SK Editor Jen O’Neill tries to make sense of her reaction to the statement made on Thursday evening, by FA WSL1 side Sunderland…
“Speechless and heartbroken. What we have built up has now been ripped down with no thought other than to save money.”
“Baffled. After a sleepless night, I’m still in shock. I just didn’t expect it. It’s one big step back for women’s football in the north east.”
Those were the reactions of just two of the players affected by Sunderland Ladies’ statement last Thursday.
By now you have likely read the statement, digested the news and formed your own opinion and response to it. You’ll doubtless have follow-up questions, whether about this specific case or the wider women’s game, as a result. The club intend to revert to a ‘part-time model’, though as yet no-one (including it seems, all club personnel) know what this model will look like: how it will work, who with, what its budget will be etc. So, as an added frustration, there are currently more questions than answers.
This is one of the questions I have asked myself:
In the miserable, wintry light of the following day, what is the most shocking element of the sad news that emerged from Sunderland Ladies’ WSL 1 set-up yesterday evening?
It’s difficult to decide.
Was it the timing of the announcement? To staff and players it came totally out of the blue – although there was awareness of the widespread tightening of belts across the cash-strapped club – on a Thursday night just four months before the start of the WSL1 Spring Series (three months before the deadline for WSL License applications) and days before the full-time players (yes, there are players still with full-time contracts in place, so how does that fit the model?) return to work on Monday. In a wider context, this is such a smack in the face for the women’s game in the north east because it felt like the hard work from players and volunteers over the past decade or so was finally being rewarded, it seemed as though positive progress was being made and that the footballing region had a team to be proud of, that young girls could aspire to play for, that could at least come close to competing with the best in the women’s game.
Was it the almost insulting attempt in the statement to spin the news, suggesting it was in the interests of the players to return to a part-time model? That last season’s 7th place finish, disappointing considering the 4th place the year before, was due to the fact that the mix of full-time and part-time players was not working and not due to bad luck with injuries or inadequate squad strengthening? To imply that being part-time and attempting to compete at WSL1 level is desirable or even possible (it’s fairly generally accepted that Sunderland survived relegation in 2016 because they were more of a full-time outfit than Doncaster Rovers Belles) is naïve at best. And developments at other WSL1 clubs, at present, indicate that it will only get tougher at the top.
The 2015 team overachieved in spite of the demands placed on a number (6-7) of fully-committed players heroically attempting to balance their career and football, not because of. I’m sure that any of the remaining part-time players that the statement seems to refer to, would give up their place in the team to enable younger, full-time talent the opportunity to focus entirely on their playing ambitions. Will any player, knowing how tough it is to train part-time and then travel to London for a weekend game against a full-time outfit, choose that part-time option if a full-time opportunity arose elsewhere? Will they find the energy and passion to pick themselves up and do it all over again, knowing that the foundations for themselves and future players, may be shaky beneath them?
The club is in a parlous financial state, with debts of £140 million reported. As a long-time supporter and season ticket holder of the men’s team (as well as a former player, when we also experienced one of the club’s previous decisions to jettison the women’s team), in fact simply as a fan of football with a passing interest in the English game, I know that this is a cost-cutting exercise. Don’t patronise the staff and players or those who follow the club or the women’s game, by pretending it isn’t. Be honest and explain that this was a necessary move, that things are tough and decisions had to be made to reduce outgoings, meanwhile offering assurances of plans going forward, that the club is proud of its women’s programme (and frankly were/are very big spenders in relation to most other clubs in the UK) and that it will continue to support it, albeit on a reduced budget.
So, is it the belief that this set-back could perhaps have been avoided with better planning and decision-making that rankles most? The previous regime at the club, albeit sometimes with ambition and the best of intentions, made spending decisions – in recruitment and other areas – that were frivolous, uneconomical and even wasteful. They didn’t understand the women’s game – it’s been mooted that maybe they didn’t understand football at all – or the context in which the women’s set-up would be operating.
It’s difficult to see where a long-term plan existed, with any aims to build towards sustainability, though that’s an accusation that could be thrown at a number of women’s outfits (and men’s clubs for that matter). Cynics of the FA WSL model have been waiting for this kind of development, to say ‘I told you so’, that despite licensing it’s still too unregulated and overly ambitious and the fear is that this won’t be the last bit of news of its kind.
Which leads me to the final realisation, that as well as each of the above, what troubles the weary, is the cold, hard fact, that where applicable (and with very few exceptions that is right across the board at the elite level) the women’s game continues to remain dependent on the fickle whims of the changing owners and hierarchy, and more pertinently the fluctuating financial fortunes, of the parent men’s club? We kid ourselves that things are all rosy and changing, and the investment of resources and passion being shown by clubs like Arsenal, Chelsea and Manchester City are undoubtedly exciting and helping improve the product and competitiveness of our national side. So yesterday’s shock news brought us back down to earth with a painful thud.
Is it all doom and gloom? It will feel like it for the Sunderland players (and staff) who are wondering what their next step might or should be. It feels a bit like it for supporters of the team who have seen so many players give their all for the #Sunderlandfamily no matter what the setbacks have been in the past. It feels like a big step back for the women’s game in the north east and north as a region. We have already witnessed one generation of north east talent move away to fulfil their potential. Currently, the closest top flight club other than Sunderland is…Manchester or Nottingham?!
But this isn’t an abandonment of the women’s team by Sunderland. They will continue to support the women’s team and develop players – they will have to to try and survive because there is not a brimming pool of top players available for signing in the area, they are already elsewhere or doing well with Durham (our next WSL1 side?) or Middlesbrough – and they will hope to be successful with their license application and be ready come September when the winter season kicks off and competition becomes real.
This has happened before when other clubs have cut funding to their women’s teams. It hurts but it is never the end, the game is too strong for that. Though it is not perfect and work needs to be done. Clubs should own their own facilities, be separate subsidiary organisations from men’s clubs, for example. But those discussions are for another day.
We hope to hear more from Sunderland this week about plans going forward. There are good people at the club who can do good things.
Until then, let us know your thoughts…while my thoughts are with the players, present, past and future.
