I’m sorry? what outrage?

This is an outrage!

the assumption that women can only marry men,

The assumption was that only women can be wives.

Men married to men would still be husbands.

Women married to women would still be wives.

Surely the “joke” is that the wearer of the hat is a bit of a gold digger (sorry if I’ve misunderstood the meaning of “footballer’s wife”).

Both males and females do marry other people for their wealth and fame.

The hat does not imply that all females are gold diggers (or even that gold digging is a bad thing).

The hat isn’t sexist, the joke is just quite poor. (especially if you have just bought it for your 6 year old daughter).

The assumption was that only women can be wives.

Ah good point, I has misread the text for ‘widow’ rather than ‘wife’. It doesn’t change anything though. The ‘wife’ could still be married to a female footballer and only the assumption that women can’t be footballers would then lead you to conclude that the suggestion was discriminatory.

Meh.

I suppose it does sort of support the dated notion that a woman is after a successful husband to be the breadwinner and that she is somehow defined by who she is married to, rather than her own career and life.

But honestly, pretty low on my FaxGivn score.

(I’m assuming they also stock a blue “Future Footballers Husband” hat of course?)

I’m more outraged at the lack of apostrophe

I’m more offended by that font

Really, beyond the catasrapostrophe situation, there’s further grammar fail with the ambiguity of it – they should clarify whether the wearer intends to be the wife of a footballer in the future (a future “footballer’s wife”), or whether they are currently the wife of someone who will be a footballer in the future (a “future footballer’s” wife).

It is, as has been pointed out, an outrage!

Surely the “joke” is that the wearer of the hat is a bit of a gold digger (sorry if I’ve misunderstood the meaning of “footballer’s wife”).

That was the inference I took from it. “When I grow up I want to be a WAG.”

That and it’s obvious crimes against design.

it’s not the only meaning and i’m fairly sure most people don’t take it to be that meaning, if i’m honest.
[/quote]

It’s not even a possible meaning. Football fans aren’t footballers.

The obvious meaning is obvious. There is only one possible context in which somebody would be “proud” of being a footballer’s wife.

Whats Eootball?

(missing ‘ deliberate BTW)

(missing ‘ deliberate BTW)

You think it means the wearer wants to be a future wife to many footballers? 😯

Isn’t “footballers wife” a compound noun in the same way as hot dogs eater (polite version of my first thought)? 💡

If there is an apostrophe it would surely have to go after the s. ❓

I’m more outraged at the lack of apostrophe
I’m more offended by that font

Frankly, it’s a really ugly hat, and anyone caught wearing it should be arrested and fined for crimes against aesthetics.
Also small children should point at them in the street and laugh, subjecting them to public ridicule.
At the very least.

If there is an apostrophe it would surely have to go after the s.

Only if we legalised bigamy.

bikebouy – Member
I’m moar offended because it looks like as though it doesn’t line up correctly

FTFY 😉

Not in a country where divorce (and death) is legal.