2023 FIFA Women's World Cup

[jeremyp]

This isn't big ... it is biggest ... of all time in Australia - that's astonishing in my opinion.

Yes it is astonishing but that doesn't mean football is big in Australia.

Oh and on your Torville & Dean comment - was this the most watched tv event of all time in the UK. Is it in the top 10 most watched tv events of all time in the UK. Is it the top tv sporting event of all time in the UK. I think you may well know the answers to those questions.

You miss the point. A large TV audience does not imply a huge following for the sport. Torvill and Dean got a huge audience, maybe not top ten, but nobody cares about ice dance in the more general sense.

[ProfessorDavey]

You miss the point. A large TV audience does not imply a huge following for the sport. Torvill and Dean got a huge audience, maybe not top ten, but nobody cares about ice dance in the more general sense.

Torville and Dean got a huge audience in 1994 because they'd become A-list celebs by then, largely on the back of their Olympics win in 1984. It was Torville and Dean who were big not the sport itself. That isn't really comparable for the Matildas - where are the A list celebs, even in Australia. Sam Kerr, perhaps, but the others - I doubt even in Australia that many of them would have easily picked out in an identity parade prior to this tournament.

But, if you want any kind of comparison, better to look at the viewing figures they got when they actually won in 1984. This is a much better comparison - sports-people without huge public profile nor recognition and without a track record at that point of winning stuff (or coming close to winning stuff). For the record - their actually winning performance (in 1984) from a position of relative obscurity not only wan't in the top 10 of all time, but not in the top 10 just in 1984.

[jeremyp]

How big a challenge is Spain in the final? They must be good to have got to the final, although maybe they were lucky in their opponents thus far (I don't know, I'm just wondering).

They won't be a pushover. Spain are sixth in the World. The knocked out Sweden (third in the world) and the Netherlands (ninth). Their first knockout opponents were Switzerland (20th), which is not so impressive.

England (fourth in the world) have knocked out Australia (10th, but with home advantage), Colombia (25th), Nigeria (40th). Our route to the final was easier. Our best performance so far based on the rankings is pulverising China (14th) in the group stages.

All of the above is a little bit academic since this tournament didn't exactly go to form with the top two in the world going out before the quarter finals.

[jeremyp]

Torville and Dean got a huge audience in 1994 because they'd become A-list celebs by then, largely on the back of their Olympics win in 1984. If you want any kind of comparison, better to look at the viewing figures they got when they actually won in 1984. This is a much better comparison - sports-people without huge public profile nor recognition and without a track record at that point of winning stuff (or coming close to winning stuff). For the record - their actually winning performance (in 1984) from a position of relative obscurity not only wan't in the top 10 of all time, but not in the top 10 just in 1984.

Football is not big in Australia and just because a football match got a spectacular rating does not change that.

Now shut up about it. If you want to carry on discussing it, don't derail this thread, create another one.

[ProfessorDavey]

Football is not big in Australia and just because a football match got a spectacular rating does not change that.

And how exactly do you determine whether a sport is 'big' or not. There is a certain level of historical inertia - oh sport X, or sport Y is the biggest in country Z - why? Cos we say it is, and because we've always said it is. Rubbish way of assessing things.

Surely a sport is big is a large number of people watch it (whether live or on tv) and/or play it.

Good example - Wales and rugby. We are always told that rugby is the nation sport and the welsh aren't interested in football. Yet - there are more football clubs in Wales than rugby clubs, more registered football players, greater crowds at club level in football. The only thing that puts rugby ahead are the 'event' fans who like to watch the 6-nations, but probably have no idea how their local club is doing.

Now shut up about it. If you want to carry on discussing it, don't derail this thread, create another one.

So no actual argument I see - it isn't a derail. I think talking about whether the women's world cup is popular or nor is pretty well smack on topic for a thread about the women's world cup. If there is any derail it is your irrelevant comparison with two celebs coming out of retirement for one final crack at an Olympic title.

[jeremyp]

And how exactly do you determine whether a sport is 'big' or not. There is a certain level of historical inertia - oh sport X, or sport Y is the biggest in country Z - why? Cos we say it is, and because we've always said it is. Rubbish way of assessing things.

Surely a sport is big is a large number of people watch it (whether live or on tv) and/or play it.

Good example - Wales and rugby. We are always told that rugby is the nation sport and the welsh aren't interested in football. Yet - there are more football clubs in Wales than rugby clubs, more registered football players, greater crowds at club level in football. The only thing that puts rugby ahead are the 'event' fans who like to watch the 6-nations, but probably have no idea how their local club is doing.
So no actual argument I see - it isn't a derail. I think talking about whether the women's world cup is popular or nor is pretty well smack on topic for a thread about the women's world cup. If there is any derail it is your irrelevant comparison with two celebs coming out of retirement for one final crack at an Olympic title.

I've decided to stop arguing with you about it on this thread because you can be a stubborn jackass taking things way too far and you tend to derail threads when you do and others contribute. Create another thread if you want to carry on this side discussion.

This is the last response I am making here about this distraction.

[ProfessorDavey]

I've decided to stop arguing with you about it on this thread because you can be a stubborn jackass taking things way too far and you tend to derail threads when you do and others contribute. Create another thread if you want to carry on this side discussion.

This is the last response I am making here about this distraction.

Yawn - pot and kettle.

Taking a thread about the women's world cup down a rabbit hole of 1984 winning ice dance champions is just about the definition of a derail.

[ProfessorDavey]

Alexa not impressed

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-66508514

Appalling, but somehow not unexpected!

[ProfessorDavey]

Good example - Wales and rugby. We are always told that rugby is the nation sport and the welsh aren't interested in football. Yet - there are more football clubs in Wales than rugby clubs, more registered football players, greater crowds at club level in football. The only thing that puts rugby ahead are the 'event' fans who like to watch the 6-nations, but probably have no idea how their local club is doing.

And we have a similar thing here.

Apparently the highest viewing figures for a sporting event in Wales aren't for some grand slam winning rugby match, nor their rugby world cup semi final match. Nope - Wales v Belgium in the Euros semi final football.

So I think some claims for a particular sport being the 'biggest' in a country don't necessarily stand up to scrutiny.

[ProfessorDavey]

Football is not big in Australia and just because a football match got a spectacular rating does not change that.

Except it is - certainly in terms of active participation in organised clubs - and by some considerable margin:

https://thenewdaily.com.au/sport/football/2016/12/08/most-popular-sport-in-australia/

So perhaps we should be less surprised that the biggest sport in the country in terms of grass roots participation gets the biggest viewing figures of all time when one of its national teams gets to the semi final of a global tournament.

But hey, ho - we all know that football isn't big in Australia, cos that's what we've been told.

[ProfessorDavey]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-66535460

'Spain's Queen Letizia will fly to Australia to attend Sunday's World Cup final in Sydney but no British royals will be present.'

Thoughts on this one.

On another site I follow there has been robust debate around this. One view being that as William is president of the FA it should be part and parcel of his duties in this role to attend a world cup final involving an FA team. Another point being that Charles is head of state not just of one of the countries participating but also of the host nation, so the royal family should be represented.

Now I am no royalist, but we keep getting told about all the hard work the royals put in for the organisations they are patrons - but that doesn't seem to extend to getting to Australia to represent the royal family, the FA and support the women's team. But then again I don't think William has the slightest interest in football - like Cameron he seems to claim in public to be an Aston Villa support, but no-one can work out why!

The alternative view is that a seat taken up be some disinterested royal would be better taken by an actual fan (good point), and not great for the planet to fly to Australia just for this - but then the royals with their multiple houses, entourages etc, etc already have carbon footprints what would make most of us wince.

[ProfessorDavey]

If England win I wonder if the government will be less tone deaf than they were last summer when they won the Euros and there was no invite from the PM for a reception at no10.

I'd love it if Rishi invites them and they tell him to sod off as the government snubbed them last summer.

[Nearly Sane]

If England win I wonder if the government will be less tone deaf than they were last summer when they won the Euros and there was no invite from the PM for a reception at no10.

I'd love it if Rishi invites them and they tell him to sod off as the government snubbed them last summer.

From the game's point of view though that would seem to be counterproductive.

[ProfessorDavey]

From the game's point of view though that would seem to be counterproductive.

Possible, although not convinced.

In a battle for the hearts and minds of the public between the current government and Weigman's team I think there will only be one winner.

I think in terms of recognition of the women's game there would be a pretty cogent argument along the lines of - why weren't we afforded official recognition last year when we won the Euros, why no senior representation from either government or royals at the final - unthinkable either of those things would have happened for a men's team winning the Euros or being in a world cup final.

[ProfessorDavey]

From the game's point of view though that would seem to be counterproductive.

Actually the government are in a lose/lose situation.

Having singularly ignored the women's team last year and through this competition they could be consistent and ignore them if they win and face criticism for that. Alternatively they could be all over the team if they win and be accused of rank hypocrisy and bandwagon jumping.

Perhaps the government only win if England lose!!

[Nearly Sane]

Possible, although not convinced.

In a battle for the hearts and minds of the public between the current government and Weigman's team I think there will only be one winner.

I think in terms of recognition of the women's game there would be a pretty cogent argument along the lines of - why weren't we afforded official recognition last year when we won the Euros, why no senior representation from either government or royals at the final - unthinkable either of those things would have happened for a men's team winning the Euros or being in a world cup final.

I'd suggest the publicity from attending such a reception  would be positive, with little downside. Allowing the team to become politicised, in particularly party politcised which this would do, seems useless in a game looking for universal appeal.

[ProfessorDavey]

I'd suggest the publicity from attending such a reception  would be positive, with little downside. Allowing the team to become politicised, in particularly party politcised which this would do, seems useless in a game looking for universal appeal.

Of course, you are probably right and I doubt the FA would allow them to snub a reception, but it would be funny!

If they win, I doubt they'll need much publicity. And the match itself, plus return from Australia and the open top bus celebrations etc will get far greater publicity that some photo ops with the PM at Downing St. That would be more beneficial to Sunak than the team.

But surely the message they will be trying to get across, outside of the celebrations, will be about working towards greater equality in football. Now there are all sorts of financial reasons why it will be challenging to attain pay levels close to men - that is simply down to market economics. But there is a much easier argument around parity of recognition in other respects - and gently (or not so gently) making the points around lack of official recognition last summer and lack of official support in this tournament should form part of that debate. It is surely unthinkable that were the men's team to have made it to the world cup final that there'd be no official representation from either the government nor the head of state.

[Nearly Sane]

With the Foreign Minister, you are spoiling us.


 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66547111

[ProfessorDavey]

With the Foreign Minister, you are spoiling us.


 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66547111

Someone who isn't tone-deaf 'had a word' I imagine.

[Steve H]

Is it too late for someone to have a word with William and/or Kate?

[ProfessorDavey]

Is it too late for someone to have a word with William and/or Kate?

Yup - 22 hour flight.

Apparently they will be cheering the Lionesses on from one of their many homes!

Bit poor that the president of the FA cannot make it the first world cup final one of the senior national teams has made it to for 57 years.

Realistically these decisions should have been taken last weekend - win or lose in the semis they'd still have been playing in either the final or third place play-offs. But now it's too late for anyone at a pay grade above Cleverly to make it.

[ProfessorDavey]

Is it too late for someone to have a word with William and/or Kate?

Flight time from LA to Sydney is 7 hours less, so Harry and Meghan could make it rather more easily!

[Nearly Sane]

Let's break the rules and get pissed


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-66532694

[Nearly Sane]

Sweden take 3rd. Australia looked  a little flat.


https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/66543416

[Steve H]

I think we should start referring to the other one as 'The Men's World Cup', otherwise the implication is that that's the standard one, and the WWC is secondary.