Millie Bright, the esteemed captain of the Lionesses, stands devastated as England’s women’s team succumbs to Spain. The entire team shares her heartbreak. In such moments, the players are unlikely to ponder the profound impact they have had on women’s football, and the reciprocal effect this sport has had on the nation. At the pinnacle of international sports, one must take each game with utmost seriousness and contemplate philosophical notions only upon retirement.
The progress of women’s football has been slow, taking over a century to regain the adoration and spectatorship it once enjoyed before the Football Association (FA) banned it in 1921. The ban was lifted more than 50 years later, signifying a revival, but progress remained sluggish. The first official women’s Euros were held 13 years after the ban was lifted, and the inaugural Women’s World Cup took place in 1991. The reasons for this lethargic pace cannot be fully comprehended without understanding the initial ban. The FA’s justification, citing football as a game unfit for females and discouraging their involvement, was baseless and medically unfounded. Such notions were mere rubbish.
One perspective suggests that this ban was a consequence of war: men departed, and women assumed their roles, only to relinquish them upon the men’s return. It would have been considered impolite otherwise, given the sacrifices made by men. This hypothesis is plausible but subject to debate. The British Ladies’ Football Club existed two decades before the outbreak of the First World War. If women’s football in the 1890s and early 1900s was controversial, it was more due to its connections with the suffrage movement than an inherent impossibility for both men’s and women’s games to coexist.
I find an alternative explanation appealing: by the end of the First World War, women had simply become too skilled. Their involvement drew immense crowds, as exemplified by the Boxing Day game in 1920 between Dick, Kerr Ladies and St Helen’s Ladies, attracting a record-breaking 53,000 attendees, with an additional 14,000 unsuccessful in gaining admission. This game held the UK’s attendance record for a women’s match until the 2012 Olympics. The Dick, Kerr Ladies boasted an incredible striker named Lily Parr, who became the first woman to be sent off for fighting and allegedly broke a man’s arm with a ball, albeit unintentionally.
Moreover, women’s football assumed a more political nature by 1920, redirecting raised funds (significant sums, equivalent to £500,000 in today’s currency from the Boxing Day match) from uncontroversial causes such as supporting war veterans to support causes advocating social solidarity, like striking miners. Concerns emerged that women’s football was poised to outshine its male counterpart.
What remains evident is that female footballers, individually and collectively, challenged prevailing norms concerning gender, sexuality, class, justice, and labor relations. People found this as intolerable a century ago as they do today. Whether it’s the England men’s team facing backlash for taking a knee during the previous World Cup or the US women’s team receiving criticism from Donald Trump for their progressive views, athletes pose a distinct threat when they voice progressive ideals. People naturally gravitate towards and admire athletes, making it dangerous for them to inadvertently shape public opinion.
However, the state of the women’s game after the ban was lifted in the 1970s—sparse crowds, meager funding, and condescending commentary, if any—mirrors other peculiar blindspots of the late 20th century. These blindspots were evident in public debates of the 1980s and 1990s, with questions like “Why are there no female comedians? Is it because women aren’t funny?” There existed a cultural aversion to witnessing young women, particularly those from working-class backgrounds, excel at something other than beauty. Society tolerated models and actresses (though not if they were outspoken), while women with skill and excellence faced little to no tolerance, especially if they defied societal expectations concerning appearance.
It was akin to a fin-de-siècle double-bind—existing in the public sphere was permissible if one was beautiful but entirely unaware of their beauty, always cognizant of its impact. These constraints seemed to impact female sporting heroines the most, as concentrating on anything other than the male gaze, such as a ball, would be the greatest affront. If someone had vocalized this issue, we might have swiftly emerged from that fog, but it was an era of irony, and such conversations remained unspoken.
Therefore, although the Lionesses did not technically win the World Cup, they have triumphed by finally obtaining the respect that has been denied to their game for nearly a century. If I were in their position, I would be ecstatic.
Denial of responsibility! VigourTimes is an automatic aggregator of Global media. In each content, the hyperlink to the primary source is specified. All trademarks belong to their rightful owners, and all materials to their authors. For any complaint, please reach us at – [email protected]. We will take necessary action within 24 hours.
