john watson wrote:

What sort of competition is this. Surely it can’t be taken seriously when there is such a disparity between the teams. Last time is was aware of results like this was at primary school!

It's still reasonably early days for the women's professional game and so such disparities are to be expected. It happened back in the day with the men's game too with scores greater than 10-0 not unheard of. Heck, the 2019 FIA cup was won 6 - 0 between two Premier League teams.

Seems a bit harsh to expect the women's game to go from stand still to fully professional at all levels and in all countries almost overnight. Latvia has only one squad member with 50 caps, many are single digit caps. England has 6 players with more than 50 caps with Jill Scott having 154 caps. It's like a Premier League side playing a local town side.

And I don't even like football - well, I do consider it to be a girl's game so perhaps my defence of it is apt...

RRSTDV8 wrote:

……Seems a bit harsh to expect the women's game to go from stand still to fully professional at all levels and in all countries almost overnight……

galwaygreen wrote:

as said before DSL dont do links or any of the other techy stuff

No

RRSTDV8 wrote:

The pay issue is not the same as "why aren't all the teams as good as each other" issue raised by an earlier poster.

Not all male footballers get paid the same so the argument about equal pay is a bit silly anyway.

I am free to comment as I see fit, as everyone does on here, even if that (in your opinion) deviates from a previous comment, even if its not the OP you seemingly reference

Not all sportspeople get the same the world over but a 'big name' sportsperson (in this case male footballer) who can generate millions in sales of tickets and/or shirts is 'worth' rather more in a business model that a "who?" sportsperson (in this case female footballer) who attracts 674 people to a training pitch hosted game or maybe ten thousand if free tickets are splashed about in the 'big stadium'. Saying the female example is 'worth' £50k-100k a week, or whatever, "because we're all playing the same game" isn't an equal case for pay parity in my mind (yet). That was all I was saying

As to my personal take on women's football - the bits I have watched are really poor (and I'm not saying they are unskilled) akin to a 5th or 6th tier, or lower, male played game (currently), with half a dozen of them chasing the ball together and high scores belying a gulf in skill levels between two teams that doesn't make it great to watch, 10-0 doesn't mean it was a great match if the teams are not of similar ability, watching a couple of premiership or championship teams have a 'silly' score line usually indicates a good game because it isn't an expected outcome, similarly the men's world cup where some 'big country' team beats the Faroe Isles 23-0 or whatever won't have been a great game really

astonbuilder wrote:

RRSTDV8 wrote:

The pay issue is not the same as "why aren't all the teams as good as each other" issue raised by an earlier poster.

Not all male footballers get paid the same so the argument about equal pay is a bit silly anyway.

I am free to comment as I see fit, as everyone does on here, even if that (in your opinion) deviates from a previous comment, even if its not the OP you seemingly reference

Not all sportspeople get the same the world over but a 'big name' sportsperson (in this case male footballer) who can generate millions in sales of tickets and/or shirts is 'worth' rather more in a business model that a "who?" sportsperson (in this case female footballer) who attracts 674 people to a training pitch hosted game or maybe ten thousand if free tickets are splashed about in the 'big stadium'. Saying the female example is 'worth' £50k-100k a week, or whatever, "because we're all playing the same game" isn't an equal case for pay parity in my mind (yet). That was all I was saying

Read my second sentence again - I'm agreeing with you.