Investment is needed to maintain growth but recent deals go against the values women’s game has worked hard on
Women’s football, the business, is on the rise. There will be ups and downs, anomalies and backwards steps, but the overall trajectory is upwards.
In March, Racheal Kundananji’s move from Madrid CFF to Bay FC for £685,000 broke the record for the most expensive transfer fee in women’s football, a record being superseded with such increasing frequency that the first £1m transfer does not feel far away.
The 2022 Uefa report The Business Case for Women’s Football said it expected a sixfold increase in commercial value over the following decade, potentially reaching an annual value of €686m by 2033, with club sponsorship predicted to increase to €295m in that time.
Steph Houghton: ‘That human touch wasn’t there with England. I felt let down’
Read more
Meanwhile, according to Sportico, the average value of NWSL teams increased by 57% to $104m (£80,000) , with Angel City valued at $250m.
The profitability of the game, and its potential, is more visible than ever and, increasingly, investors and sponsors are increasingly taking note. The women’s game offers a lot. With it being in the early stages of financial growth, the long-term returns could be significant. Where men’s football is a saturated marketplace for investors and sponsors, from mattress sponsors to eyewear partners, the women’s game is not, and brand/investor visibility is high. Meanwhile, women footballers are overwhelmingly progressive, empowered and strong characters and women’s football has a reputation that can provide credibility and a forward-thinking image to those connected to it.
Increasingly, women’s football is going to be challenged, confronted with moral and political dilemmas about who it opens the door to.
The decision of more than 130 female footballers to sign a letter calling on Fifa to terminate a sponsorship agreement with Saudi Arabia’s state-owned oil company Aramco, whose deal includes the 2027 Women’s World Cup, demonstrates the conflict that can arise between money and ethics.
The letter pulled no punches, calling the deal a “middle finger to women’s football”, challenging the humans rights record of Saudi Arabia, its treatment of women, the LGBTQ+ community and migrants, and calling out the message that the partnership sends out about the climate crisis.
England’s Women’s Super League has used rainbow balls in the past to promote a campaign against homophobia. Photograph: Catherine Ivill/Getty Images
Given the track record of Fifa, which awarded Qatar the hosting rights for the 2022 men’s World Cup and is poised to give Saudi Arabia the 2034 men’s tournament, its move is not a surprise.
However, ethical dilemmas are not limited to the global governing body. It is inevitable they will come at all levels. In September, a press release went out that the NWSL side Washington Spirit was launching a “groundbreaking” deal to make Fanatics Betting & Gaming their sports betting partner.
“We’re excited to announce our groundbreaking partnership with Fanatics Sportsbook,” said Washington Spirit’s CEO, Kim Stone, in the release. “This is another indication of the momentum surrounding the Spirit and women’s sports. This collaboration gives us the chance to enter the sports betting space with a trusted brand, all while staying true to our commitment to integrity, empowering women, and creating great experiences for our fans.”
That direct challenge to any idea that a partnership with a gambling firm contradicts the values of women’s football is a bold one.
Partnerships with gambling firms have become increasingly frowned upon in the men’s game, with Premier League clubs choosing to ban front-of-shirt sponsorship deals with gambling companies from the 2026-27 season. The welcoming of the gambling industry into women’s football and the encouragement of relationships between fans and betting firms are not positive developments.
This announcement by the Michelle Kang-owned Washington Spirit flew under the radar, though. There were no critical articles and there was no big condemnation. There were only 26 replies to Spirit’s X post on the deal. Interestingly, half of those were critical, describing the deal as “disappointing”, “garbage” and “deplorable”.
One fan said: “This is so disappointing. I’m glad to be a season ticket holder (who brought my wife along) because I feel like I’m supporting an innovative woman owner, and players who are fighting for decent pay, adequate maternity leave, etc; and the team just has a different atmosphere than others; and now here’s this association with a habit that harms so many people. And now when I tell my girls’ team’s players to go to games, which I often do (or have), I feel like I’m helping endorse and normalize this nonsense.”
Women’s football is at a critical juncture, and it has a choice about the type of game and business it wants to be and values it wants to have and champion. These types of deals that challenge the progressive nature of the game, a game built through struggle, are coming in greater numbers. Fans, players and those who care about the game need to organise to make sure their feelings are known on the issues that matter and push back on decision makers if necessary. The letter to Fifa regarding the Aramco deal is a hugely positive step in this direction, but if the women’s game is going to maintain, and extend, its unique identity and be something that stands for more, then organisation is required.
Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.
