Clubs still see their women’s side as a financial burden

MUCH talk of legacy still in the wake of England’s European Championship triumph but, for all the optimism, it remains impossible to ignore wider economic reality. A father complained that he received a bill of £300 to cover his daughter’s training with Leicester City’s academy, when boys play for free. Leicester say this covers kit, various registration fees and use of the training and match facilities. It still seems unfair. Leicester enjoyed a turnover of £226million last season. Even if the academy housed 100 girls, would they really miss that £30,000? It equates to half of Kelechi Iheanacho’s salary for one week.

But economically, women’s football remains problematic for some clubs. They are not used to thinking of it as anything beyond a financial burden. They do not see it as an investment because it shows up in red on the balance sheet. Academies are speculative assets and the development of players in the men’s game is a revenue stream in a way it is not for women, yet.

So if Leicester bring through Harvey Barnes or Kiernan Dewsbury-Hall and sell them on, they could be £50m or more in profit. Equally, they want to ensure a youth prospect in the East Midlands is not lured by Nottingham Forest or Derby, even Aston Villa.

This market does not exist for women, except at the highest echelons of the WSL. So Leicester see their women’s team as a loss, the development of young female talent as financially insignificant and try to recoup what little they can in trifling fees. There is much talk of changing the game now, but the change required is seismic. At one club where season tickets for the women’s team have gone up 20 per cent on last year, this equates to roughly 40 tickets at a cost of between £85 and £50 for adults. So, maximum, a cash injection of £3,400. You see the problem.