The '99 women's World Cup team: Why the appeal?

ESPN put their victory over Brazil fifth this year in a list of the most dramatic games in American sports history.

FIFTH!!!

I didn't even know they beat Brazil. I didn't even know they played Brazil. Fifth. Ahead of Bobby Thompson. Ahead of Kirk Gibson. Fifth.

LTL, I realize there was a ton of interest in '99. It just didn't feel organic to me. That's the problem. To this day, it doesn't. I'm a pretty dedicated sports fan. Things don't sneak up on me. So when they do, I'm suspicious.

 

My wife was a high school freshman-to-be at the Rose Bowl that day. She sat 15 rows behind the goal that Chastain blasted her PK into the back of.

That team inspired her. She decided to quit cross country and track to focus on soccer soon after. She ended up playing Division I soccer on a full-ride scholarship, and got a college degree with the opportunity.

It was a groundbreaking moment for girls in America, something a lot of single, lonely macho men with a tunnel view of sports refuse to comprehend.

As a guy married to a former college soccer player with a little daughter at home, I will always appreciate what the 1999 World Cup team accomplished.

 

The categories are just a proxy/shorthand for the way the team and the event is talked about and placed within the context of American sports history. Whether it's American history or just American sports history, there should be some effort to objectively put history in context. Your question is like someone saying, "Who cares if someone thinks Stonewall is more important than Gettysburg? It's all subjective!"

 

Yes, and with respect to the "magicalness" of the '27 Yankees and the Miracle on Ice, those and countless other magical sports events happened pre-Internet/pre-cell phone/pre-24-hour news cycle.
The same "immediacy of the news" that has ruined the livliehood of daily newspapers can be credited for this country's newfound (and likely short-lived) admiration and interest in the 2011 women's soccer squad.
Has the squad joined the 1999 bunch in stimulating interest by youngsters in soccer? Without a doubt.

 

Nice try, but I qualify as neither.

 

I was referring to Batman.

 

If you care to link to where anyone used such terminology (and not in a derisive manner), please do so.

Some called the U.S. men's win in 1994 against Colombia, a pre-tournament favorite, a "Miracle on Grass" moment. At the time, soccer barely registered on the national radar. And for a U.S. team without half the talent of today's squad to pull the upset, guarantee advancement past the first round and thus jumpstart the movement for a national league, was a seminal moment for the game here.

With what we know now, of course, that Colombian team was under siege from forces off the field in ways that would break the hardiest group.

But the fact remains: there is no more Miracle on Grass moment for U.S. soccer. Anyone who says otherwise is looking for the easy analysis regarding soccer's supposed place in the U.S., the same as the idiots who bitch about penalty kicks as if there has never been an alternative sought before they decided to weigh in.

Anyone who might want to call Japan's win some kind of miracle obviously wasn't paying attention to the tournament as it unfolded. Throwing out their high standing in FIFA's nebulous world rankings, their style had already proven to give taller, more muscular teams trouble. And lost in the media wankfest about how plucky and "never say DIE!!!" our team played, Japan had done the exact same thing against both Germany and Sweden.

On another note: especially with what we now know (or at least, reasonably suspect regarding performance enhancing, and know about what a jerk Lance Armstrong can be), the 1999 Women's World Cup champions remain the appropriate selection for SI's Sportspeople of the Year.

 

This is it. This is what bothered me about '99. We were the heavy, heavy favorites. But the media and public didn't frame it that way. Instead they were plucky and scrappy and underdoggy. Because they were girls. And girls are plucky and scrappy and underdoggy. Even when they are playing against other girls.

In a strange way, the lovefest was condescending toward women's sports.

 

Dick, I think your problem is more with ESPN's over-selling than with the Women's World Cup. We could do five threads a day on that. Their lists are always bullshit based on what footage they have and what game they're trying to sell.

 

The sports culture is weird, and I'm sure media plays a big hand in this, in making you think that you should care about what's a big deal and what's not.

Why don't people watch the sports they want to watch, ignore the sports they want to ignore, and not give a shit if a sport like soccer is popular every four years during the World Cup?

All the NFL-NBA-MLB fans seem almost offended that the Olympics and the World Cup are watched every four years in this country. Like they have to puff their chest out and say "Yeah, well, the NFL is popular EVERY YEAR." Why do you feel the need to do that?

And the constant need for men to downplay any athletic accomplishments by women is the ultimate in small-penis syndrome (looking your way, Batman).

I am a big fan of baseball and college basketball and follow everything else occasionally. I love the World Cups and I love the Olympics. And I don't care what anyone thinks about that.

 

Using the lack of attention paid to the 1991 World Cup as justification for the 1999 World Cup being an anomaly is disingenuous. Women's soccer had been effectively banned around the world until the 1970s; the US women's national team didn't exist until the mid-1980s and didn't have any formal competition to play in until the World Cup was created in 1991. Given the lack of attention paid to any soccer at the time, and the fact that the 1991 World Cup was in China, there should be no expectation that mainstream America would notice.

That said, in the years between 1991 and 1999, the United States hosted World Cup 1994 and MLS debuted in 1996, greatly increasing the visibility of soccer in the country. And most importantly, women's soccer became an Olympic sport in 1996 with the following attendance for US games:

Opening Game: 25,303
Group Game: 28,000
Group Game: 55,650
Semifinal: 64,196
Final: 76,489

The momentum was clearly there. Combine that with the fact that the main players of the US women's team (Michelle Akers, Mia Hamm and the other Fab Five players) had been mainstays on the national team throughout the decade, and the fact that soccer was establishing itself as the most popular youth sport in the country, and the momentum grows.

Now in 1999 those identifiable players are among the premier teams in the world, they're charismatic and likable for parents and the kid soccer players alike, and they are playing on home soil.

All of the stars aligned, and it was a bona fide big event. It was also the first women's team sporting event to actually be treated like a big deal. Since you identify as a sports editor who wasn't interested in the event but had to cover it, I can see how you might personally feel "forced" in your coverage. However, attendance, TV numbers and endorsement deals surrounding the event imply that the success wasn't the result of newspaper editors forcing the event upon its readership.

To be sure, women's soccer undoubtedly regressed in the years that followed with an overly-optimistic professional league that soon folded and the 2003 World Cup having to be moved at the last minute. But in a sense, the 1999 World Cup really just out-kicked its coverage. With women's pro leagues slowly stabilizing and more national federations truly supporting the women's sport, it is start to catch up. The 2011 World Cup showcased that in various ways, both in terms of its overall reception and the play on the field. With the 2015 World Cup taking place in Canada, I think we'll find that the 2011 numbers weren't an anomaly either.