Originally Posted by
Pretty Boy
Women's football isn't about the bottom line right now and whilst I am critical of the current custodians of the club in other areas the fact they seem to grasp this is laudable and encouraging.
You have to consider that we are realistically only in the 2nd generation of women's football as a serious spectator and participation sport. The game was de facto banned in several countries, Scotland included, until fairly recently. There is a clear direction of travel worldwide and that is upwards; Scotland can either get on board with that or much like the men's game get left behind. Given the tendency of Scottish football fans towards the small c conservative I feel there is an inevitability about it being the latter.
It's not about the women's game somehow supplanting the men's team but rather one that compliments it as part of a holistic one club approach. The club aggressively marketed the men's team towards women in the early 00s and you only have to look around you at Easter Road these days to see the success of that. There are a myriad of reasons why our crowds are up significantly on the 80s and 90s but at least part of the reason is the higher percentage of women now attending games.
The aggressive marketing of the women's game has had similar success elsewhere. England reached the final of the Euros in 2009 and the semi final that year attracted 2000 fans, the final 15K. Contrast that to 2022 in England. 70K at Old Trafford for the opening game, 30K at both the quarter and semi finals and close to 90K at the final. That has started to filter down the club game as well; 5 years ago Man Utd women attacted an average crowd of 2000, the last 2 seasons it has been just over 10K. A 500% increase in half a decade. Man City are averaging 7K up from just over 1K 6 years ago. I'm aware those average are skewed by massive crowds for derbies played at Old Trafford and the Etihad but why shouldn't they count? It's games that people made the choice and effort to go out and attend.
The transfer feeds paid in the women's game is on the same trajectory. From 2002 to 2020 the increase in the record fee was £50K. In the 4 years since 2000 that record has been broken year on year and increased by 71% in only 18 months. The decade of the first million pound women's player is already here, it's a matter of time now.
Add in the fact that the standard of the game has improved dramatically in the last decade, anyone arguing otherwise is seeing what they want to see. Leaving tired comparisons with the men's game aside and comparing it solely against the women's game from 10 years ago and it's an inarguable fact. It's that marketing and investment that is causation for that increase in standard.
All of that comes together to make the game more attractive to sponsors, more attractive to TV companies and more attractive to the paying public. Of course it's not directly comparable to the men's game but it only seems to be critics who want to make that the case. It's shouldn't be comparable though because for all the increases in investment the money spent on players, on infrastructure, on marketing and so on is a fraction of what is spent on the men's game.
The bottom line right now is only part of it. If I was to say that the Hibs boys academy was a total waste of time and money because in the last 10 years we have had Josh Campbell and Ryan Porteous to show for millions of pounds spent on it, directly and indirectly, then I'd be rightly shouted down and called short sighted. The women's game is (very) broadly the same, it's not about a return on a pretty minuscule investment right now, it's about being able to think about 10-20 years in the future and where we will be if the growth of the game globally continues at the same rate.
