Rapinoe vs Green... who you got?

[Schiltzenberger]

Anyone that thinks the women's team is underpaid and should get more money has obviously not looked into the story at all. How about you guys actually read the whole story and not just the headline?

All I see is a lot of symbolic white knighting and no understanding of the details at all. Even moderators are in here spewing disinformation, it's sickening.

Debate the facts, not your feelings.

They rejected the same deal.
They took less incentives to get the guaranteed salaries and a long list of benefits.
Now they want the same incentives from the men's deal without losing their extra benefits.

No, she is not asking for 'grass roots support'..... she is clearly talking about getting paid, every time she speaks she is talking about the WNT players getting more money. Even though they have been paid more than the men since their last deals were done.

These facts have been stated several times in this thread, yet here we are... pretty much Idiocracy.

Draymond's point was idiotic, but Rapinoe's is even dumber.

[vexco]

I take anything Rapinoe says with a grain of salt. She led for the WNT to sue the USSF for discrimination and equal pay when the women themselves are the ones who voted against having the same deal as the mean. She basically wants the women to have their cake and eat it too. It's pretty disingenuous.

They voted for salaries instead of revenue shares, etc.

[BenoUdrihFTL]

If you listen to what each of them actually said, she is in the right. But mind you that's way different from what this discussion will boil down to which is women's sports suck and don't generate revenue so shut up.

But I hope some people will take the time to actually read the quotes before their usual lazy commentary. Several female athletes actually engaged with him in very meaningful ways to acknowledge some of what he said while correcting him on the areas he missed on.

It spurred a good dialogue, but we won't have it here sadly.

Could you be so kind as to provide these quotes? I've gotten to the point where I don't take Rapinoe very seriously but I'm willing to keep an open mind if there's some new issue being debated

[BenoUdrihFTL]

I'd start with her point that its not just the job of the marginalized to fighting against it. Yes, absolutely women athletes have a responsibility if they want more pay to help to figure out new revenue streams, lots of female athletes including her not only acknowledge that but having been fighting those fights for years. Worth noting that the UWNT generated more revenue than the men in her sport and still got paid less.... Same thing has happened in tennis where they tried to use the 3 sets versus 5 argument and Serena and others were like okay we'll play 5 now pay us--which did eventually happen.

I think too many people jump to the conclusion that women are asking for the same pay as men in every sport and that's simply not the case. But it makes it easy for people to have a quick lazy take instead of trying to take a longer-term view on the issue. Is investing in something that isn't currently a revenue producer valuable? If yes, then let's work together to figure out solutions instead of telling women figure it out, but not only with no support from me as a man, but I'm going to actively make it harder with comments like this.

Now maybe some don't think women's basketball is worth investing in. Fine. I personally think that's short-sighted, but I don't expect everyone to share my view. But sports invests in all kind of loss-leaders because they see potential long-term benefits. And paying the WNBA players for instance just enough more so they aren't having to go play in Russia in the off-season might just be worth doing.

I would just add the Rapino’s comments were highly biased and ignore two critical facts.

1) a portion of revenue is determined by the success of the World Cup which is shared to the various national teams. The men’s World Cup makes revenue at an order of magnitude higher than the women’s World Cup.

2) the women opted for security of pay over an increased risk reward. Had the women had faith in themselves, then they could have been less risk adverse like them men. Now they want to have their cake and eat it too which is why their lawsuit got thrown out.

Here is a good and balanced fact check article on the topic:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/07/08/are-us-womens-soccer-players-really-earning-less-than-men/


Total prize money for the Women’s World Cup in 2019 is $30 million — the champions will walk away with about $4 million. For contrast, in the 2018 Men’s World Cup, the champions won $38 million from a total pool of about $400 million. In other words, the champions from the men’s world cup were awarded more than the total prize money in the women’s tournament. So there’s no question that there’s a huge gap in earning potential here.

This keeps getting pointed out as some sort of giant gotcha.

But it again is misleading(intentionally?) because its talking about the entire world cup and not just the Americans. We know the Men's World Cup is insanely popular world wide and generates a ton of revenue. But this is not true of the USMNT specifically.

Context is vital. Always.

It's not a "gotcha" when it goes directly to the heart of the matter

[brettski]

Good thoughts!

I think the thing I'm most struck by though is you talking about 2000-2010 as an era. I'm not saying you're wrong to go by standard decades if that's how it makes sense to you, but I've got a specific memory of what I'll call the Hewitt mini-era that more recently got echoed by the Wozniaki mini-era on the Women's side.

What both had in common was a consensus by tennis analysts that while these players had reached #1, it was only because there was no truly great players at the moment, and that we should expect Hewitt/Wozniaki to be surpassed while still in their prime.

And of course, both were right.

I'll go further and say that my experience during the Hewitt mini-era made me draw a connection back to the Hingis mini-era a few year's earlier in women's. There you had someone incredibly young dominating the world, which should imply that that player is going to be the GOAT...but Hingis lacked power and I think it's pretty safe to say at this point that she was going to get surpassed by Serena even if her health was perfect.

We can even talk about the Evert vs Navratilova flip. Evert was the one with better fundamentals and a much stronger mental game, but eventually when Navratilova figured out how to channel here inner Chrissy Evert, then she surpassed Evert.

So I can't emphasize this enough: This era we're talking about (Hewitt mini-era) seems to have had 180 degree different effects on our understanding of the game, but I can say unequivocally that my perspective was shaped by paying attention to the talking heads and seeing them be proven prescient.

Re: Men's game far less certain. This was certainly always the case until the RF/Rafa/Nole era, and I think we'd agree that it spoke to a weakness in development of women's tennis players. As you say, things are different now though. I mean, this is a sport that basically from its modern inception produced great male players in the US every decade, and that just doesn't seem to be happening any more at a time when tennis popularity in the US has clearly fallen despite the amazing play of RF/Rafa/Nole.

Re: If I'm paying, I want the longer match. Makes sense. I'm coming from the perspective as a Southern California guy who has largely gone to SoCal events and I'd say this biases me to see men's and women's as more equivalent. First and foremost, outside the majors, they don't play Best of 5 and doing so certainly doesn't seem like it's hurting attendance or viewership.

But beyond that, before Indian Wells became what it is now, there was a great women's tournament in San Diego that I enjoyed. And at Indian Wells, when you buy tickets for the finals, the Women's and Men's play back to back Best of 3 sets. While I'll concede that since I was going in the RF/Rafa/Nole era, and since the Williams sisters didn't play the event for so long, the men's finals were almost always what we were most interested in, I really don't think it was ever because the women's play seemed fundamentally lacking. It was just that you're always more excited when you're watching legends or potential legends than when you think you're just watching two performers who likely won't get back to the finals again.

Not going to argue any of your points. I don't really disagree with anything in a strong way at all. I'm 40 and I've played tennis since I was around 9 years old. I just picked that era roughly because you said 20 years ago. But I suppose my formative years of really following tennis closely would have been from around 1990 to 2008 or so, so it is a broader range. To me the things I observe most from watching tennis then, and even now are:

- there was always more uncertainty who would win a mens tournament until the RF/Rafa/Nole era. I think we're in agreement there.
- women tennis has always reminded me more of Hewitt style of play. Keep getting it back and wait for an error from the opponent. I'm not sure where I can access the stats but it would be really interesting to see what % of points are won on a clear winner in mens vs womens tennis rather than forced/unforced errors.
- I find the second style boring. Doesn't matter if its men's or women's tennis. I'm Australian and I couldn't enjoy watching Hewitt's matches because of his style. I loved watching Rafter serve volley style, Agassi standing up inside the baseline to nail a winner off a huge first serve. Nothing beat watching Federer in his prime, I was privileged to watch him play center court in the Australian open and the combination of power and accuracy was just incredible.

The biggest change to women's tennis has been that tennis center the Russians (I think?) set up? They ran a real center of excellence in the 90s that started to bare fruit in the early 2000's. Its really revolutionised women's tennis. I think players like Anna K were some of the early products. I can't remember the details to find out more but I remember it constantly being mentioned by commentators.

[SkyHookFTW]

I played competitive soccer all the way through college. If I had to choose to watch only one, I’d watch the USWNT over our current Men’s national team. Far more success and player development happening on the women’s team. The women are chasing financial equality while the men’s team is chasing relevancy.

The answer to this debate is very simple as many others have stated...sell more tickets and increase your TV ratings and more money will flow your way. Like it or not, financial success in life depends on productivity. I have plenty of gals that work for me in Sales that earn twice what most of the guys do because they produce more. It’s as simple as that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The bigger issue is that the USWNT is successful, but plays a competition that only comes around once every four years that people seem to care about it. Plus I'm not sure that the other competitions that they have garner any ratings at all. Do people watch the Concacaf Women's Championship more than the Gold Cup? Do they watch Women's World Cup qualifying matches more than the Men's?

It would seem like those ratings would need to improve before anyone would even think of investing a lot of money into a domestic women's league here. I mean I know the NWSL exists...but that's as much as I know about it. Granted, MLS isn't exactly the 5th major sport in the US, but they have average attendance numbers NWSL can only dream about. Interestingly enough MLS used the Men's 2002 WC performance as a springboard to grow the league, but NWSL hasn't seemed to really pull that off yet, despite greater success from the USWNT national team.

Good points. The USWNT is clearly more successful by a staggering amount but when it comes to ratings and ticket draw, key factors, I’m not sure how they compare.

Soccer is the only sport I’d personally watch the US gals play over the men’s team. I’m a huge Barca fan and follow European soccer. There are plenty of Women’s pro leagues in Europe as well but I have zero interest in that.

I wonder how Women’s Beach Volleyball ratings compare to other sports in the Summer Olympics? (Asking for a friend.)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Top ratings for female sports. I wonder why...I will get back to this.

People need to understand that sports is entertainment, and to the people paying the bills, the money generated by the entertainment. The entertainment industry is driven by what revenue can be earned from the product produced, whether it be film, music, or sports. The big difference with sports is that the major players have a shorter shelf life than the average actor or musician. This is the economics that rule.

Within that shorter career span of the athlete is the desire to earn as much money as possible--for most of them anyway. How much money that can be earned is dependent on one major overriding factor: how much is the public and advertisers willing to spend on your product? That is the revenue stream.

Why someone watches a sport, and who watches a sport, is key. The fewer people that watch a sport, the higher the revenue source must be from sources other than the paying public. Golf is a wonderful example of this. As far as viewership, golf is near the bottom rung of the ladder. However, the people watching golf comprise the highest average level of income among people who watch televised sports. Thus, advertisers mostly are from investment firms, high-end auto makers, and other products and services that for the advertiser, the average American would not be their target audience. These advertisers have no problem shelling out large amounts of money for advertising, as the return on investment (ROI) is fairly high, or at least considered risk-worthy based on prior research and sales.

The NFL is the revenue king. People from all walks of life in the United States watch the NFL. Advertising is a reflection of this. Public desire to go to the games are a reflection of this. The purchasing of NFL gear/clothing/bling is a reflection of this. The NFL is the ATM machine of North American sports. Salaries are high accordingly.

MLB is also popular in North America...and Central America and South America. MLB has featured players from every country in North, Central, and South America, as well as South Korea, Japan, China, the Philippines, a few countries in the Caribbean (especially the Dominican Republic), and a few countries in Europe--to this day, HoF pitcher Bert Blyleven of the Netherlands is still considered to have one of baseball's finest curveballs. Salaries are high accordingly.

I won't comment on the NBA, as we are well-aware of the world-wide appeal of the game and where players come from. For God's sake, you're on RealGM, you better know.

The NHL also has athletes from around the world playing, but the potential player-base is smaller. Sports like soccer, baseball, and to a lesser degree NFL can be played year round throughout much of the world by kids growing up--a function of climate. Yet the league has dedicated fans and salaries are adjusted accordingly.

This brings me to soccer (football--bear with me readers outside the US). While soccer is the most popular sport in the world, this does not hold true for the United States (much to the chagrin of quite a few Euros I know). More youngsters play soccer in the United States than any other sport. Baseball is seen as too boring for a generation wanting instant gratification. NFL-style football is being seen as too dangerous by many parents these days, and they don't let their sons play the game. Basketball is set to surpass baseball as the second-most popular kid sport, and in truth, if one counts the number of girl youth league players, it passes baseball (unless you wish to count girls softball as baseball).

This sets up a paradox: Why is it that soccer is the most popular youth sport in the US, yet we have no league comparable to the leagues in Europe? (Sorry, MLS is an inferior product) And why does the WNBA fail to generate enough revenue to cover costs? Hell, tens of thousands of girls play basketball from age six through high school.

It is really simple, and painful for some to hear. When it comes to girls sports as spectator entertainment, at the profession level most people simply don't give a damn. It isn't entertaining to the masses. Without that interest, the money will not follow!! Period. It's economics. Very few people care about how good the athletes are--they are not entertained, and that is what counts to the people paying the bills. The men's product is seen as being a better product. Neither the WNBA nor women's soccer in the United States is economically viable because the interest is not there!! You can't expect money to flow into your wallet if you cannot attract enough viewers who are interested in the sport to make it a viable economic investment.

Why is this? I cannot give a definitive answer. People like what they like.

Now, the poster I am replying to asked about the ratings of Women's Beach Volleyball during the Olympics. Get ready for some hard, sexist truth.

It is very popular, among the highest-rated viewership among all summer Olympic sports. I think we know why. And let's look at some other highly-rated female Olympic sports in terms of viewership.

Women's Beach Volleyball--Mostly good-looking, well-built women wearing practically nothing, sweating away in a sport with no bad viewing angles. Men drool.

Women's Figure Skating--Skimpy yet elegant costumes, cute girls/women, great camera angles. Men drool.

Women's Tennis--The influx of beautiful Russian and Eastern European women wearing skimpy tennis attire attract male viewship. Men drool. Add in the fact that an American is usually a contender. I know Serena is near the end of her career but she will, IMO, go down as the GOAT female tennis player. But yeah, hot women running around with more great camera angles. Popular enough that tournament payouts are quite nice. This is by far the most seen female sport on US broadcasts.

Women's gymnastics--Geez, really girls, and I personally think that many guys that drool over the little girls in tight-fitting outfits are perverts. But again we have a sport with females wearing next to nothing attracting male viewship for whatever reason. If you are one of the perverts, don't let me know....

Advertisers fight for sports during these broadcasts.

But doesn't soccer have cute women too? Sure. But the camera angles aren't the same, and they don't look as good during the game as do the participants I mentioned from the other sports--this is based on polling and opinions taken from viewers, so don't label me a soccer misogynist. US Women's Soccer does very well as per ratings during the Olympics. But those rating do not translate to having American viewers watch and support a pro league to any extent. Seeing this, investors don't believe in the viability of the sport from an economic standpoint.

This is just as bad for the WNBA. Men like watching cute girls. Most WNBA players are not the type you want to get with. And the perception among some men I know is that the WNBA is full of lesbians. (Yes, I know there are lesbians in women's soccer). Plus, no matter how good and skilled WNBA players are, they will never approach the skill level of NBA players. There are no Zion and Embiid and Giannis dunks in the WNBA night after night. That part of the entertainment is missing. The speed of the game is also not the same.

MLS has a difficult enough time staying viable. It is no shock that other than tennis, women's professional sports in the United States will stay regulated as third-class, behind professional men and D1 college sports. Without large-scale interest, the economics make no sense. I have never met a person in business who wants to lose money.

[Hello Brooklyn]

You guys are delusional if you think that more funding into the WNBA would suddenly make it popular.

The reason people don't watch the WNBA is because the product isn't good. Basketball is a sport based on athleticism.

Women can't even dunk. Why would we watch them play a sport with such an obvious inferiority to the product we are used to?

Sports such as tennis and soccer are based more on skill. Thats why women's soccer and tennis is more popular.

The product is more aesthetically pleasing. Its not like womens soccer or tennis started out with a ton more funding than the WNBA did. They grew their own fan base organically.

Despite this, womens soccer or tennis are nowhere near as popular as mens tennis or soccer. And their top athletes do not get paid close to the same degree the men do.

Why is this?

Sports viewership is dominated by men. We want to see other men play. Women don't watch sports nearly as much.

If women really cared so much about the pay gap they would tune in to watch WNBA games. But they don't. They would rather complain on social media about it. Do you honestly think Megan Rapinoe watches WNBA games in her free time regularly?

Of course not lol. Nobody does.

If you look at other entertainment industries like movies, singing, or social media women do fine.

There is one industry where women do make way more than men. What is that?

Modeling. I wonder why.

Because people would way rather pay money to see pictures of beautiful women than men. Supply and demand.

[Pg81]

It's funny because I keep getting told that women deserve no money because they don't earn it. Yet here we know the USWNT earns more revenue than the USMNT yet because other national teams earn a ton of money the US men profiting from it is a-ok. Ironic don't you think?

IF you were really about merit, you'd side with the USWNT on this issue, but you don't. I'm guessing because the issue isn't so much about merit but rather this idea that men are simply superior and thus should always get more even in instances where purely on the merits they deserve less. Interesting.

Or how nobody ever talks about how the 15th man on the roster who generates essentially zero revenue for anyone is making 7 figures and we just accept that's the scale. But the WNBA has some players who are actual draws even if the league isn't profitable these specific women definitely create more revenue than Taj Gibson or Mike Scott.

So if we are mad that women get paid anything at all, shouldn't we say that it's the stars drawing all the revenue in the NBA and we need to up the max salary considerably and lower the minimum considerably as well? Or do we accept that's been collectively bargained and just don't think about it?

I've never argued the women should make as much on average as the men. But I do think if we actually look at the economics a little closer instead of in these broad swaths we'd reach some different conclusions. Or at least we should.

[raylewis]

green is a darn fool

[Mephariel]

The bigger issue is that the USWNT is successful, but plays a competition that only comes around once every four years that people seem to care about it. Plus I'm not sure that the other competitions that they have garner any ratings at all. Do people watch the Concacaf Women's Championship more than the Gold Cup? Do they watch Women's World Cup qualifying matches more than the Men's?

It would seem like those ratings would need to improve before anyone would even think of investing a lot of money into a domestic women's league here. I mean I know the NWSL exists...but that's as much as I know about it. Granted, MLS isn't exactly the 5th major sport in the US, but they have average attendance numbers NWSL can only dream about. Interestingly enough MLS used the Men's 2002 WC performance as a springboard to grow the league, but NWSL hasn't seemed to really pull that off yet, despite greater success from the USWNT national team.

Good points. The USWNT is clearly more successful by a staggering amount but when it comes to ratings and ticket draw, key factors, I’m not sure how they compare.

Soccer is the only sport I’d personally watch the US gals play over the men’s team. I’m a huge Barca fan and follow European soccer. There are plenty of Women’s pro leagues in Europe as well but I have zero interest in that.

I wonder how Women’s Beach Volleyball ratings compare to other sports in the Summer Olympics? (Asking for a friend.)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Top ratings for female sports. I wonder why...I will get back to this.

People need to understand that sports is entertainment, and to the people paying the bills, the money generated by the entertainment. The entertainment industry is driven by what revenue can be earned from the product produced, whether it be film, music, or sports. The big difference with sports is that the major players have a shorter shelf life than the average actor or musician. This is the economics that rule.

Within that shorter career span of the athlete is the desire to earn as much money as possible--for most of them anyway. How much money that can be earned is dependent on one major overriding factor: how much is the public and advertisers willing to spend on your product? That is the revenue stream.

Why someone watches a sport, and who watches a sport, is key. The fewer people that watch a sport, the higher the revenue source must be from sources other than the paying public. Golf is a wonderful example of this. As far as viewership, golf is near the bottom rung of the ladder. However, the people watching golf comprise the highest average level of income among people who watch televised sports. Thus, advertisers mostly are from investment firms, high-end auto makers, and other products and services that for the advertiser, the average American would not be their target audience. These advertisers have no problem shelling out large amounts of money for advertising, as the return on investment (ROI) is fairly high, or at least considered risk-worthy based on prior research and sales.

The NFL is the revenue king. People from all walks of life in the United States watch the NFL. Advertising is a reflection of this. Public desire to go to the games are a reflection of this. The purchasing of NFL gear/clothing/bling is a reflection of this. The NFL is the ATM machine of North American sports. Salaries are high accordingly.

MLB is also popular in North America...and Central America and South America. MLB has featured players from every country in North, Central, and South America, as well as South Korea, Japan, China, the Philippines, a few countries in the Caribbean (especially the Dominican Republic), and a few countries in Europe--to this day, HoF pitcher Bert Blyleven of the Netherlands is still considered to have one of baseball's finest curveballs. Salaries are high accordingly.

I won't comment on the NBA, as we are well-aware of the world-wide appeal of the game and where players come from. For God's sake, you're on RealGM, you better know.

The NHL also has athletes from around the world playing, but the potential player-base is smaller. Sports like soccer, baseball, and to a lesser degree NFL can be played year round throughout much of the world by kids growing up--a function of climate. Yet the league has dedicated fans and salaries are adjusted accordingly.

This brings me to soccer (football--bear with me readers outside the US). While soccer is the most popular sport in the world, this does not hold true for the United States (much to the chagrin of quite a few Euros I know). More youngsters play soccer in the United States than any other sport. Baseball is seen as too boring for a generation wanting instant gratification. NFL-style football is being seen as too dangerous by many parents these days, and they don't let their sons play the game. Basketball is set to surpass baseball as the second-most popular kid sport, and in truth, if one counts the number of girl youth league players, it passes baseball (unless you wish to count girls softball as baseball).

This sets up a paradox: Why is it that soccer is the most popular youth sport in the US, yet we have no league comparable to the leagues in Europe? (Sorry, MLS is an inferior product) And why does the WNBA fail to generate enough revenue to cover costs? Hell, tens of thousands of girls play basketball from age six through high school.

It is really simple, and painful for some to hear. When it comes to girls sports as spectator entertainment, at the profession level most people simply don't give a damn. It isn't entertaining to the masses. Without that interest, the money will not follow!! Period. It's economics. Very few people care about how good the athletes are--they are not entertained, and that is what counts to the people paying the bills. The men's product is seen as being a better product. Neither the WNBA nor women's soccer in the United States is economically viable because the interest is not there!! You can't expect money to flow into your wallet if you cannot attract enough viewers who are interested in the sport to make it a viable economic investment.

Why is this? I cannot give a definitive answer. People like what they like.

Now, the poster I am replying to asked about the ratings of Women's Beach Volleyball during the Olympics. Get ready for some hard, sexist truth.

It is very popular, among the highest-rated viewership among all summer Olympic sports. I think we know why. And let's look at some other highly-rated female Olympic sports in terms of viewership.

Women's Beach Volleyball--Mostly good-looking, well-built women wearing practically nothing, sweating away in a sport with no bad viewing angles. Men drool.

Women's Figure Skating--Skimpy yet elegant costumes, cute girls/women, great camera angles. Men drool.

Women's Tennis--The influx of beautiful Russian and Eastern European women wearing skimpy tennis attire attract male viewship. Men drool. Add in the fact that an American is usually a contender. I know Serena is near the end of her career but she will, IMO, go down as the GOAT female tennis player. But yeah, hot women running around with more great camera angles. Popular enough that tournament payouts are quite nice. This is by far the most seen female sport on US broadcasts.

Women's gymnastics--Geez, really girls, and I personally think that many guys that drool over the little girls in tight-fitting outfits are perverts. But again we have a sport with females wearing next to nothing attracting male viewship for whatever reason. If you are one of the perverts, don't let me know....

Advertisers fight for sports during these broadcasts.

But doesn't soccer have cute women too? Sure. But the camera angles aren't the same, and they don't look as good during the game as do the participants I mentioned from the other sports--this is based on polling and opinions taken from viewers, so don't label me a soccer misogynist. US Women's Soccer does very well as per ratings during the Olympics. But those rating do not translate to having American viewers watch and support a pro league to any extent. Seeing this, investors don't believe in the viability of the sport from an economic standpoint.

This is just as bad for the WNBA. Men like watching cute girls. Most WNBA players are not the type you want to get with. And the perception among some men I know is that the WNBA is full of lesbians. (Yes, I know there are lesbians in women's soccer). Plus, no matter how good and skilled WNBA players are, they will never approach the skill level of NBA players. There are no Zion and Embiid and Giannis dunks in the WNBA night after night. That part of the entertainment is missing. The speed of the game is also not the same.

MLS has a difficult enough time staying viable. It is no shock that other than tennis, women's professional sports in the United States will stay regulated as third-class, behind professional men and D1 college sports. Without large-scale interest, the economics make no sense. I have never met a person in business who wants to lose money.

You lost me at gymnastics and figure skating. Those are legit sports for women, two sports where women are respected for their athletic and artistic abilities. Men and women in those sports have different programs and apparatus in gymnastics. Kobe Bryant said gymnastics is his favorite sport to watch. Gymnastics is the most watch sporting program in the Olympics. When Alina Zagitova and Evgenia Medvedeva took the ice in the Winter Olympics in 2018, their rivalry drew some of the highest ratings in that Olympics (they ended up gold and silver).

If you want to say that beach volleyball has high ratings because of fit women and skimpy clothes, that is fine. But saying people only watch figure skating and gymnastics because of the same reason is atrocious. You think guys are drooling at 16 year old girls across the country? Lebron James really wanted to bang Simone Biles when he praised her on twitter right? That is a ridiculous take.

[SkyHookFTW]

Good points. The USWNT is clearly more successful by a staggering amount but when it comes to ratings and ticket draw, key factors, I’m not sure how they compare.

Soccer is the only sport I’d personally watch the US gals play over the men’s team. I’m a huge Barca fan and follow European soccer. There are plenty of Women’s pro leagues in Europe as well but I have zero interest in that.

I wonder how Women’s Beach Volleyball ratings compare to other sports in the Summer Olympics? (Asking for a friend.)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Top ratings for female sports. I wonder why...I will get back to this.

People need to understand that sports is entertainment, and to the people paying the bills, the money generated by the entertainment. The entertainment industry is driven by what revenue can be earned from the product produced, whether it be film, music, or sports. The big difference with sports is that the major players have a shorter shelf life than the average actor or musician. This is the economics that rule.

Within that shorter career span of the athlete is the desire to earn as much money as possible--for most of them anyway. How much money that can be earned is dependent on one major overriding factor: how much is the public and advertisers willing to spend on your product? That is the revenue stream.

Why someone watches a sport, and who watches a sport, is key. The fewer people that watch a sport, the higher the revenue source must be from sources other than the paying public. Golf is a wonderful example of this. As far as viewership, golf is near the bottom rung of the ladder. However, the people watching golf comprise the highest average level of income among people who watch televised sports. Thus, advertisers mostly are from investment firms, high-end auto makers, and other products and services that for the advertiser, the average American would not be their target audience. These advertisers have no problem shelling out large amounts of money for advertising, as the return on investment (ROI) is fairly high, or at least considered risk-worthy based on prior research and sales.

The NFL is the revenue king. People from all walks of life in the United States watch the NFL. Advertising is a reflection of this. Public desire to go to the games are a reflection of this. The purchasing of NFL gear/clothing/bling is a reflection of this. The NFL is the ATM machine of North American sports. Salaries are high accordingly.

MLB is also popular in North America...and Central America and South America. MLB has featured players from every country in North, Central, and South America, as well as South Korea, Japan, China, the Philippines, a few countries in the Caribbean (especially the Dominican Republic), and a few countries in Europe--to this day, HoF pitcher Bert Blyleven of the Netherlands is still considered to have one of baseball's finest curveballs. Salaries are high accordingly.

I won't comment on the NBA, as we are well-aware of the world-wide appeal of the game and where players come from. For God's sake, you're on RealGM, you better know.

The NHL also has athletes from around the world playing, but the potential player-base is smaller. Sports like soccer, baseball, and to a lesser degree NFL can be played year round throughout much of the world by kids growing up--a function of climate. Yet the league has dedicated fans and salaries are adjusted accordingly.

This brings me to soccer (football--bear with me readers outside the US). While soccer is the most popular sport in the world, this does not hold true for the United States (much to the chagrin of quite a few Euros I know). More youngsters play soccer in the United States than any other sport. Baseball is seen as too boring for a generation wanting instant gratification. NFL-style football is being seen as too dangerous by many parents these days, and they don't let their sons play the game. Basketball is set to surpass baseball as the second-most popular kid sport, and in truth, if one counts the number of girl youth league players, it passes baseball (unless you wish to count girls softball as baseball).

This sets up a paradox: Why is it that soccer is the most popular youth sport in the US, yet we have no league comparable to the leagues in Europe? (Sorry, MLS is an inferior product) And why does the WNBA fail to generate enough revenue to cover costs? Hell, tens of thousands of girls play basketball from age six through high school.

It is really simple, and painful for some to hear. When it comes to girls sports as spectator entertainment, at the profession level most people simply don't give a damn. It isn't entertaining to the masses. Without that interest, the money will not follow!! Period. It's economics. Very few people care about how good the athletes are--they are not entertained, and that is what counts to the people paying the bills. The men's product is seen as being a better product. Neither the WNBA nor women's soccer in the United States is economically viable because the interest is not there!! You can't expect money to flow into your wallet if you cannot attract enough viewers who are interested in the sport to make it a viable economic investment.

Why is this? I cannot give a definitive answer. People like what they like.

Now, the poster I am replying to asked about the ratings of Women's Beach Volleyball during the Olympics. Get ready for some hard, sexist truth.

It is very popular, among the highest-rated viewership among all summer Olympic sports. I think we know why. And let's look at some other highly-rated female Olympic sports in terms of viewership.

Women's Beach Volleyball--Mostly good-looking, well-built women wearing practically nothing, sweating away in a sport with no bad viewing angles. Men drool.

Women's Figure Skating--Skimpy yet elegant costumes, cute girls/women, great camera angles. Men drool.

Women's Tennis--The influx of beautiful Russian and Eastern European women wearing skimpy tennis attire attract male viewship. Men drool. Add in the fact that an American is usually a contender. I know Serena is near the end of her career but she will, IMO, go down as the GOAT female tennis player. But yeah, hot women running around with more great camera angles. Popular enough that tournament payouts are quite nice. This is by far the most seen female sport on US broadcasts.

Women's gymnastics--Geez, really girls, and I personally think that many guys that drool over the little girls in tight-fitting outfits are perverts. But again we have a sport with females wearing next to nothing attracting male viewship for whatever reason. If you are one of the perverts, don't let me know....

Advertisers fight for sports during these broadcasts.

But doesn't soccer have cute women too? Sure. But the camera angles aren't the same, and they don't look as good during the game as do the participants I mentioned from the other sports--this is based on polling and opinions taken from viewers, so don't label me a soccer misogynist. US Women's Soccer does very well as per ratings during the Olympics. But those rating do not translate to having American viewers watch and support a pro league to any extent. Seeing this, investors don't believe in the viability of the sport from an economic standpoint.

This is just as bad for the WNBA. Men like watching cute girls. Most WNBA players are not the type you want to get with. And the perception among some men I know is that the WNBA is full of lesbians. (Yes, I know there are lesbians in women's soccer). Plus, no matter how good and skilled WNBA players are, they will never approach the skill level of NBA players. There are no Zion and Embiid and Giannis dunks in the WNBA night after night. That part of the entertainment is missing. The speed of the game is also not the same.

MLS has a difficult enough time staying viable. It is no shock that other than tennis, women's professional sports in the United States will stay regulated as third-class, behind professional men and D1 college sports. Without large-scale interest, the economics make no sense. I have never met a person in business who wants to lose money.

You lost me at gymnastics and figure skating. Those are legit sports for women, two sports where women are respected for their athletic and artistic abilities. Men and women in those sports have different programs and apparatus in gymnastics. Kobe Bryant said gymnastics is his favorite sport to watch. Gymnastics is the most watch sporting program in the Olympics. When Alina Zagitova and Evgenia Medvedeva took the ice in the Winter Olympics in 2018, their rivalry drew some of the highest ratings in that Olympics (they ended up gold and silver).

If you want to say that beach volleyball has high ratings because of fit women and skimpy clothes, that is fine. But saying people only watch figure skating and gymnastics because of the same reason is atrocious. You think guys are drooling at 16 year old girls across the country? Lebron James really wanted to bang Simone Biles when he praised her on twitter right? That is a ridiculous take.

Of course they are great athletes, but my point is that it doesn't matter. Those sports will never attract a constant, large view audience. If they did, there would be competitions all year long with those sports.

As for your other comment about me thinking guys are drooling are girls...I have worked as a teacher and in the criminal justice system for over 30 years. My comment about perverts was serious. There are a lot more people than you might think who are into watching young girls--or any girls--for reasons that go beyond sports, and anyone who doesn't understand this is a bit clueless. How many porn sites are available? How many young girls are making money with sites like OnlyFans? Why do those sites exist? Because in the end, they make economic sense to those who participate. Sports ultimately comes down to money just like everything else. And women's soccer and the WNBA simply don't produce enough revenue to be economically viable at this time.

Oh...and saying one thing that you didn't like doesn't make anything else I said wrong.

[lobosloboslobos]

the amount of effort that has gone into all you self-righteous dudes huffing and puffing about how real he-men could never enjoy watching anything but the greatest athletes (ie men) and that basketball played by women is just SO boring and impossible to enjoy or support economically would make me bust a gut laughing if it didn't make me want to puke with sadness and disgust.

Because, to be very blunt: that argument is a stinking pile of macho nonsense.

Here is an actual true statement: sports fans, including and in fact especially men, WILL GLADLY, ENTHUSIASTICALLY AND PASSIONATELY SUPPORT ANY SPORTS TEAM IN WHICH THEY ARE EMOTIONALLY INVESTED NO MATTER HOW GOOD OR BAD THE QUALITY OF PLAY IS, INCLUDING PONYING UP LOTS OF MONEY YEAR AFTER YEAR.

Here are just a few examples:

- pretty much every parent of every boy or girl who plays any sport at any level will pay hard cash and cheer like a mofo for their kid's team, dissecting the game play in detail, purchasing merch and more. they will follow the play with the exact same intensity as you follow an NBA finals as 7 year olds drop fly balls or toss endless airballs or whatever. the quality of play is objectively terrible but it inspires super intense feelings of passionate fandom. why is that?

- in the USA high school sports generate a level of fan engagement that is unheard of anywhere else in the world. there are communities all across the southern USA in particular whose PRIMARY CULTURAL FOCUS is the performance of their D3 or D4 or even D5 high school football team. I once was talking to a good old boy in a (very) small town in Oklahoma that i was passing through and out of the blue he wrote down the following numbers on a napkin and asked me what they represented: 295, 315, 320, 288, 335. I said I had no idea. he explained with pride that they were the weight of the starting offensive line for their high school team this year. I mean this is crazy levels of fan engagement over 16 year olds who - while good for their age no doubt, at least some of them any way - are playing a level of football that compared to the NFL is objectively profoundly subpar. Since that dude has access to every NFL game like you and me how is it possible he could give a damn about these fat 15 year old boys bouncing off each other?

there are many more such examples. people care about what they CHOOSE to care about. It's not written in stone. And they care about sports teams that they feel emotionally connected to. It's the same reason people watch obscure sports in the olympics. it's not primarily to see great divers or great gymnasts or whatever, because the other 3 years and 11 months that are not the olympics they won't walk 1 second out of their way to see any of that stuff, live or on tv, but somehow they watch passionately once every 4 years. Why? Because of the national pride angle, the emotional connection to complete strangers in a sport nobody cares about at all is what matters.

So why does all this matter to the question at hand? Because the REAL reason all of you don't believe the WNBA can succeed is not because the play is objectively lower quality than the NBA but because you categorically refuse to believe that you personally could or would ever be willing to get emotionally invested in something that women - and only women - are doing together without any reference to men. That, my sexist friends, is the real reason for this 18 page thread. which, once more is a pile of bs. you are CHOOSING not to be willing to be involved, which is certainly your right, but your attempts to argue that no men could support the WNBA is just completely untrue. They could, YOU could, if you chose to. As a society, we do not really know how to invest in women's activities very well, especially men, but even many women are so trained to think men's activities are 'better' or 'more important' that they too find it hard to connect. But this is not some preordained fact. It is a reflection of how we live. do any of you guys have trouble cheering for your daughter's atom or peewee team? nope. but when she grows up you're saying other guys should only care about her if she turns out to be a great athlete so long as she's in a bikini.

feel free to not care. it's your right. but cut all the bogus rationalizations. you want women on the beach jumping around in bikinis showing off for YOU, and it has nothing to do with how entertaining WNBA games - which are NOT played as a tease to you - are. it's pretty simple. it is not about the quality. it is about whether you choose to get emotionally invested, and obviously for a lot of you guys investing in women's activities - emotionally or financially - is pretty much inconceivable.

one last point. what does it mean to be emotionally invested in a team? it means to care about the stories of that team, and above all to feel part of those stories, like they belong to you to some degree, and that you feel a sense of pride in them. your teams' stars, its struggles, its hopes. that's the stuff we live and breathe here on this site every day. that emotional connection is what makes RealGM matter and brings it to life. So what it really means that you aren't willing to get emotionally attached to WNBA teams is you are unable or unwilling to embrace the stories of those teams, their stars, their struggles, their hopes. and yet some hick town will still cheer on its local lads even if they play in the 9th division because they invest their own identity in those lads as representatives of their community. but it appears to be impossible for the men (and boys) on this forum to imagine that they could own women's stories in the same way. and yet, guess what, each of you knows women who are willing to do that for the men's teams. again, why is that?

I've been a sports fan for over 50 years and while in all honesty maybe 95% of all the sports I have ever watched have been played by men i have zero problem getting really into watching the women's march madness tournament. or watching girls play high school volleyball or whatever. i like watching women give it their all just like i like watching men do so. the quality of the competition has nothing to do with it. it's the effort, the drama, the stories that keep us engaged, not the play.

anyway, my rant is over. just stop pretending it's about quality. it's not. it's really not. it's about not being able to emotionally invest in women who aren't in bikinis.

[shakes0]

Anyone that thinks the women's team is underpaid and should get more money has obviously not looked into the story at all. How about you guys actually read the whole story and not just the headline?

All I see is a lot of symbolic white knighting and no understanding of the details at all. Even moderators are in here spewing disinformation, it's sickening.

Debate the facts, not your feelings.

They rejected the same deal.
They took less incentives to get the guaranteed salaries and a long list of benefits.
Now they want the same incentives from the men's deal without losing their extra benefits.

No, she is not asking for 'grass roots support'..... she is clearly talking about getting paid, every time she speaks she is talking about the WNT players getting more money. Even though they have been paid more than the men since their last deals were done.

These facts have been stated several times in this thread, yet here we are... pretty much Idiocracy.

Draymond's point was idiotic, but Rapinoe's is even dumber.

great post, sums it up perfectly. Our resident woke white knight mod ain't gonna like it though. I guess everything is bigger in Texas, even the disinformation/lies they spew.

[SkyHookFTW]

the amount of effort that has gone into all you self-righteous dudes huffing and puffing about how real he-men could never enjoy watching anything but the greatest athletes (ie men) and that basketball played by women is just SO boring and impossible to enjoy or support economically would make me bust a gut laughing if it didn't make me want to puke with sadness and disgust.

Because, to be very blunt: that argument is a stinking pile of macho nonsense.

Here is an actual true statement: sports fans, including and in fact especially men, WILL GLADLY, ENTHUSIASTICALLY AND PASSIONATELY SUPPORT ANY SPORTS TEAM IN WHICH THEY ARE EMOTIONALLY INVESTED NO MATTER HOW GOOD OR BAD THE QUALITY OF PLAY IS, INCLUDING PONYING UP LOTS OF MONEY YEAR AFTER YEAR.

You are missing the point. No one is saying that there isn't a core group of fans that will support any sport. The question is whether or not that core group IS LARGE ENOUGH TO ECONOMICALLY SUSTAIN A PRO SPORTS LEAGUE.

Whether you like it or not, the answer for the WNBA and women's soccer is NO. It is was, this thread wouldn't even be on the board. This thread never would have been made. This is not a stinking pile of macho nonsense--it is economic truth. The proof is in front of your face. No one who invest hard $$$$$$ gives two poops about youth league, high school, and in most cases college. They care about the pros. That is where the money is. Money rules sports. Period. That is why women's pro leagues are not viable. Not enough viewers at the pro level. It isn't rocket science. Sorry woke people and SJW's--it's the **** truth. My oldest daughter played rugby, was a three-year starter for a team that went to the national playoffs. On average 200-300 people showed up for the games. She is a lawyer now and a crossfit trainer. She is a wonderful athlete. No one cares. My other daughter was a gymnastics competitor through high school. 50 people showed up to watch. No one cares. My next oldest brother is a MMA trainer who fought for almost 12 years. Anywhere from 500-1500 paying in-person customers. I played D1 football. Ten of thousands of fans and TV broadcasts. It is no coincidence that the sports with the most viewers rake in the cash. Again, it's not about macho, it about the cold hard fact that money is king.

[lobosloboslobos]

the amount of effort that has gone into all you self-righteous dudes huffing and puffing about how real he-men could never enjoy watching anything but the greatest athletes (ie men) and that basketball played by women is just SO boring and impossible to enjoy or support economically would make me bust a gut laughing if it didn't make me want to puke with sadness and disgust.

Because, to be very blunt: that argument is a stinking pile of macho nonsense.

Here is an actual true statement: sports fans, including and in fact especially men, WILL GLADLY, ENTHUSIASTICALLY AND PASSIONATELY SUPPORT ANY SPORTS TEAM IN WHICH THEY ARE EMOTIONALLY INVESTED NO MATTER HOW GOOD OR BAD THE QUALITY OF PLAY IS, INCLUDING PONYING UP LOTS OF MONEY YEAR AFTER YEAR.

You are missing the point. No one is saying that there isn't a core group of fans that will support any sport. The question is whether or not that core group IS LARGE ENOUGH TO ECONOMICALLY SUSTAIN A PRO SPORTS LEAGUE.

Whether you like it or not, the answer for the WNBA and women's soccer is NO. It is was, this thread wouldn't even be on the board. This thread never would have been made. This is not a stinking pile of macho nonsense--it is economic truth. The proof is in front of your face. No one who invest hard $$$$$$ gives two poops about youth league, high school, and in most cases college. They care about the pros. That is where the money is. Money rules sports. Period. That is why women's pro leagues are not viable. Not enough viewers at the pro level. It isn't rocket science. Sorry woke people and SJW's--it's the **** truth. My oldest daughter played rugby, was a three-year starter for a team that went to the national playoffs. On average 200-300 people showed up for the games. She is a lawyer now and a crossfit trainer. She is a wonderful athlete. No one cares. My other daughter was a gymnastics competitor through high school. 50 people showed up to watch. No one cares. My next oldest brother is a MMA trainer who fought for almost 12 years. Anywhere from 500-1500 paying in-person customers. I played D1 football. Ten of thousands of fans and TV broadcasts. It is no coincidence that the sports with the most viewers rake in the cash. Again, it's not about macho, it about the cold hard fact that money is king.

I genuinely respect all that experience but don't really get your point. i know perfectly well what people pay for and what they don't but you seem to think that those things are just god-given realities that have nothing to do with anything else. but in some countries rugby fills massive stadiums. and in some countries nobody gives a flying f about basketball or the NFL. what sports we care about is culturally created, including our relative interest in men's and women's sports. i mean here we at least have a WNBA but try to sell even the most basic kind of women's sports in Saudi Arabia and you risk being beheaded. things are the way they are for reasons. i agree that what you describe is how things are. i'm just trying to get at why, and suggesting that if people want to change those things they can. before Jackie Robinson broke into the MLB the prevailing wisdom was that if you integrated professional baseball all the white fans would leave. well look where we are 75 years later...things can change if people choose change. they aren't written in stone.

[SkyHookFTW]

the amount of effort that has gone into all you self-righteous dudes huffing and puffing about how real he-men could never enjoy watching anything but the greatest athletes (ie men) and that basketball played by women is just SO boring and impossible to enjoy or support economically would make me bust a gut laughing if it didn't make me want to puke with sadness and disgust.

Because, to be very blunt: that argument is a stinking pile of macho nonsense.

Here is an actual true statement: sports fans, including and in fact especially men, WILL GLADLY, ENTHUSIASTICALLY AND PASSIONATELY SUPPORT ANY SPORTS TEAM IN WHICH THEY ARE EMOTIONALLY INVESTED NO MATTER HOW GOOD OR BAD THE QUALITY OF PLAY IS, INCLUDING PONYING UP LOTS OF MONEY YEAR AFTER YEAR.

You are missing the point. No one is saying that there isn't a core group of fans that will support any sport. The question is whether or not that core group IS LARGE ENOUGH TO ECONOMICALLY SUSTAIN A PRO SPORTS LEAGUE.

Whether you like it or not, the answer for the WNBA and women's soccer is NO. It is was, this thread wouldn't even be on the board. This thread never would have been made. This is not a stinking pile of macho nonsense--it is economic truth. The proof is in front of your face. No one who invest hard $$$$$$ gives two poops about youth league, high school, and in most cases college. They care about the pros. That is where the money is. Money rules sports. Period. That is why women's pro leagues are not viable. Not enough viewers at the pro level. It isn't rocket science. Sorry woke people and SJW's--it's the **** truth. My oldest daughter played rugby, was a three-year starter for a team that went to the national playoffs. On average 200-300 people showed up for the games. She is a lawyer now and a crossfit trainer. She is a wonderful athlete. No one cares. My other daughter was a gymnastics competitor through high school. 50 people showed up to watch. No one cares. My next oldest brother is a MMA trainer who fought for almost 12 years. Anywhere from 500-1500 paying in-person customers. I played D1 football. Ten of thousands of fans and TV broadcasts. It is no coincidence that the sports with the most viewers rake in the cash. Again, it's not about macho, it about the cold hard fact that money is king.

I genuinely respect all that experience but don't really get your point. i know perfectly well what people pay for and what they don't but you seem to think that those things are just god-given realities that have nothing to do with anything else. but in some countries rugby fills massive stadiums. and in some countries nobody gives a flying f about basketball or the NFL. what sports we care about is culturally created, including our relative interest in men's and women's sports. i mean here we at least have a WNBA but try to sell even the most basic kind of women's sports in Saudi Arabia and you risk being beheaded. things are the way they are for reasons. i agree that what you describe is how things are. i'm just trying to get at why, and suggesting that if people want to change those things they can. before Jackie Robinson broke into the MLB the prevailing wisdom was that if you integrated professional baseball all the white fans would leave. well look where we are 75 years later...things can change if people choose change. they aren't written in stone.

Yes, things can change. MLS is a very good example. Yes, it is not at the same level as Euro leagues, but it's slowly gaining in status. But this may not have ever happened without a changing demographic in this country. MLB is over 40% Latino, and that reflects the popularity of the sport throughout Latin America. But soccer is still number one, and as sustained immigration from Mexico, Central and South America has made the Latino population as a whole the largest minority in the U.S., the viability of a soccer league was possible. I have friends from Poland. We go to Philadelphia Union games. Half the crowd is not white. The number of people in attendance that have Latino roots show that those that brought their culture with them are willing to spend money to support part of that culture. Literally the world has been waiting for soccer to take hold in the U.S. at the professional level for decades. It finally has taken enough hold where the league will survive and probably get stronger.

Rugby may be big in other countries but not here. It's culture. I love rugby. I played club rugby for fifteen years after I stopped playing football. It's fun. I wish high schools across the country had the sport. I'd be willing to bet that if we had a sudden influx of modern immigration from Great Britain, Ireland, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, and Polynesia it would be more popular. But we don't.

But for whatever reason team women sports don't capture an audience in the U.S. For me personally, I don't think the product is as good as the men's. Others might have different reasons, some of which as rather rude (i.e., lesbians in the WNBA and women's soccer). To each his own. I doubt you will find a single reason for the lack of popularity of such--but to demand equal pay or close to it when the revenue stream is so much less--I mean so much less--to be a bit ridiculous. In the end, it's supply and demand, and the demand just isn't there, no matter how good the athlete.

[bebopdeluxe]

the amount of effort that has gone into all you self-righteous dudes huffing and puffing about how real he-men could never enjoy watching anything but the greatest athletes (ie men) and that basketball played by women is just SO boring and impossible to enjoy or support economically would make me bust a gut laughing if it didn't make me want to puke with sadness and disgust.

Because, to be very blunt: that argument is a stinking pile of macho nonsense.

Here is an actual true statement: sports fans, including and in fact especially men, WILL GLADLY, ENTHUSIASTICALLY AND PASSIONATELY SUPPORT ANY SPORTS TEAM IN WHICH THEY ARE EMOTIONALLY INVESTED NO MATTER HOW GOOD OR BAD THE QUALITY OF PLAY IS, INCLUDING PONYING UP LOTS OF MONEY YEAR AFTER YEAR.

Here are just a few examples:

- pretty much every parent of every boy or girl who plays any sport at any level will pay hard cash and cheer like a mofo for their kid's team, dissecting the game play in detail, purchasing merch and more. they will follow the play with the exact same intensity as you follow an NBA finals as 7 year olds drop fly balls or toss endless airballs or whatever. the quality of play is objectively terrible but it inspires super intense feelings of passionate fandom. why is that?

- in the USA high school sports generate a level of fan engagement that is unheard of anywhere else in the world. there are communities all across the southern USA in particular whose PRIMARY CULTURAL FOCUS is the performance of their D3 or D4 or even D5 high school football team. I once was talking to a good old boy in a (very) small town in Oklahoma that i was passing through and out of the blue he wrote down the following numbers on a napkin and asked me what they represented: 295, 315, 320, 288, 335. I said I had no idea. he explained with pride that they were the weight of the starting offensive line for their high school team this year. I mean this is crazy levels of fan engagement over 16 year olds who - while good for their age no doubt, at least some of them any way - are playing a level of football that compared to the NFL is objectively profoundly subpar. Since that dude has access to every NFL game like you and me how is it possible he could give a damn about these fat 15 year old boys bouncing off each other?

there are many more such examples. people care about what they CHOOSE to care about. It's not written in stone. And they care about sports teams that they feel emotionally connected to. It's the same reason people watch obscure sports in the olympics. it's not primarily to see great divers or great gymnasts or whatever, because the other 3 years and 11 months that are not the olympics they won't walk 1 second out of their way to see any of that stuff, live or on tv, but somehow they watch passionately once every 4 years. Why? Because of the national pride angle, the emotional connection to complete strangers in a sport nobody cares about at all is what matters.

So why does all this matter to the question at hand? Because the REAL reason all of you don't believe the WNBA can succeed is not because the play is objectively lower quality than the NBA but because you categorically refuse to believe that you personally could or would ever be willing to get emotionally invested in something that women - and only women - are doing together without any reference to men. That, my sexist friends, is the real reason for this 18 page thread. which, once more is a pile of bs. you are CHOOSING not to be willing to be involved, which is certainly your right, but your attempts to argue that no men could support the WNBA is just completely untrue. They could, YOU could, if you chose to. As a society, we do not really know how to invest in women's activities very well, especially men, but even many women are so trained to think men's activities are 'better' or 'more important' that they too find it hard to connect. But this is not some preordained fact. It is a reflection of how we live. do any of you guys have trouble cheering for your daughter's atom or peewee team? nope. but when she grows up you're saying other guys should only care about her if she turns out to be a great athlete so long as she's in a bikini.

feel free to not care. it's your right. but cut all the bogus rationalizations. you want women on the beach jumping around in bikinis showing off for YOU, and it has nothing to do with how entertaining WNBA games - which are NOT played as a tease to you - are. it's pretty simple. it is not about the quality. it is about whether you choose to get emotionally invested, and obviously for a lot of you guys investing in women's activities - emotionally or financially - is pretty much inconceivable.

one last point. what does it mean to be emotionally invested in a team? it means to care about the stories of that team, and above all to feel part of those stories, like they belong to you to some degree, and that you feel a sense of pride in them. your teams' stars, its struggles, its hopes. that's the stuff we live and breathe here on this site every day. that emotional connection is what makes RealGM matter and brings it to life. So what it really means that you aren't willing to get emotionally attached to WNBA teams is you are unable or unwilling to embrace the stories of those teams, their stars, their struggles, their hopes. and yet some hick town will still cheer on its local lads even if they play in the 9th division because they invest their own identity in those lads as representatives of their community. but it appears to be impossible for the men (and boys) on this forum to imagine that they could own women's stories in the same way. and yet, guess what, each of you knows women who are willing to do that for the men's teams. again, why is that?

I've been a sports fan for over 50 years and while in all honesty maybe 95% of all the sports I have ever watched have been played by men i have zero problem getting really into watching the women's march madness tournament. or watching girls play high school volleyball or whatever. i like watching women give it their all just like i like watching men do so. the quality of the competition has nothing to do with it. it's the effort, the drama, the stories that keep us engaged, not the play.

anyway, my rant is over. just stop pretending it's about quality. it's not. it's really not. it's about not being able to emotionally invest in women who aren't in bikinis.

Best post of the thread right here. Someone cue the DiCaprio in a tux clapping GIF, please.

[bebopdeluxe]

the amount of effort that has gone into all you self-righteous dudes huffing and puffing about how real he-men could never enjoy watching anything but the greatest athletes (ie men) and that basketball played by women is just SO boring and impossible to enjoy or support economically would make me bust a gut laughing if it didn't make me want to puke with sadness and disgust.

Because, to be very blunt: that argument is a stinking pile of macho nonsense.

Here is an actual true statement: sports fans, including and in fact especially men, WILL GLADLY, ENTHUSIASTICALLY AND PASSIONATELY SUPPORT ANY SPORTS TEAM IN WHICH THEY ARE EMOTIONALLY INVESTED NO MATTER HOW GOOD OR BAD THE QUALITY OF PLAY IS, INCLUDING PONYING UP LOTS OF MONEY YEAR AFTER YEAR.

You are missing the point. No one is saying that there isn't a core group of fans that will support any sport. The question is whether or not that core group IS LARGE ENOUGH TO ECONOMICALLY SUSTAIN A PRO SPORTS LEAGUE.

Whether you like it or not, the answer for the WNBA and women's soccer is NO. It is was, this thread wouldn't even be on the board. This thread never would have been made. This is not a stinking pile of macho nonsense--it is economic truth. The proof is in front of your face. No one who invest hard $$$$$$ gives two poops about youth league, high school, and in most cases college. They care about the pros. That is where the money is. Money rules sports. Period. That is why women's pro leagues are not viable. Not enough viewers at the pro level. It isn't rocket science. Sorry woke people and SJW's--it's the **** truth. My oldest daughter played rugby, was a three-year starter for a team that went to the national playoffs. On average 200-300 people showed up for the games. She is a lawyer now and a crossfit trainer. She is a wonderful athlete. No one cares. My other daughter was a gymnastics competitor through high school. 50 people showed up to watch. No one cares. My next oldest brother is a MMA trainer who fought for almost 12 years. Anywhere from 500-1500 paying in-person customers. I played D1 football. Ten of thousands of fans and TV broadcasts. It is no coincidence that the sports with the most viewers rake in the cash. Again, it's not about macho, it about the cold hard fact that money is king.

All of the huffing and puffing about your family's AMAZING sports exploits aside, you STILL don't get it.



You are right that viewership for women's sports in this country does not rise to the level needed for better salaries for the athletes. The point that lobosloboslobos so excellently made - which is also Rapinoe's point - is that women's sports doesn't give a rats' azz what YOU think or what YOU watch. You are - as far as being a potential supporter of better economics for women's sports - a lost cause. You don't give a crap, and you will NEVER give a crap. That, however, does NOT mean that the current generation of girls cannot make it their future to play professional sports - and be compensated well for it. It does NOT mean that over the next 10-20 years, as people like you turn off the TV and stop going to live events, that future generations of girls AND boys - kids who will have benifitted from the INCREASED INVESTMENT, COVERAGE AND SPONSORSHIP OF FEMALE SPORTS - will value those sports WAY more than men who (perhaps not you) don't give a crap about women's sports for whatever reason that is (including, potentially, the kind of conscious and unconscious misogyny that has been clearly evident in some of the posts in this thread).

Rapinoe doesn't give a fark what YOU think. What she is trying to do is to keep people like you from setting the terms of engagement for future generations - of both female athletes and viewers of BOTH sexes - to decide if they want value women's sports more than you do. And that starts with investing NOW. Women can't wait 20 years and then come back and say, "hey - do you like watching us any more now than you did 20 years ago?"

There was probably a time, 30 or 40 years ago, when the NBA spent millions of dollars trying to grow the game outside of the United States. At the time, they may have been pissing the money away. Now? It looks like an AMAZING return on invested capital. The NFL did the same thing starting 15-20 years ago...that is coming along more slowly, but it is the same thought process. What Rapinoe is fighting for is not just GIVE ME MORE MONEY NOW, but invest in the future of women's sports, so MAYBE a 5-year-girl today will be able to see her hard work turn into a professional career - one that her boy and girl friends in the playground will watch on TV and pay to go see.

If you can't see that, because all you can do is look at this issue through your own eyes, then fine. We move on.

[SkyHookFTW]

the amount of effort that has gone into all you self-righteous dudes huffing and puffing about how real he-men could never enjoy watching anything but the greatest athletes (ie men) and that basketball played by women is just SO boring and impossible to enjoy or support economically would make me bust a gut laughing if it didn't make me want to puke with sadness and disgust.

Because, to be very blunt: that argument is a stinking pile of macho nonsense.

Here is an actual true statement: sports fans, including and in fact especially men, WILL GLADLY, ENTHUSIASTICALLY AND PASSIONATELY SUPPORT ANY SPORTS TEAM IN WHICH THEY ARE EMOTIONALLY INVESTED NO MATTER HOW GOOD OR BAD THE QUALITY OF PLAY IS, INCLUDING PONYING UP LOTS OF MONEY YEAR AFTER YEAR.

You are missing the point. No one is saying that there isn't a core group of fans that will support any sport. The question is whether or not that core group IS LARGE ENOUGH TO ECONOMICALLY SUSTAIN A PRO SPORTS LEAGUE.

Whether you like it or not, the answer for the WNBA and women's soccer is NO. It is was, this thread wouldn't even be on the board. This thread never would have been made. This is not a stinking pile of macho nonsense--it is economic truth. The proof is in front of your face. No one who invest hard $$$$$$ gives two poops about youth league, high school, and in most cases college. They care about the pros. That is where the money is. Money rules sports. Period. That is why women's pro leagues are not viable. Not enough viewers at the pro level. It isn't rocket science. Sorry woke people and SJW's--it's the **** truth. My oldest daughter played rugby, was a three-year starter for a team that went to the national playoffs. On average 200-300 people showed up for the games. She is a lawyer now and a crossfit trainer. She is a wonderful athlete. No one cares. My other daughter was a gymnastics competitor through high school. 50 people showed up to watch. No one cares. My next oldest brother is a MMA trainer who fought for almost 12 years. Anywhere from 500-1500 paying in-person customers. I played D1 football. Ten of thousands of fans and TV broadcasts. It is no coincidence that the sports with the most viewers rake in the cash. Again, it's not about macho, it about the cold hard fact that money is king.

All of the huffing and puffing about your family's AMAZING sports exploits aside, you STILL don't get it.



You are right that viewership for women's sports in this country does not rise to the level needed for better salaries for the athletes. The point that lobosloboslobos so excellently made - which is also Rapinoe's point - is that women's sports doesn't give a rats' azz what YOU think or what YOU watch. You are - as far as being a potential supporter of better economics for women's sports - a lost cause. You don't give a crap, and you will NEVER give a crap. That, however, does NOT mean that the current generation of girls cannot make it their future to play professional sports - and be compensated well for it. It does NOT mean that over the next 10-20 years, as people like you turn off the TV and stop going to live events, that future generations of girls AND boys - kids who will have benifitted from the INCREASED INVESTMENT, COVERAGE AND SPONSORSHIP OF FEMALE SPORTS - will value those sports WAY more than men who (perhaps not you) don't give a crap about women's sports for whatever reason that is (including, potentially, the kind of conscious and unconscious misogyny that has been clearly evident in some of the posts in this thread).

Rapinoe doesn't give a fark what YOU think. What she is trying to do is to keep people like you from setting the terms of engagement for future generations - of both female athletes and viewers of BOTH sexes - to decide if they want value women's sports more than you do. And that starts with investing NOW. Women can't wait 20 years and then come back and say, "hey - do you like watching us any more now than you did 20 years ago?"

There was probably a time, 30 or 40 years ago, when the NBA spent millions of dollars trying to grow the game outside of the United States. At the time, they may have been pissing the money away. Now? It looks like an AMAZING return on invested capital. The NFL did the same thing starting 15-20 years ago...that is coming along more slowly, but it is the same thought process. What Rapinoe is fighting for is not just GIVE ME MORE MONEY NOW, but invest in the future of women's sports, so MAYBE a 5-year-girl today will be able to see her hard work turn into a professional career - one that her boy and girl friends in the playground will watch on TV and pay to go see.

If you can't see that, because all you can do is look at this issue through your own eyes, then fine. We move on.

Did you actually read my last post?

[clyde21]

oh yes, ToXiC MasCuLiNiTy (this stupid ass term needs to die a quick death hopefully) must be the reason no one watches the NBA.

what's funny is that more men probably watch the WNBA than women.