I would interpret his comments as saying men can tolerate a physical and flowing game and anyone who isn't a man, i.e. women can't, so to me that would seem clearly untrue and unfair given that the ladies can dish out the hard tackles and play free flowing football just as effectively. So I struggle to see how it isn't an outdated view that such characteristics are purely for men and why you would be surprised that women are pissed off at the language. If it was meant to be men vs boys that wasn't at all clear to me at least. I don't see how it is relevant that these were men's games in the PL, if it is now a man's game again, what was it before?! It is easy to decide someone is 'waiting to be offended' if you don't try to put yourself in their boots. That being said if he explains what he meant I think we should believe him and move on, it doesn't feel like the media let that happen normally. I feel that it is easy to use the wrong words and put your foot in it.
What about my 7 year old daughter, who has done soccer tots and Brazilian soccer school since 3, visited 2 Adam’s parks games so far, watched both the mens and womens euro finals with the same amount of glee (probably cos she got to stay up late) that also heard it and asked “am I not allowed to watch this?”.
I don’t think kids pick up one exactly who’s playing what, but they have the uncanny knack of cutting though off the cuff comments and taking the basic meanings of the words being said. It stops being an offence thing and more awareness of the the breadth of your audience.
He was not taking about anything to do with womens football. He was talking about the Premier League and why the change to the old values in letting things go a bit was giving us our game back, instead of stopping the game for all sorts of soft contact issues.
Yep, I'd reserve stupid, or probably more like utterly stupid, the likes of Cascarino once describing some trivial mistake on the pitch as a player having had a "Holocaust".
Bearing in mind it came after a really bad tempered square up, rather than the usual feigning injury, likes of Salah diving with next to zero contact type scenarios, it's pretty clear he meant the former.
The sad thing with these debates is...often more people get offended by hearing the media reports of people being offended by it than were offended at the time and any attempt to discuss often means one side thinks the other side are excusing it...and so they get more fractious. Yes, he is a broadcaster and so should have possibly a better grasp of what his words implied...but we've all dropped a verbal clanger at some point.
Your little girl’s reaction is precisely the reason why words do matter and professional broadcasters should adapt their language to not exclude others
I also think he meant it in a non-pejorative way here, but it’s a clumsy phrase at best. With all the thousands of hours of live coverage everywhere, it’s inevitable that the odd blunder will slip through, but it’s certainly not on the level of a Keys / Gray, Big Ron like disaster.
Sorry, but if someone says "it's a man's game", regardless of which game they're watching and tries to claim that "it" refers to the specific league in which that match is taking place, rather than "football", they are talking utter shite.
There would have been girls watching that , perhaps having recently been inspired by the Euros. They shouldn't have to go through the mental gymnastics some here seem willing to do to defend it.
He should have just apologised, said it was the wrong thing to say and that football is a game for everyone.
I know all about the pitfalls of live broadcasting and over the years I’ve kicked myself for not using more appropriate words and phrases, but some people have read far too much into this incident. He was not trying to make comparisons between how men and women play the game, he was commenting on a return to the blood and thunder contests in the PL that were the norm in days gone by. I accept that some people might have misinterpreted his phraseology which is unfortunate, but he doesn’t deserve to be called stupid.
It was crystal clear what Souness meant. The game this season (and last) at the top level has allowed more physical contact and the game is a much better watch for it. It had got to the point where all a player had to do was touch the ball and fall over and you’d get a free kick. It had made the game far less watchable. That was all he meant, perhaps not the best wording given how previous people are these days, but absolutely no malice or harm in it.
Forget the word stupid then, it was in inappropriate thing to say.
And no witch hunt personally against Sounds from me. But having realised what he'd done I feel his explanation/apology could have gone further and not claimed that the phrase "it's a man's game" related to the men's premier League specifically. It's nonsensical.
Just to lighten the mood (I hope!) and illustrate the way different words can be interpreted in different ways, I recall a meeting Sky had with representatives of the Kick it Out campaign a few years ago. We were told they were unhappy with the use of words like ‘pacey’ and ‘beast’ when describing black players. Don Goodman, a top guy and excellent pundit, replied: ‘If someone had described me as pacey when I was playing I’d have been absolutely delighted!’. I then pointed out that a certain Bayo Akinfenwa loved being known as the Beast and had launched a clothing range using that very word. Inappropriate language can sometimes be in the eye of the beholder.
A certain gasroomer used to have a habit every close-season of suggesting we needed a “big strong black striker”. The words “pacey” and “beast” are hugely loaded.
Black players do get stereotyped as quick and physical, but that's a problem because it's just lazy as much as anything - but surely no one needed reminding why you shouldn't refer to a black player as a 'beast'?
My quick take on last night's game, albeit viewing from the sofa. A disappointing result, but not an absolutely awful performance. I think 3-1 slightly flaterred Exeter, although I do accept we were a little flat! Exeter deserved to win. A quick glance at the table and it isn't great viewing, but we are only four games in. Please pull me up on that if we haven't progressed soon! Roll on to Oakwell and a club that has spent more seasons in the second tier of English football than any other club, apparently, and let's hope for three points.
Comments
Exactly that.
Where do we stand with ‘man flu’ these days? Should I go to HR about it?
I would interpret his comments as saying men can tolerate a physical and flowing game and anyone who isn't a man, i.e. women can't, so to me that would seem clearly untrue and unfair given that the ladies can dish out the hard tackles and play free flowing football just as effectively. So I struggle to see how it isn't an outdated view that such characteristics are purely for men and why you would be surprised that women are pissed off at the language. If it was meant to be men vs boys that wasn't at all clear to me at least. I don't see how it is relevant that these were men's games in the PL, if it is now a man's game again, what was it before?! It is easy to decide someone is 'waiting to be offended' if you don't try to put yourself in their boots. That being said if he explains what he meant I think we should believe him and move on, it doesn't feel like the media let that happen normally. I feel that it is easy to use the wrong words and put your foot in it.
Brilliant I love it.
What about my 7 year old daughter, who has done soccer tots and Brazilian soccer school since 3, visited 2 Adam’s parks games so far, watched both the mens and womens euro finals with the same amount of glee (probably cos she got to stay up late) that also heard it and asked “am I not allowed to watch this?”.
I don’t think kids pick up one exactly who’s playing what, but they have the uncanny knack of cutting though off the cuff comments and taking the basic meanings of the words being said. It stops being an offence thing and more awareness of the the breadth of your audience.
He was not taking about anything to do with womens football. He was talking about the Premier League and why the change to the old values in letting things go a bit was giving us our game back, instead of stopping the game for all sorts of soft contact issues.
Can't stand Liverpool or Sourness in general, but this is the classic mountain of a molehill absolute nonsense.
If you can't describe a game between men as a man's game we might as well all give up now
With you there Malone.
I think Souness was trying to say he enjoyed a more feisty, old-school match, than the usual sanitised PL encounter.
His problem is that it equally sounds like he was saying he preferred it to the women’s euros.
Ultimately we’ll never know.
Yep, I'd reserve stupid, or probably more like utterly stupid, the likes of Cascarino once describing some trivial mistake on the pitch as a player having had a "Holocaust".
Bearing in mind it came after a really bad tempered square up, rather than the usual feigning injury, likes of Salah diving with next to zero contact type scenarios, it's pretty clear he meant the former.
The sad thing with these debates is...often more people get offended by hearing the media reports of people being offended by it than were offended at the time and any attempt to discuss often means one side thinks the other side are excusing it...and so they get more fractious. Yes, he is a broadcaster and so should have possibly a better grasp of what his words implied...but we've all dropped a verbal clanger at some point.
Spot on @DevC
Didn't Joey Barton also whip that one out
He drops them all the time
Case in point...I dont have sky so only know about this from.the reported backlash!
Your little girl’s reaction is precisely the reason why words do matter and professional broadcasters should adapt their language to not exclude others
I also think he meant it in a non-pejorative way here, but it’s a clumsy phrase at best. With all the thousands of hours of live coverage everywhere, it’s inevitable that the odd blunder will slip through, but it’s certainly not on the level of a Keys / Gray, Big Ron like disaster.
Sorry, but if someone says "it's a man's game", regardless of which game they're watching and tries to claim that "it" refers to the specific league in which that match is taking place, rather than "football", they are talking utter shite.
There would have been girls watching that , perhaps having recently been inspired by the Euros. They shouldn't have to go through the mental gymnastics some here seem willing to do to defend it.
He should have just apologised, said it was the wrong thing to say and that football is a game for everyone.
I know all about the pitfalls of live broadcasting and over the years I’ve kicked myself for not using more appropriate words and phrases, but some people have read far too much into this incident. He was not trying to make comparisons between how men and women play the game, he was commenting on a return to the blood and thunder contests in the PL that were the norm in days gone by. I accept that some people might have misinterpreted his phraseology which is unfortunate, but he doesn’t deserve to be called stupid.
It was crystal clear what Souness meant. The game this season (and last) at the top level has allowed more physical contact and the game is a much better watch for it. It had got to the point where all a player had to do was touch the ball and fall over and you’d get a free kick. It had made the game far less watchable. That was all he meant, perhaps not the best wording given how previous people are these days, but absolutely no malice or harm in it.
It was a stupid thing to say. That’s not calling him stupid.
Forget the word stupid then, it was in inappropriate thing to say.
And no witch hunt personally against Sounds from me. But having realised what he'd done I feel his explanation/apology could have gone further and not claimed that the phrase "it's a man's game" related to the men's premier League specifically. It's nonsensical.
I don't think he meant it pejoratively either, but he had the opportunity to clarify and just doubled down instead.
Agreed.
Given that Souness is a gargantuan bellend, I’d just err on the side of him being a gargantuan bellend.
Just to lighten the mood (I hope!) and illustrate the way different words can be interpreted in different ways, I recall a meeting Sky had with representatives of the Kick it Out campaign a few years ago. We were told they were unhappy with the use of words like ‘pacey’ and ‘beast’ when describing black players. Don Goodman, a top guy and excellent pundit, replied: ‘If someone had described me as pacey when I was playing I’d have been absolutely delighted!’. I then pointed out that a certain Bayo Akinfenwa loved being known as the Beast and had launched a clothing range using that very word. Inappropriate language can sometimes be in the eye of the beholder.
A certain gasroomer used to have a habit every close-season of suggesting we needed a “big strong black striker”. The words “pacey” and “beast” are hugely loaded.
Black players do get stereotyped as quick and physical, but that's a problem because it's just lazy as much as anything - but surely no one needed reminding why you shouldn't refer to a black player as a 'beast'?
My quick take on last night's game, albeit viewing from the sofa. A disappointing result, but not an absolutely awful performance. I think 3-1 slightly flaterred Exeter, although I do accept we were a little flat! Exeter deserved to win. A quick glance at the table and it isn't great viewing, but we are only four games in. Please pull me up on that if we haven't progressed soon! Roll on to Oakwell and a club that has spent more seasons in the second tier of English football than any other club, apparently, and let's hope for three points.
So to check, was it ok this last few years to refer to Bayo as Beast or not? Bearing in mind it was his own branding?