club on top of others while you have/had the highest wage bill in the league to have players run around mindlessly and promote your brand and stock. The only thing your club is building is a new roof.
You finished above us in a trophyless season. I would rather win the FA Cup and miss out on Champs League which we definitely won't progress in (nor will you) than a finish 3rd with no trophy. Its an objectively better season.
Who are these academy talents you are talking about exactly? More than we could dream of 😂 Give me one as good as Mainoo or Garnacho (granted signed him at 15 but still played in the academy, both would absolutely waltz into your side. You barely played an academy player and the only reason there's quality in Chelseas "academy" is because they have always brought in the best youths and then wasted their talent by going for foreign products, most of which don't work out. Go ahead, which academy players put our youth prospects to shame?
How about one that started the UCL final? Or the starting CB that top clubs are after in Colwill? James who’s one of the best RBs out there when fit (your rebuttal of “but but he’s injured!” Is already tiring and an easy cop out), Gallagher who’s played almost every game and would help your midfield out a bit.
Our boards absurd and dreadful spending doesn’t cover the fact that Chelsea’s academy has been leagues above anything Man U has put out.
They are temporarily vacating a multi million pound facility that they would never have been able to afford if it had to be paid for from revenue generated by the women's team.
The mens team facilities need a revamp and rather than have them use porter cabins while its done they built a second facility. It killed two birds with one stone. The mens team continue to have access to top notch facilities and aside from this season the women's team get a top of the line modern base at the clubs main training facilities.
The optics suck but it doesn't take much thought to realise this would have been the plan all along and the women's team would have known about it from the start so its not a surprise to them.
How do you expect women to compete on crowds/revenue when this is the way they’re constantly treated?
The women's game gets vastly more coverage than it should do based on the actual level of interest people have in it. Attendances are roughly in line with League Two and ticket prices are much cheaper.
As an example take last nights turgid England game. I watched it at the pub and the place was absolutely rammed. Standing room only both inside and out as well as long waits at the bar. Its the same every game at major finals.
Compare that to the Women's Euro final in 2022. I went to the same pub and got there just before kick off expecting it to be busy. It wasn't and there were multiple tables available for the entirety of the game and bar staff stood round waiting to serve people. Only one group seemed to be really into it with the rest just watching quietly or not paying attention at all.
If the national team cant even muster up much public interest when they are playing in an international final then it begs the question why does the sport get the amount of press coverage it does?
The 2022 Women's World Cup final was attended by 87,192 in Wembley and 17.4 million watched it on TV.
Tickets were also given away en masse and not even 10% the cost of the men's final
Individual games can attract a significant crowd. The difference is that currently the WSL gets average attendances to league matches in line with League Two men's games.
The Women's game is not currently well followed. The Euros and World cup may draw decent TV numbers but people are watching those games are not actively following the sport as a whole.
I know a lot of people both men and women who actively follow the men's game supporting many different clubs. I know of only one person who closely follows and supports a club in the women's leagues.
Doesn't mean that it wont increase in popularity but its wrong to suggest that it is popular using examples of one off matches.
Men’s clubs had to build themselves from the ground up once upon a time. Had all the same struggles women have and more but women’s team and women like you want to skip the hard part. Go look at the history of the men’s game in England and the ups and downs there endured to get where it is today. Now you want to start halfway up the ladder based on your gender? I’m sorry but it’s outrageous that you call sexism on this as you have earnt nothing yourselves and then whinge that being a woman is a disadvantage. I would argue it’s the other way rounds as no one game the men’s game as many handouts as the women’s game has received
Oh shut up. The Men's game has never had to deal with the struggles of the Women's game. The Professional Women's game was banned for a long time, and resisted for years by sexist dinosaurs at FIFA, the FA, and elsewhere.
The women’s game wasn’t professional then you idiot.
Had all the same struggles women have and more
Oh? I didn't realise that the FA banned men from playing football, and refused to give England players any recognition.
The men's game has built itself to an absolutely immense size, so why shouldn't teams use that financial muscle to help raise the women's game? A rising tide lifts all boats... Do you think that the competitive success of Arsenal and Chelsea over the years has had no impact on the revenue of the overall businesses?
I’m talking about the build up of the professional leagues. Women do have the financial backing from men’s football and still are complaining.
The women’s game used to bring in utterly insane numbers, as in 45,000 in 1921… So they banned it. As in made an actual LAW saying women couldn’t play professional in their Own league which lasted for 50 years.
Women’s football did build itself up from the ground up until the FA got butthurt and legally forbid it from being more than a park past time.
If the women’s game gets more support than you think it should now just know it’s not even a fraction of what it actually deserves given the degree it was crippled for years
You do know that when football came around women had very limited rights? Not mentioning that suggest you actually think they had a fair chance to build the game up for themselves back in the day which is just blatantly untrue.
They have more than a fair chance now to build their game, in fact more financial backing than men ever had at the start. There’s no chance that women’s teams go bankrupt as they are funded by men’s football. So why is it struggling to take off?
Did bro really say mens football had the same struggles as womens AND more?
LOOOL the FA literally banned women from playing the game for 50 years
We’re talking about the investment available to women’s football now. Men didn’t have that at the start, women do now and it’s still struggling to take off. Why is that? Maybe because not many women are behind women’s football??
What a jackass.
We’re talking about the investment available to women’s football now.
that’s not what you are talking about in your post. You’re talking about history and past struggles.
He’s moving the goalposts because he’s whining that he was called out for his nonsense
Of the professional game and how it wasn’t easy to get to where men’s football is now
that’s fine, and I don’t disagree. This part though is completely nonsense.
Had all the same struggles women have and more
Not sure what you’ve got that compares with women being banned from playing professional football by the football association for 50 years, because the sport was deemed unsuitable for females and not to be encouraged.
but I’m all ears to be educated.
Yes struggles in getting their respective professional leagues profitable and self sufficient. It’s got nothing to do with women’s football being banned back in the 1920s. Women’s football wasn’t professional then either so I not sure why you keep focusing on this point when it’s nothing to do with the original comment
It couldn’t be professional because it was banned mate, that’s the point. While the mens game was developing in the 1920s to 1970 womens professional football was not allowed.
I’m not entirely sure how you can discuss the profit and sustainability historically of the mens and womens games without talking about the ban. Because the ban subsequently stopped the woman game from developing for 50 years. That was something the mens game didn’t encounter.
but im all ears on how they had it harder if you’re willing to explain
Exactly what I was thinking. Women team need time and support and eventually they will bring in money. Women's football will grow and United should not be treating their women's team as a joke.
Even men's team was low at some time. They were supported and still are. Same needs to be done to women's football
Unfortunately, the women’s game is still too far behind.
Like, we won the FA Cup and people didn’t care. Just like when we lost the final last year and most United fans in the stadium were like “it’s not a real FA Cup final, anyway”. Which saddens mean but we got to accept the United is a male football club first and foremost and that’s where their priorities will lie.
We (women’s team) playing at Old Trafford is just a faff nothing more.
I am more worried by lacking of ambition via no signings and letting some of our players go, mainly Russo last year and now Mary.
You won the FA Cup this year, while all the "important" members of the board were at Old Trafford to watch the men's team.
The Russo situation was really eye opening to me. The fact that Man Utd turned down a record transfer fee, still refused to give her a decent contract, and then let her go on a free transfer... it just blows my mind. If the transfer fee meant that little to them, then surely giving her an improved contract wouldn't mean much to them, right?
As an Arsenal fan, I'm happy that she's with us now. But Man Utd are honestly a stain on women's football at this point, and I would much rather they properly supported the team and the sport as a whole.
I do think revenue matters though.
You can't run a business without money and ManU is a business. But to that point, if the woman's team could produce bigger crowds and had more fan interest, then at that point revenue shouldn't be an issue and they would hopefully be self sustainable.
Now this is glossing over a lot of different aspects, but it boils down to they need more fans in the seats at games.
From both Male and Female peerage. Without that, nothing changes.
The only way the women get a chance to compete at all is because they are subsidized by the men's game, which is higher quality, higher pace and more lucrative. If women want to setup their own women-owned clubs and drive their own success, they are welcome to. But they don't because they know they do better by getting handouts from the men. Part of that deal is if the men's team need something they get first dibs.
The only way the women get a chance to compete at all is because they are subsidized by the men's game
The only reason they need it, is because the FA banned professional women's football for 50 years because they were worried women's football was going to challenge men's football
Part of that deal is if the men's team need something they get first dibs.
Christ what a load of sexist shite
What drivel. The women could setup their own team tomorrow if they wanted. But none of them do, because they want to have the subsidy from a men's team. You have been watching too many Marvel movies. It isn't sexist to accept that in the real world women's football is far inferior to men's. That is why 14 year olds can best them.
You have been watching too many Marvel movies. It isn't sexist to accept that in the real world women's football is far inferior to men's. That is why 14 year olds can best them.
Women's tennis at grand slams often gets similar or even more viewership than men's tennis, yet women lose to men any time one tries somewhat.
It's not about equivalent skill, it's about treating them equally and viewers will come.
The Euros final for example got 25m viewers in the UK, the men's final in comparison got 30m.
It's not particularly dissimilar, despite your sexist bullshit.
That's because tennis is the rare sport where it gets more boring as players get better. The women's game has more rallies because they aren't as good at serving. The men's game has so many points from killer serves it makes it very stop start because there are so few returns.
Compare to football and its the opposite. The women's game is just less fun to watch. They run slower, they pass slower, they tackle weaker, they shoot with less power and over shorter distances. It is the same reason the Serie A is less interesting than the Premiership but times ten. It's just a less exciting game. And I have tried to watch women's football, especially the Lionesses, but it is just less exciting. The U21s are far more entertaining.
I literally just gave you examples of women's football being widely watched and supported
Look at the average league game attendance not a one off international final.
No, look at matches where the Footballing organisations, media, corporations and so on treat women's football on the same level as men's.
But sure, the Arsenal women's team averaged 52,000 last season. We treat our women's team as an actual team and not some charity spin off and guess what? People responded
It's normal in any business for commercially poor employees to not be treated as well as the commercial performers. A meritocracy isn't sexist.
Is it normal for businesses to specifically target women?
It's not a meritocracy at all. The women's team are much better than the men's team in their respective leagues.
Because the women's league is approximately at the Northern Counties East League, if that.
The Man Utd women's team didn't do better than the men's team last year. They finished 5th out of 12 where as the men finished 8th out of 20. They also both won the FA cup.
If the men are considered to have had a crap season then you have to say the same about the women's team as they basically finished the same.
It's not unheard of but that's not what's happening here as Utd have a men and women's team so I don't see your point.
Let’s be real, there’s no competition since it’s technically impossible for women to compete on the same level. Even the best play at the men’s youth team level. But the treatment is still ugly and wrong.
Where did I or anyone say they would compete on the same level 🤔 You people are exhausting. But appreciate the recognition that this treatment is wrong.
Nah they are, and some of you are wrong for this.
They’re a professional team, they’re not your fucking reserves side.
They’d bring in more money if you weren’t too busy talking into the echo chamber being your boyfriends that they’re not good enough or ‘no one watches them’.
Men should have to relocate elsewhere, not the women’s team.
Why do they have to use their only other professional teams training site? Why not I don’t know, their youth teams? The semi-professionals?
The youth team building is the same as the women's teams building, you'd have known that if you'd read past the headline...
Would they bring in that much more money though? Sure they might win something, but just as another person stated: they won the FA Cup and nobody batted an eye. It’s growing, sure, but it’s not there yet.
They just need Caitlin Clark 😂😂
Hey! It’s almost like, I already referenced that misogyny is actually impairing women’s football more than women’s football is itself.
I hate Arsenal and Chelsea as much as the next person, they’re selling out stadiums, no? Not just small stadiums either, the Emirates and Stamford Bridge, regularly. Are they not doing something right that down to football operations makes them undeserving of mens football audiences? Is there much more that either club have control over in that sense? Do you just expect them to irradiate misogyny too?
I’m not saying it’s right at all. Hell, put the men’s team in portable buildings, I don’t care. Selling out stadiums is great. How is the TV viewership I wonder? How about the money brought in by sponsors? I’m not saying these things should change either, the women’s game is growing and deserves more money, just posing questions.
11 missing replies
Fellow fans, this is a friendly reminder to please follow the Rules and Reddiquette.
Please also make sure to Join us on Discord
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.