Will ladies' football ever be a truly popular national sport?

This weekend sees the beginning of the 3rd Women's Super League (WSL), the elite competition of ladies' football in the UK. Eight clubs now compete to be crowned the greatest in the country. With a competition specifically designed to raise the profile, standard and professionalism of the game now entering its 3rd season, has it started to yield the desired effects? 

In terms of money, it faces the dilemma of wanting to increase the finances involved, but simultaneously avoid a huge imbalance in the favour of larger clubs like Arsenal and Chelsea. Consequently, clubs are currently only allowed 4 players on a salary of £20,000 or more. And, yes, that is an annual salary.

At the end of last year's WSL season, the BBC presented a Q&A with the FA Head of National Game, Kelly Smith (read it here, and its recent follow up video here). Inevitably the tone was positive, that progress was being made and that interest and support was up. Unquestionably, overall attendance has increased 10% and the highest attended individual match (5052 spectators at Arsenal vs Chelsea) was more than twice that of 2011, although it taking place at the Emirates may have benefited this somewhat as well.

Most sports across the UK have seen a significant swell in interest and participation post London 2012, and women's football is no exception. At the Olympics, interest was high, with an average attendance of 25000, including 70,000 seeing Team GB beat Brazil in the Group Stage, and 80,000 watched the USA beat Japan in the final, both at Wembley.

But is there a danger that it will be like many other Olympic sports, in that the general public don't really care about it unless there is a major tournament on, or it happens to be on TV? How many people go onto the BBC's Women's Football page specifically to look up results or get the latest club news? Who knows what the Cyprus Cup is, or whether beating Canada twice in a month is remotely significant or impressive?

Last weekend Rachel Yankey became England's most capped football player, joint with Peter Shilton, with 125 national team appearances. A huge congratulations to Rachel for such a feat, but I fear it will be looked upon a bit like players who play hundreds of times for minor nations in the men's game, becoming more of an obscure pub quiz trivia answer than an achievement inspiring awe and respect.

Women's football is hardly new in England, having been played (and popular) in the early 1900s, until what turned out to be a 50 year ban from 1921 stopped its genuine progression and growth in its tracks. And now that men's football is so utterly universal and financially significant, it will take a massive ongoing effort from all quarters for the ladies' game to get a real foothold in the market. The reality is also that a large percentage of the female population still strongly dislike football. Saturday night dates ending at 10.30pm for Match of the Day may have something to do with this, but until there is a wider enjoyment of the sport, it may be hard for the game to really grow and develop.

Although it is unfair to compare to the men's game, there are definitely positive signs that the game won't sink into a post-Olympics hangover and back into relative obscurity. Chelsea have just signed a Brazilian superstar for the new season, ESPN are continuing to provide significant WSL coverage, the BBC are showing some of the matches from this summer's European Championship and the FA WSL Cup has ongoing sponsorship from Continental, one of the biggest sponsors of major football tournaments in the last 20 years.

In terms of the national team, there are an awful lot of similarities to the men's side of thing (unfortunately). Looking ahead to this summer's European Championships in Sweden, we currently sit 7th in the FIFA rankings, not quite able to break into the very top levels, but always close enough to get our hopes up. Sadly, we appear to be similarly afflicted by major tournament woes. At the Olympics, Team GB won all 3 group games, including beating Brazil, only to tamely limp out 2-0 to Canada in the Quarters. At the 2011 World Cup, we again won our group, including a victory over eventual champions Japan, only to lose in the first knockout round, on penalties, having conceded an 88th minute equaliser. They are still England after all.

Wen's Arsene Gunner Be Gone?

The big question for Arsenal is how long do you stick with Arsene Wenger? 

This week's 3-0 win over Milan merely papers over the cracks in what is yet another trophy-less campaign for the Gunners. A season of thoroughly inconsistent results has included an 8-2 defeat at Man U but massive 5-3, 7-1 and 5-2 wins over Chelsea, Blackburn and Spurs respectively. A thumping defeat in the San Siro may have been followed by a convincing second-leg victory, but the fact is that Arsenal have fallen short of the Quarter Finals, and are out of every competition by early March, with a lot of work left to do to qualify for Champions League football for next year. 


There is little doubt that Wenger and Arsenal's policies and philosophy are admirable in terms of investing in youth and playing attacking, attractive football. But what good is investing in youth if you then sell the young players when they have matured and have the experience and steel required (e.g. Fabregas, Clichy, Nasri)?

And if you look at the youth investment policy, how well does it stand up to close scrutiny? Exceptionally gifted players like Fran Merida, Denilson, Jay Emmanuel-Thomas and Mark Randall have all been sold/released despite showing great promise. Some of the best young talent that Arsenal are known for (Walcott, Ramsey, Chamberlain) have been bought for big fees (£9m, £5m, £12m) from smaller clubs, rather than genuinely brought through the youth set-up (notable exceptions are Wilshere, Gibbs and Frimpong). 


In some quarters they are admired for not spending big, and in others they are admonished for not putting the financial backing to the ambition of the fans. No-one is suggested they have spent in the manner of City, Chelsea, Liverpool or United, but the last time they didn't spend at least £10m on a player during a season was in 06/07 when Eduardo was the top signing for £7.5m. And don't think that all of those signings have been the youngsters with unbridled talent and potential: Arshavin £15m aged 27, Koscielny £10m aged 24, Mertesacker £10m aged 26, Arteta £10m aged 29, and as of today, Podolski £11m aged 26.

'98 FA Cup Final scorers - sold for
a combined profit of £40,500,000

They do collect big on a few players (most notably Overmars, Anelka, Fabregas, Nasri and Adebayor), but being a property developer is not really what most north Londoners want for their club. What difference then between Arsenal making a profit off such names and Southampton doing the same with the Ox and Walcott? 


In the last 20 years Arsenal have spent a net £21.6m (£17 of which was before Wenger), compared to Newcastle £99m, Spurs £175m, Man U £177m, Liverpool £226m, Man City £487m, Chelsea £516m*. No question then that financially Arsene has worked wonders to be competitive for so long, but which Gunner wouldn't gladly have traded another £100m or so for another couple of cups? It may have made the move to the Emirates financially viable but another Premiership title or two would have made Highbury perfectly inhabitable for a while longer.
*thanks to www.transferleague.co.uk for all the transfer spend stats. 

So would a win against Birmingham in last year's League Cup Final have made such a difference? Had Wilshere's left-footed hit dipped two inches lower and not struck the crossbar, all of the talk of the Gunners not having won anything for years would be redundant. Would any consideration of the great Arsenal Wenger being sacked consequently be dismissed as absurd? Similarly, is the discussion entertained purely because they failed to convert more than 1 of their 20 shots on goal?


In a time when managerial positions seem so fragile (just ask AVB, Gary Megson or Lee Clark), the likes of Ferguson, Moyes and Wenger are quite simply inspirational. Harry Redknapp is now 10th on the list of longest serving current managers in England, and he's been with Spurs for less than 4 seasons. Put it like this, Di Matteo is already climbing out of the relegation places, currently sitting 3rd bottom after a total of 4 days in charge. He'll be pressing for the playoffs soon. 


Of course the longevity of a manager is a positive thing for a club and for a chairman to show faith and consistency is fantastic and universally lauded, but is there a time to draw the line and recognise that no more progress can be made by the incumbent? How long can a policy of "building for the future" be sustained? Man U seem to do that and win the league while they're waiting. And what does it say for a club's ambitions when all the talk after being knocked out is of a "brave spirit" and "positive signs"? It sounds like the English national teams...


What it comes down to is the simple question; are Arsenal moving forward and becoming more competitive under Wenger or not? 




*I appreciate I've presented a pretty one-sided perspective on this but I am not actually convinced Wenger should go, just putting some things out there. Intrigued to see if any Arsenal fans want to have a say? Or Spurs/Utd/Chelsea etc. fans for that matter?!