Sigh

Steinberg – who grew up in Cambridgeshire and moved to the US in the mid-1990s as his father was American – holds dual citizenship and has coached the US women’s side since 2011. He has been outspoken in his criticism of the 12-team structure and the funding of the tournament.

One aspect he thinks should be changed is that World Rugby pays for 12 staff and 30 players to participate in the men’s World Cup, while only six staff and 28 players are being accommodated per union during this tournament.

“I see this as discrimination,” Steinberg said. “I see this as a slap in the face for the women’s game. I see it that World Rugby doesn’t treat the women with the same respect as they do the men. I am not saying ‘equal’ because I recognise the men’s World Cup, and I recognise that there is a cost issue, but I think World Rugby could throw an extra £500,000 into this event and actually treat the women in a way that demonstrates respect.

Sure, everyone’s just got another £500k lying around, right? Magic money tree thinking.

25 thoughts on “Sigh”

  1. More a case of less revenue as fewer people watch the women so less money is available. Probably loss making already. But equality.

  2. Bloke in North Dorset

    Andrew,

    The implication is that the men’s game should subsidise the women’s game because the people who pay for broadcasting rights are sexist pigs.

  3. The implication is that the men’s game should subsidise the women’s game because the people who pay for broadcasting rights watch the games are sexist pigs.

    FTFY

  4. Women’s rugby is rubbish because women are weaker, slower, less physical, less aggressive, catch and pass worse, tackle poorly, kick poorly and scrummage poorly when compare tomale rugby players of almost any age. In all seriousness I would say that most colts rugby teams would beat any international female side by 20 points. The academy side of any premiership club would put 200 points on them. Thus, it is not worth watching and there is not any money in it.

    (As I’ve said many times, I’m a big fan of women – they’re just not very good at most sport.)

  5. My objection is the “respect”, when in favt the womens’ game is calling for a subsidy.

    I’ve no problem with subsidies at and from tournaments. Indeed that has always been one of the main arguments for staging them. And smaller teams are subsidises at the tournament to grant the larger nations to illusion of challenging to be ‘World Champions’ rather than those few nations that play their sport. So why not throw the wmoens’ ge a bit more cash? The principle is long established for men and for women; we just kid ourselves it isn’t.

  6. “I’ve no problem with subsidies at and from tournaments. Indeed that has always been one of the main arguments for staging them. And smaller teams are subsidises at the tournament to grant the larger nations to illusion of challenging to be ‘World Champions’ rather than those few nations that play their sport. So why not throw the wmoens’ ge a bit more cash? The principle is long established for men and for women; we just kid ourselves it isn’t.”

    Yes but the small nations don’t demand they get the same amount of money from the tournament as the big ones do, because ‘respect innit?’

    Here’s the split of the money coming into cricket for example:

    http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci-icc/content/story/1081598.html

    India gets the most, cos they’re the superpower. The othersget lesser and reducing amounts. Zimbabwe don’t demand they get the same as India, because India is the goose that lays the golden egg, they know whatever they get is infinitely more than they would ever get on their own efforts.

    Women’s sport of just about every kind is piggy-backing on the male game. Which is ironic given that women need men like fish etc etc………

  7. Ironman is right, subsidy is more commonplace than you’d think. This isn’t a bad thing bug other, legitimate reasons are forwarded.

    I’ve no problem with subsidy of women’s sport. I am proud of our world beating women’s cricket and rugby teams and think that it brings prestige to our nation. Also the reasons for subsidy can be made as the same reasons for subsidising the counties or premiership.

    What I do object to is the bullshit fantasy politics of ‘equality’ and nonsense like that. It’s stupid, wrong and makes me, someone who does watch women’s rugby live, want to spite women’s sport for arguing the wrong leverage and allowing the idiots to use this as a baton to beat me with when I try and explain my interpretation of the economics of professional sport to people who don’t know or like sport but yell ‘sexist’.

  8. The injury rates for women’s rugby are bound to be substantially lower than in professional men’s rugby, so why the hell would they need the same squad sizes?

    Arguably, given the substantial difference in skills levels, there is a case they need more coaches than the men though….

  9. ” I am proud of our world beating women’s cricket and rugby teams and think that it brings prestige to our nation.”

    That’s just gottabe a send-up, hasn’t it? Hasn’t it?

  10. ‘World Rugby could throw an extra £500,000 into this event and actually treat the women in a way that demonstrates respect.’

    Cos if you don’t, you’re Nazis!

    “No true Scotsman” crap.

  11. The Inimitable Steve

    Eh. He’s arguing his own interest, which is fine. Making a big fuss about “fairness” is more likely to work than boring rational arguments.

    Dunno about women’s rugby tho. Who actually watches it? Even girls who look like they’d be into it, like Ruth Davidson, prefer slinky Gillian Anderson types.

  12. @Rob Harries

    “I’ve no problem with subsidy of women’s sport. I am proud of our world beating women’s cricket and rugby teams and think that it brings prestige to our nation. ”

    You are a better man than I then. I couldn’t give a toss.

    It irks me when the BBC start off the sports bulletin with “Congratulations to the british team on their amazing performance against X in the cricket/Rugby/football” and only right at the very end do they confess that it’s the woman’s sport they are talking about.

    I’ve got a daughter who likes various sports, and I’m not against any women playing whatever at whatever level, but the BBC presentation of it smacks of propaganda.

  13. Auntie Beeb is probably taking that approach to drum up interest in the only variants of sport it can actually afford to pay for.

  14. Last (and only) time I went to an international sporting event, all the participants paid their own costs including hotel bills (or campsite bills). This guy is complaining because there is a *non-zero* limit on the costs that are paid by someone else and he is too bloody mean to cough up a bit for the extra team members that he would like to have there.

  15. “Also the reasons for subsidy can be made as the same reasons for subsidising the counties or premiership.”

    No they can’t. It makes sense (for example) for the Premiership to chuck some money to the Championship and Leagues 1 and 2, because the Premiership needs competitive teams coming into it, not just 3 teams who come up and get slaughtered for 38 games then get relegated. And it needs teams playing at a standard so they can take players on loan from Premiership teams and develop them. Its a perfectly rational spending of money to enhance the long term viability of their product. They also know that lots of football fans who follow local teams are also Premiership team fans. If the local team folds or becomes a low standard, those fans may be lost to football entirely. Keeping the 72 non-premier league clubs going keeps a large bank of football followers in the country, which in turn creates a huge audience for Premiership TV rights. Ditto the money the ECB pay to the county cricket sides, without the functioning and competitive county cricket circuit there wouldn’t be a competitive England team that fills the stadiums and the TV companies pay to televise.

    None of this applies to mens sports giving money to the womens game. They can’t get anything back. Its utterly lost money. All they get is people berating them for not giving enough. Some people never learn – if you pay the Dane he just comes back for more……………

  16. @ Gamecock
    The sponsors can treat womenm in a way that demonstrates respect, but what has paying for unnecessary staff got to do with it?
    How do they need 6 staff, let alone 12?

  17. Odd that it is only sports where women share the event – tennis and athletics as examples – where the women eat anything like as much as the men. Sports such as golf and football where the women are on their own fair very differently……

  18. BBC sport articles on women’s sport are at click bait levels, have to click them to find out its women’s sport, I’m guessing that they will use the look how many people clicked on this to justify their increased coverage etc. And to make out it’s more popular than it really is

  19. I would say that most colts rugby teams would beat any international female side by 20 points.

    A couple of year’s back my school’s Under 15 side had two 120 kg props with an 80 kg hooker.

    That team would have taken apart any women’s side. Bigger, faster, stronger.

    The women would have been a bit more organised, and a lot more tactical, but that wouldn’t help in a game like rugby.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *