So if SP said we were putting X millions into the women's team next season in the hope they can compete, and this would be at the expense of the men's team, due to FFP restrictions you'd be happy with that would you?
When we went up 2 years ago SP said he'd earmarked over £1m extra and this clearly wasn't anywhere near enough. So £3 or £4m might be required this time out.
The women's team is already loss making so not sure the finances stack up.
This seems to me to be the major issue with the fledgling professional women's game.
You do, of course, get mainstream media outlets who should know better giving an unchallenged platform to those who try and shame clubs into greater funding for their women's teams. The argument is usually that it is a sign of inequality if Palace mens team gets X whilst the women's team only gets Y. They say this as if there is some central pot from which funding for both is allocated, rather than one being a long established business generating its own budget, to which the other has recently been attached.
It didn't have to work that way. Womens teams could have been created from scratch with no reference to the professional men's game. It was once like that. Croydon had a great women's team 30 years ago that had nothing to do with palace. I'm not sure they were even semiprofessional though, and that iteration if the women's game didn't last.
Why a women's team would want to connect to an established professional men's team is obvious. The question I ask myself is why have mens professional clubs decided to incorporate women's teams? They aren't obligated to as far as I can tell. Why have they done it?
If it's just a gesture of goodwill to raise the profile of what essentially remains a wholly independent business, then that's great. It should be made clear, though. Nobody could reasonably expect the men's team to fund the women's team then.
If EPL clubs want what they think is the positive publicity of having a women's team and have not been clear about the degree of separation, then they've made a rod for their own backs. That women's team can highlight how hard it is to become established in the highest levels without more money, and point out that what one underperforming mens player makes in a season would transform their entire team. There will be articles about the poor facilities a particular womens team train on, how they wash their own kits, how hard it is to make a living from football etc. All these things are true of non League mens teams, but the difference is that they aren't connected to EPL teams, so nobody has any expectations. The conditions for the players reflect the economic reality for that club.
If mens EPL teams feel the women's game is an investment opportunity and that's why they've become involved, then that's a different matter again. What is the end goal of that, though? Would the men's team ultimately be able to take money out of the women's team if they wanted to?
For me, men's teams may represent a community, but that is to do with the support base. It doesn't change the business model and make those clubs a wider sports club of which the men's football team is but one aspect, which is what they have in Europe. I don't see why any the money I pay for my ticket should go to the women's team, as that's not who I paid to watch. However, perhaps some of the sponsorship deals are related to palace having a women's team? Who knows?
Ultimately, whether palace men should fund palace women to any degree depends on the nature of the agreement between the two and the benefits derived. None of which seem very clear.
England
