When wokeism and sport collide

[thebrewxi]

Right. I'm off for a gammon movement. Then need to wrap. Merry Christmas all.

 

Edited December 24, 2022 by thebrewxi

[gingerjon]

27 minutes ago, David Shepherd said:

I find the word boomer (and gammon, which usually follows fairly swiftly afterwards) as a red flag for ignorance and bigotry. Funny old world.

You must be properly livid at the title of this thread, then.

[Pulga]

4 minutes ago, Tosh said:

Who said anything about womens RL not being a commercially successful entity?
 

I’m sure I read in the article that the NRLW had increased its salary cap by 153%. That sounds like a success in my book.

where did I say that I’m against enhanced pay for female athletes?

I support the 153% increase on the NRLW salary cap.

how can protectionism for the mens game be helpful for the mens game and game of RL in general?

Its really a simple concept in  that market forces determine an athlete’s salary and not someone’s social agenda.

You keep insisting that it's a social agenda when it's not. It's an inequality problem.

We know the women's game draws 1/3 of the viewers the men's game does on average and the TV deal is over 80% of the total NRL revenue.

This new deal is 1/14th the salary cap of the men's game.

It's hard to fathom that anybody would think this is fair unless you're some kind of misogynist.

 

 

[Tosh]

50 minutes ago, thebrewxi said:

Merry Christmas, dude

Huh?

[Tosh]

32 minutes ago, Gerrumonside ref said:

Are we arguing there’s no money in Australian rugby league then?

Think he’s talking about the British game.

[Damien]

I am certainly of the belief that there are great benefits to the game as a whole in investing in women's RL. I would also apply the same arguments and logic to wheelchair RL too. For both I think there is an element of build it and they will come. I certainly think diverting £1 million from the men's game to fund the women's or wheelchair game will absolutely get far more bang for your buck than the same money being split between 12 SL clubs. Obviously in Australia the sums are all bigger but the income is substantially more and exactly the same principle applies.

I can absolutely understand the arguments that money from the men's game shouldn't be used to fund the women's game. However I just don't agree. I think investing in the women's game, and wheelchair game as I had mentioned, can reap great benefits for the sport as a whole which will then also benefit the men's game. If anything I think the men's game can grow off the back of these other forms and that investment in these areas can absolutely increase participation, sponsors and the games footprint. This is particularly so in the UK.

These forms of the game do not face the same barriers, whether that is prejudice, infrastructure or cost, as the men's and can easily experience rapid growth at a time when media and sponsors are keen to be associated with these forms of sport. The game would be foolish to get caught behind. It should be at the forefront and as RL knows only too well if you get left behind, and don't get first mover advantage, you have a hell of a job to do to overcome that. It will cost far more to do so too and RL still hasnt managed it in many places.

[Gerrumonside ref]

Just now, The Masked Poster said:

I didn't offer any 'argument' other than that there was a boom in the early 80's due to the Channel 4 coverage. But seeing as you mention popularity, even before that NFL was pretty popular and cool. They probably could have staged NFL games at Wembley in the 70's and filled them. 

But if you are arguing that Gridiron is a popular mass participation sport in the UK, then I'll leave you to it. (People watching or wearing NFL gear is not the same thing btw) 

You seemed to be suggesting the NFL was a passing fad from the 1980s and therefore you could draw a parallel between it and women’s rugby league and a reason to hesitate on investment.

Now that I’ve made a nonsense of that argument you’re shifting the goalposts completely to bring in a spurious argument that is unfounded about 1970s NFL popularity.

Think 28,600 people played American Football in the U.K. in 2016.  In 2021, I think 45,600 played Rugby League (which I believe is a diminishing trend sadly).

Considering that American Football has no professional pyramid and is intensive in the need for specialist equipment that is a pretty impressive and growing level of participation in the U.K.

Its good that you brought it into the argument in many ways as it reinforces the idea that growth can be achieved.

 

 

 

[Pulga]

More evidence.

NRLW TV ratings smoke all of those mentioned.

[Damien]

I suppose in short, before you even get to the equality argument, I would be investing in women's sport because it makes very good business sense to do so and benefits the game as a whole, including the men's.

[Tosh]

45 minutes ago, The Masked Poster said:

Do you seriously think a women's league could be a like for like swap? (At this point in time)

You don't harm your premium product in order boost others. Or at least, you shouldn't 

I personally don’t think any womens game will ever replace the man’s game be it the NRL or super league or the premier league etc and that for some is totally unacceptable to say and triggers them no end.

[gingerjon]

1 minute ago, Damien said:

I suppose in short, before you even get to the equality argument, I would be investing in women's sport because it makes very good business sense to do so and benefits the game as a whole, including the men's.

Cricket worked this out a few years ago at the community level. Go out and get girls playing and you bring in parents and volunteers who would never have been involved before. These people are then your next generation of club secretaries, board members, bid writers, transport etc.

And that's before what you get in terms of extra sponsorship, gate money etc when you then run properly organised women's competitions (and cricket outside Australia is way behind the NRLW on this).

But, no, far better to start a thread with 'woke' in the title and then rail on about how crazy the modern world is.

[Tosh]

9 minutes ago, Pulga said:

More evidence.

NRLW TV ratings smoke all of those mentioned.

The NRLW salary cap is $884k and yet the minimum wage of a player is $10k?

How big is a NRLW squad?

[John Drake]

This thread is no longer 'woke'.

Because I'm putting it to sleep.

There's a decent discussion to be had about funding of women's rugby league, but this will never be that thread, because the OP negated any such possibility of it with such a deliberately inflammatory title.

It's Christmas Eve, folks.

Have a break.