Agreed that it was predictable demise but disagree with the two main threads of comments ie; it is unwatchable and doesn’t make money.
To be clear, not that those facts are necessarily untrue, bu more that they are continually used to defend its demise.
Let’s turn a couple of those phrases on their head to describe the men’s game to see how they fare.
Men’s football teams don't make any money. You can see from the league pyramid that the clubs at the top are the traditionally bigger men's clubs because they can afford to write off the loss.
It's become nothing more than a PR exercise for the biggest clubs to hoover up the best players and boast about how inclusive they are because they care about men playing sport so much.
—————————-
Aren’t these true about the current state of men’s football. How many men’s teams make a profit? I would suggest instead that they survive because they have resources to service enormous debts. A clearer analogy would be If you owe billions and add to your debt by taking a second mortgage on your palatial home, you then you get to keep your home. However if you continually miss repayments on your tatty one bed apartment in the sticks then it will be taken away from you.
As for the argument of quality, yes it is way below the standard of the men’s game with gks a particular issue. However using that logic we would all be supporting Man City or Liverpool as they are light years away from us. I can remember at least two Argyle goalkeepers who could barely reach the crossbar, Dungey and Shilton, as well as a thousand other examples of paying to watch something that could barely be described as football that wasn’t even worth a tenth of the price of a match ticket...
Yes it is poorer quality, doesn’t make money and will have to go back to the drawing board but let’s look a little closer to home before coming up with the usual seemingly inevitable reasons.