Planning matters

A recent article in The Athletic [1]posed a timely question for the women’s game: what kind of stadia does women’s football need as it grows?

That is not just a football business question. It is also a question about masterplanning and place-making.

As attendances rise, commercial models mature and audiences broaden, the stadium is no longer simply a backdrop. It is part of the fan experience, part of club identity and, increasingly, part of a club’s growth strategy. That shift is happening against a backdrop of rapid commercial growth in the women’s game. Deloitte’s 2026 women’s football analysis reported that the top 15 women’s clubs generated a combined €158m in revenue in the 2024/25 season, with average revenues above €10m for the first time[2]. 

That point was brought home to me at a stadium conference late last year, where Dawn Airey, Chair of WSL Football, spoke compellingly about the opportunity in front of the women’s game and the role that better-considered venues will play in supporting it. At the heart of that conversation was WSL Football’s Design Guidelines for the Delivery of Elite Women’s Stadiums in England[3] — published in November 2025 as what WSL Football described as a world-first framework to support clubs, local authorities and project teams.

 

The WSL guidance is clear: women’s football stadiums should not be treated as just a smaller version of the traditional men’s game model. WSL guidance highlights, for example, female-friendly changing rooms and toilet facilities, parent and guardian-oriented spaces including family toilets and breastfeeding areas, accessibility for disabled users, and futureproofing as key design principles. In other words, this is not about shrinking an existing model. It is about rethinking the brief. 

That matters because women’s football is no longer at a point where venue decisions can be treated as temporary, secondary or purely operational. If clubs are now building larger audiences, stronger brands and more meaningful revenue streams, the quality and suitability of the venue inevitably become more important. That is not just a commercial point. It is also a place-based one. Stadiums influence how supporters arrive, how safe and welcome they feel, how communities experience matchdays, and how a site functions beyond the final whistle. 

One of the strengths of the WSL guidance is that it recognises there is no single route forward for every club. Rather than presenting a choice between new-build and retrofit, it reflects a more practical reality: some clubs will make better use of main stadia, some will adapt existing assets, and some may justify purpose-built women’s venues. Which route is most appropriate will depend on factors such as site control, supporter base, funding, ambition and physical constraints. That realism is one of the guidance’s greatest strengths.

 

For many clubs, adapting an existing stadium will remain the most realistic route. In many cases, it will be the right strategic choice.

Existing stadia often benefit from established identity, known transport patterns, a recognised matchday routine and lower upfront capital requirements. Reuse may also be a more deliverable route than promoting a new stadium on a fresh site. The WSL guidance expressly recognises that adapting existing venues will often be the most practical path, even if retrofit cannot always fully overcome the inherited constraints.

That is where planning, in the spatial and place-making sense, has a useful role to play. Not everything has to happen at once. Some interventions can be relatively straightforward: better signage, improved lighting, reconfigured toilets, upgraded welfare and changing facilities, and more thoughtful family and accessible provision. Others require a longer horizon, more capital and closer coordination with local authorities, transport providers and design teams.

Over and above the operational aspects it is about whether the venue and wider site can be reshaped over time to serve a different audience, support a better matchday experience and sit more comfortably within the surrounding urban context. That is a different question, and it is one that sits much more naturally within the world of planning, design and delivery.

 

One of the strengths of the WSL guidance is that it gets into specifics rather than staying at the level of general aspiration.

Toilet provision is one of the clearest examples. WSL Football’s summary of the guidance highlights female-friendly toilets and changing facilities, family toilets and breastfeeding areas, all of which reflect a more inclusive approach to facilities planning than has traditionally been seen in football venues. That may sound like detail, but it goes directly to whether a stadium feels welcoming and fit for purpose. 

The same is true of family and inclusive design more broadly. The guidance points toward spaces and facilities that better reflect the diversity of the women’s game audience, including parent-focused provision, accessibility and a more inclusive overall environment. This recognises  that many women’s teams are now drawing audiences that do not align neatly with assumptions embedded in older stadia. Wider commentary on the guidance has made much the same point, stressing that football stadiums have historically not been designed with women in mind and that the new approach is intended to address that gap.

 

This is where the spatial planning and masterplanning angle becomes most important.

A stadium can be technically compliant and still feel wrong. If the route to and from it is poorly lit, confusing, hostile or disconnected from public transport, that affects the real user experience. Commentary around the WSL guidance has increasingly focused on arrival experience, circulation and the public realm around venues rather than just the seating bowl itself. 

Stadia are experienced on the walk from the station, in the surrounding streets, in the quality of lighting and wayfinding, in the ease of moving with children, and in whether supporters feel comfortable arriving early or leaving after dark. These issues go to the heart of whether a venue genuinely supports growth in the women’s game.

The WSL guidance also pushes the conversation beyond football alone. WSL Football and its delivery partners present the document as a framework for venues that are more inclusive, accessible and futureproofed, with emphasis on sustainable, climate-resilient and community-facing design. From a masterplanning perspective, that points toward stadia functioning as wider assets - places that can support community use, hospitality, events and other complementary activity, rather than operating as isolated single-use venues. 

 

Set against the adaptation pathway is the increasingly credible case for purpose-built women’s stadia. In some circumstances, starting from scratch may be the stronger long-term choice.

The obvious advantage is that the brief starts in the right place. A new stadium allows capacity, circulation, hospitality, player facilities, accessibility, safety and non-matchday uses to be designed around the women’s game from day one rather than retrofitted around assumptions inherited from elsewhere. It also creates more scope to plan for phased growth and a more coherent year-round offer. That is part of the reason why purpose-built proposals are now attracting so much attention. 

In England, Brighton & Hove Albion FC’s ambition to bring the women’s team back into the city through a purpose-built stadium has secured support in principle from Brighton & Hove City Council. Internationally, Kansas City Current’s CPKC Stadium is generally regarded as the world's first stadium purpose-built specifically for a professional women's sports team.

These examples show what becomes possible when the women’s game is treated as the primary brief rather than a secondary adaptation. They help to move the debate on from whether dedicated women’s venues are conceivable to when, where and why they may make sense. 

 

From a planning perspective, the real question  is whether the chosen strategy is properly embedded in place; not “retrofit or new build?” in the abstract.

Is the venue accessible by public transport, walking and cycling? Does it feel safe before and after games? Can the wider site accommodate fan circulation, servicing, media requirements and future expansion if needed? Is there a credible non-matchday use strategy? Can improvements be phased realistically? And does the venue reflect the actual audience and growth trajectory of the women’s game, rather than treating it as a secondary user of a space designed around something else?

Those are spatial planning and masterplanning questions as much as stadium questions. They are also the questions most likely to determine whether a venue feels like a genuine home for the women’s game rather than a compromise.

 

This is also why I would avoid framing the issue as an indictment of clubs whose current arrangements reflect an earlier stage in the development of the women’s game.

Most clubs are dealing with inherited assets, legacy operating models and real-world constraints around cost, land and programme. The more constructive reading is that the pace of growth is now testing whether inherited venue arrangements remain optimal. In some cases, the answer will be yes, provided targeted adaptation is undertaken. In others, the answer may be no, and a more bespoke long-term solution will be justified.

There is no universal stadium model for women’s football, and there does not need to be. For some clubs, the right response will be greater and better use of an existing main stadium. For others, the more realistic route may be to improve the current women’s venue through targeted adaptation. In some cases, a purpose-built stadium may become the stronger long-term proposition.

The women’s game is growing quickly, and the infrastructure supporting it will need to evolve with equal intent. This is an opportunity: to plan more deliberately, respond more thoughtfully and create places that are better aligned with the future of the game.