1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Send me an angel

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by Alma, Jul 30, 2019.

  1. Alma

    Alma Well-Known Member

    I was reading the NYT Mag interview with Megan Rapinoe - whose relative lack of filter, combined with genuine sense of humor, I rather like - when I come across these three questions about the lack of support for women's professional soccer. (The NWSL, in other words.)

    Megan Rapinoe on Keeping the Politics in Sports

    The combination of ideas here are...interesting. Especially the third answer, which has unfortunately been truncated and cut off on some Web sites to just the last half of the answer (when the first half provides the key context. Underline is mine.

    Why has women’s professional soccer in the United States struggled to get to a healthier place? I’m at a loss for why there’s not more investment. The national team is wildly popular, making tons of money, growing exponentially, so do you have an idea other than sexism as to why people aren’t investing in women’s sports in a huge way right now? Probably 75 percent of the people going to Major League Soccer games — are they going because they’re hard-core soccer fans or because it’s a cool experience? The M.L.S. marketing is great, the branding is great and it’s a fun atmosphere to be a part of. I feel like women could have the exact same thing, but for some reason people aren’t investing in it.

    So is the answer just sexism? Unless I’m not thinking of something. I don’t think it’s a supercomplex issue. There’s plenty of money being invested all over the place in men’s sports, so until somebody tells me something that makes more sense, sexism is what we’re left with.

    Do you think the National Women’s Soccer League’s teams could be better-run businesses? The problem with the ownership groups is that they’re run by millionaires. Which is great for your normal life, but you can’t be just a millionaire and run a team properly. So I don’t think they’re run great because they can’t be. They don’t have the resources. People always ask, “What do you think the league needs?” What do you mean what does it need? We need to get out in the community more? No. We need to tweet about it more? No. It drives me nuts when people ask, “What do we need?” A billion dollars! So we can do things properly. Not like idiots, which is what we end up doing.

    First, Rapinoe manages to combine a moral imperative - sexism is holding back support - with a plea of support from the kind of ruthless capitalism that would make a billionaire...a billionaire. Her third answer essentially negates her first two answers - it's not really only sexism, but a lack of billionaire angel investment - and the three answers taken in total could be taken as a kind of road map of modern progressivism. It's not collectivism. It's lobbying exceptionally rich people.

    Have to admire the moxie of that worldview, if not the worldview itself. The implication, of course, is support from millionaires - much less the middle class - isn't enough and is ultimately unimportant. What's support if it doesn't come with a big price tag, right?
     
  2. Azrael

    Azrael Well-Known Member

    From the player's point of view, which environment is the more desirable?

    A minor-league team run by a millionaire?

    Or a major-league team run by a billionaire?
     
  3. poindexter

    poindexter Well-Known Member

  4. Webster

    Webster Well-Known Member

    I can see the frustration of the women’s players in that MLS has been underwritten by very rich owners/US Soccer in order to survive and now seems to be relatively healthy. For the women, the investment has been less so the pay is paltry and the league is run an a shoestring.
     
    Inky_Wretch likes this.
  5. Twirling Time

    Twirling Time Well-Known Member

    Send Me An Angel was a hit song in the 1980s by a band appropriately called...

    Real Life.
     
  6. poindexter

    poindexter Well-Known Member

    And it's like the 3rd league since 1999.

    Hey, life is tough.
     
  7. Cosmo

    Cosmo Well-Known Member

    I understand her points and her passion, but women's soccer is simply not the same game as men's soccer. It's far slower. The field of good players isn't very deep. And as the WNBA has found, there's a macho male sports fan thing that will not allow some men to be diehard fans of a women's sports team. Is that view evolving? Sure. Especially among men with young daughters who want them to have role models in sport. But I don't see the average joe six pack guy becoming a diehard Portland Thorns fan on his own.
     
  8. PCLoadLetter

    PCLoadLetter Well-Known Member

    I think your overall point is a solid one... but the Portland Thorns are averaging 19,000 at home this season. If nothing else, that offers hope that a well-run league could make it. ("Well-run" being a huge key here.)
     
    Inky_Wretch likes this.
  9. playthrough

    playthrough Moderator Staff Member

    Some sports' popularity spikes every couple years for World Cups/World Championships and Olympics, and some of those are women's sports. It's not sexist to simply not be interested the rest of the time.
     
  10. AD

    AD Active Member

    i've long had a nagging feeling about sports and aesthetics when it comes to the men's vs. women's sports debate:

    to me, women's sports like basketball and softball suffer instantly by comparison with its male counterpart. the game is just not as fun, dynamic, SPECTACULAR to watch, and i watch and think, 'interesting...but i'd rather invest my time watching the best version of this.'

    other women's sports (tennis, track, soccer), even when -- at grand slams or the olympics -- they are juxtaposed against their male counterparts, and even when it's objectively obvious that the women are not as fast or powerful, do NOT suffer at all by comparison.

    in other words, when i watch women's basketball or softball i'm constantly plagued by the seeming inferiority of that version. and when i watch tennis, track or soccer, it doesn't strike me in the least and i enjoy it fully. i'm happy to hear i'm alone in this, but i'd be interested to hear if i'm not.
     
  11. Cosmo

    Cosmo Well-Known Member

    Yeah, the Thorns were probably not the best example of what I was talking about.

    To AD's point, I actually prefer women's tennis to men's in the grand slams. Fewer aces. More rallies. No, it's not played at the speed of the men's game, but that makes it more compelling at times, if that makes any sense.

    Softball is just a 100 percent different sport than baseball. Rules are different. Field dimensions are different. Strategy is different. I don't think of softball as an inferior version of baseball. I feel like it's its own sport. And it can be very fun to watch at the highest levels.
     
  12. poindexter

    poindexter Well-Known Member

    More and more of my middle aged friends are starting to really follow the college softball WS.
    I'd be interested to see the ESPN ratings for the college softball WS against the college baseball WS.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page