BBC Sport website

[Damien]

1 minute ago, JohnM said:

This thread isn't about who does or doesn't like, follow, support  etc womens football. There are, though, in my view, lessons we can learn and actions we can take from the BBC coverage of women's football.

1. They have a schedule to fill.

2. They can't afford much in terms of top level sport.

3. They have a story to tell about the sport.

4. There are some powerful advocates of women's football.

5. It fits their liberal lefty right on woke agenda.

I'm sure we can address those points in relation to  our sport.

 

I made this point a few pages ago. The sport should be doing its upmost to promote women's RL and take advantage of the goodwill that exists towards women's sport at this moment in time.

[gingerjon]

12 minutes ago, Damien said:

That is a completely meaningless statement and does not mean discrimination.

Is women's Rugby League being discriminated against because it doesn't get the exact same coverage as men? Your logic dictates that it is. Please answer honestly then extrapolate that against various sports that get the majority of media attention.

Why would I answer dishonestly?

Women’s rugby league absolutely should get more coverage. There is a market for it. That it doesn’t is almost entirely down to the lack of support given to it by the RFL.
 

Is that because of discrimination? Given that we have matches called off because there aren’t enough medics to go round then there could be easily be an issue there.

And I never said exact same coverage.

 

[Gerrumonside ref]

56 minutes ago, Johnoco said:

Where does the snidey bit come into it though? I'm not insinuating or hinting at anything, it's quite clear I think it's very poor. 

Snide means something different completely. 

But I'm also unclear about how pretending it's earned its high profile coverage is associated with anything in relation to getting better coverage for RL?

If you care to read back, I'm highly critical of RL and it's habit of shooting itself in the foot. That's not my point in all this though. 

You’re knocking Women’s Football basically throughout this thread - having little digs all the way through.

Instead of trying to find out why they’re being successful now, you’re just full of bitterness.

That attitude won’t help us gain more favourable coverage.  

[John Drake]

32 minutes ago, JohnM said:

This thread isn't about who does or doesn't like, follow, support  etc womens football. There are, though, in my view, lessons we can learn and actions we can take from the BBC coverage of women's football.

1. They have a schedule to fill.

2. They can't afford much in terms of top level sport.

3. They have a story to tell about the sport.

4. There are some powerful advocates of women's football.

I'm sure we can address those points in relation to  our sport.

 

Post edited, for blindingly obvious reasons.

John, you know the TRL rules.

If you want to wang on about 'woke' agendas at the Beeb, get thee hence to the politcs sub forum. not in here.

Ta.

[JohnM]

Not going on the politics sub forum. There be dragons!...

[Damien]

49 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

Why would I answer dishonestly?

Women’s rugby league absolutely should get more coverage. There is a market for it. That it doesn’t is almost entirely down to the lack of support given to it by the RFL.
 

Is that because of discrimination? Given that we have matches called off because there aren’t enough medics to go round then there could be easily be an issue there.

And I never said exact same coverage.

Sorry I didn't mean to insinuate that you would.

It was an example, I could have easily said something else like Women's RU. I was just trying to demonstrate that headline statistics don't really tell much. Mens football literally has various UK leagues shown on various channels in the UK as well as European competitions and internationals. Men's Cricket is played for days, ditto Golf. I can quickly see why a statistic like this is the way it is and that is not to say that women's sport isn't shown for a these, it certainly is. However the volume and number of events doesn't exist. That is before we get to RL and RU.

I remember various women's sports having always having good representation on TV. Even women like Laura Davies in Golf and Alison Fisher in Snooker were household names, that is before the likes of athletes and tennis players. Whilst granted these were all mostly individual sportwomen I'm not sure there has been discrimination by the media. In terms of team sports I would say the governing bodies of various sports are far more guilty than any media.

Going back to women's RL I don't really see why a sport should automatically get coverage just because it's a female sport. In the case of women's RL it's only really been going in its current guise for a couple of years. It is far from a polished product. As you say the lack of coverage isn't because of discrimination, it's because of the sports own negligence and neglect. I don't particularly see it as the responsibility of the media to fast track it just because the sport hasn't given a damn for 100+ years.

Does that mean it should get more coverage as is? Of course yes if someone wants to, and I'm happy to see as much as possible, but I think it's still got work to do. If it got close to the Women's NRL then I think a broadcaster will be snapping the sports hand off to show it.

 

[unapologetic pedant]

On 07/09/2021 at 20:52, RigbyLuger said:

Fully agree. Our output is generally pathetic. 

No build up on YouTube outside of their official podcast with has had guests such as Ade Gardner and Ian Blease on recently. Hardly players who we need to do more to promote and as the governing body, they should be able to speak to everyone they want to!

Given the general standard, it`s a moot point whether the paucity of RFL output should be mourned.

In the week of the WSL Southern final, I began watching an interview with a Cardiff Demons player on Our League.

They had scored on the third play of their semi-final. The presenter`s incisive question was "were you expecting to score that early"? - That was enough for me.

[Gerrumonside ref]

11 minutes ago, Johnoco said:

I'm knocking it because I think it is very poor. Do I *have* to like it? 

There is absolutely no bitterness, despite how much you want that to be true - because I simply don't care about it. It can be on TV 24/7.....my life won't be affected one iota. But I will still think it's poor and doesn't deserve the coverage it gets.

Sorry about that. 

Who deserves that coverage more and why?

[unapologetic pedant]

1 hour ago, JohnM said:

This thread isn't about who does or doesn't like, follow, support  etc womens football. There are, though, in my view, lessons we can learn and actions we can take from the BBC coverage of women's football.

1. They have a schedule to fill.

2. They can't afford much in terms of top level sport.

3. They have a story to tell about the sport.

4. There are some powerful advocates of women's football.

I'm sure we can address those points in relation to  our sport.

 

Let`s assume for the sake of argument that the BBC have featured and promoted Women`s Soccer to a degree unwarranted by its contemporary popularity, with the aim of making it more popular subsequently.

For us, the relevant question is why aren`t the RFL at the BBC`s door asking " would you like to do the same for women`s RL".

[unapologetic pedant]

3 minutes ago, Johnoco said:

Which do you think is more genuine and deserving of coverage/support? A band comprising Simon Cowell's latest project, which is promoted on prime time Saturday night TV and has Zoe Ball banging on about them on Radio 2 all day.

Or a genuine bunch of musicians who write their own stuff and started out playing small pubs before building a dedicated fanbase. But need a bit of a push to really break through...

Similar reflections were the staple conversation of mean and moody 80s teenagers fond of big black coats and cockatoo haircuts.

Then when any "genuine bunch of musicians" did get a well-deserved major-label push, they were instantly disowned and accused of selling out.

[Gerrumonside ref]

21 minutes ago, Johnoco said:

Let me ask you another way....

Which do you think is more genuine and deserving of coverage/support? A band comprising Simon Cowell's latest project, which is promoted on prime time Saturday night TV and has Zoe Ball banging on about them on Radio 2 all day.

Or a genuine bunch of musicians who write their own stuff and started out playing small pubs before building a dedicated fanbase. But need a bit of a push to really break through...

Which of these do you think is more a)  genuinely a band or musicians? And b)  which one will get more publicity? 

 

To bring you back to my original post, there’s a science to how they decide what to cover and why based on popularity, growth, demographics and sports rights.

It’s a fallacy to say we don’t get media coverage on the BBC or a promotion push.

Remember the World Cup pullout news being plastered on virtually every bulletin and platform?

However as a sport in which the domestic game is at best stagnant and still has a footprint that in U.K. terms is limited, there’s only so much that can be expected unless we change and learn.  

Women’s Football is growing almost exponentially in our country, the domestic product, the WSL, is almost starting to follow the same path as the men’s Premier League circa 1994 in terms of talent acquisitions from abroad to boost the product.

Arsenal women are getting some larger crowds than Wigan RL men!  Perhaps we need to find out why they’re managing to be successful rather than moaning.

 

 

 

[JohnM]

21 minutes ago, unapologetic pedant said:

Let`s assume for the sake of argument that the BBC have featured and promoted Women`s Soccer to a degree unwarranted by its contemporary popularity, with the aim of making it more popular subsequently.

For us, the relevant question is why aren`t the RFL at the BBC`s door asking " would you like to do the same for women`s RL".

Exactly the point. Pushing at an open door.

[Gerrumonside ref]

2 minutes ago, Johnoco said:

There you go then, Arsenal ladies are obviously more popular than Wigan RL.  I will leave it here but will happily get back to you whenever the women's PL gets crowds on a par with the men's one (as it's following the same path), or I hear anyone talking about it in a social context. Whichever comes first.

Head. In. Sand.

[Gerrumonside ref]

Just now, Johnoco said:

Heap. Up. ######.

With your attitude mate, nothing will be learned.

 

[gingerjon]

2 hours ago, unapologetic pedant said:

Similar reflections were the staple conversation of mean and moody 80s teenagers fond of big black coats and cockatoo haircuts.

"Bands so niche there must be a debate about whether they even exist" as I remember Steven Wells (RIP) writing.

[Dunbar]

Apologies if it has been mentioned in the myriad of topics covered so far but one thing that I always notice (and it does annoy to be honest even if it is minor) is the way the BBC website shows the lineups for Rugby League teams.

Invariably the home team is shown in positions 1-13 as they would walk on the pitch but the away team is shown with the forwards then the backs (if you forgive, as a Union team would be shown).

Example tonight with the Saints Leeds game:

St Helens v Leeds Rhinos - Rugby League - BBC Sport

 

[Damien]

16 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

Apologies if it has been mentioned in the myriad of topics covered so far but one thing that I always notice (and it does annoy to be honest even if it is minor) is the way the BBC website shows the lineups for Rugby League teams.

Invariably the home team is shown in positions 1-13 as they would walk on the pitch but the away team is shown with the forwards then the backs (if you forgive, as a Union team would be shown).

Example tonight with the Saints Leeds game:

St Helens v Leeds Rhinos - Rugby League - BBC Sport

 

It's not something I particularly look at but that is indeed strange. Similarly squad numbers don't really help when it comes to the presentation of teams like that.

[Dunbar]

5 minutes ago, Damien said:

It's not something I particularly look at but that is indeed strange. Similarly squad numbers don't really help when it comes to the presentation of teams like that.

I have said many times, I hate squad numbers and I would love to see teams walk onto the pitch wearing Jerseys 1 to 13 as it would really help newcomers to understand the positions and the play.

Anyway, on the BBC site. The thing is, it isn't just a one off, pretty much every match the home side are listed in positions 1 to 13 and the away side in the way Leeds are here. It's weird. 

[Barley Mow]

1 hour ago, Dunbar said:

I have said many times, I hate squad numbers and I would love to see teams walk onto the pitch wearing Jerseys 1 to 13 as it would really help newcomers to understand the positions and the play.

Anyway, on the BBC site. The thing is, it isn't just a one off, pretty much every match the home side are listed in positions 1 to 13 and the away side in the way Leeds are here. It's weird. 

Someone must transcribe the list because the media will be given a copy of the clubs' team sheet in position (1 to 13) order as submitted by each team before the match.

It makes you wonder who rearranges it and why. 

[unapologetic pedant]

8 hours ago, Johnoco said:

Absolutely correct but that's not necessarily the point here. 

`Twas mere wistful nostalgia.

In respect of "the point here", there was a women`s Soccer tournament (think it was the 2011 World Cup) when the BBC relegated England`s games to the red button. There was a substantial backlash. Some of it might have been from non-fans who regard women`s Soccer as a feminist workshop, but nevertheless it had an effect.

If the BBC made a decision that similarly downgraded women`s RL, would there be an equivalent reaction? Almost certainly not, for all the same reasons that pertain to men`s RL in the UK. Some of those reasons are related to deep-rooted deficiencies in our governing body.

What have we done in the past decade compared to Soccer?

The last women`s RLWC was in 2017. Did the RFL make any effort to have it covered? Nothing that I can recall.

The last one to be played over here was in 2013. Hardly any RL fans would have even known it was happening. And I`m afraid I have to include myself in that.

[unapologetic pedant]

3 hours ago, Johnoco said:

During the ‘ranting/poet’ scene of the early 80’s, of which Bradford was quite a prominent player, I saw Seething Wells a few times. I wouldn’t go so far as to say I knew him well….but I sort of did via other people. I reconnected with him not long before he died and can report he was not into RL whatsoever, despite coming to prominence from Bradford (not sure if he was from here or just lived here like Ian Astbury) 

I remember a big article Seething Wells did in the NME about the Plaster Casters of Chicago. I`d never heard of them previously.

Subsequently I noticed in the clips of Hendrix on the Lulu show that Noel Redding is wearing a Plaster Casters of Chicago tee-shirt.

[gingerjon]

7 hours ago, Johnoco said:

Oh and Attila The Stockbroker who I never liked. You’d love him though. 

The name has put be going within a country mile of him for my entire life and I intend to keep it that way.

[RigbyLuger]

2 minutes ago, Johnoco said:

Yes, I’ll repeat again that the RL authorities have been spectacularly woeful when it comes to pushing the game. 

That goes for the clubs as well.

[DC77]

17 hours ago, Damien said:

That is a completely meaningless statement and does not mean discrimination.

Is women's Rugby League being discriminated against because it doesn't get the exact same coverage as men? Your logic dictates that it is. Please answer honestly then extrapolate that against various sports that get the majority of media attention.

I don’t think anyone would advocate equal coverage. They do deserve an extra push though. Outside the Olympic events tennis has been just about the only unisex sport that has given women a fair platform, and the result of a century of equal development is the standard is excellent. Steffi Graf is pound for pound on the level of a Federer. 

The standard isn’t great (certainly in women’s football) but that’s because it hasn’t been allowed to be better. While I’m all for a fair push in terms of exposure the claim for equal pay (coming from one place) is a whole other matter. If you play in front of 2,000 people (and whatever television audience) you should get a slice of that, not a slice of a non existent 40,000 crowd. Players in sport generally get what they deserve, unless an owner is swindling money (which they wouldn’t get away with).

 

[Dave T]

I have seen nothing that is bad about the push on diversity in sport. I think it has made the entertainment options on offer far richer. 

I think it is a bit of a perfect storm at the moment that women's sport is taking advantage of. I think there is a push around inequality in society which helps, allowing for more investment and interest to be cultivated. It also comes at a time when sports rights can be difficult for some companies. If we strip out all the new women's sport that is shown, there would be a lot less live sport on TV, and Sky, BT and the BBC have embraced this to get plenty of filler. This is a challenge for men's RL as we have traditionally been a filler, whereas other sports are getting that now. 

But despite RL being rather behind on this stuff, in 2021 we have had the BBC cover the women's and wheelchair Challenge Cups live, Sky to cover the SL finals for Women and Wheelchair, in addition to weekly highlights and we would have seen tens of games live from the women's and wheelchair world cups. 

I think we need to push even harder in 2022, more double headers and push for more TV coverage as cameras will be at each ground. 

We should also remember that it is in its infancy, but this kind of coverage can really expediate growth and improve standards more quickly than normal. 

For me, a world with more women's sport is a better world. I enjoy watching plenty of it, although I don't bother with football.