Women's Football

[Jonfun1980]

No.

[Neji]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DamianY2J:

It isn't worth SI's time, or money to implement it, as the amount of people who will buy the game just based on it is not high enough. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

QFT

[gunnerfan]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Contrary to what some people say, the women's is not rubbish and unable to improve, that is a naive and ill-informed view. A look at women's football around a century ago shows it has potential but fortunately the FA's decsion to try and stop women's football, as briefly mentioned earlier in the thread, meant that the game suffered greatly. I cannot speak for the whole world but in England the game is improving and has grown in popularity, the BBC's coverage of the women's world cup got quite good ratings IIRC. No, you cannot compare it to the men's game, but that doesn't mean it is rubbish and should be dismissed. I also believe that is is fairly well established in America (although I know very little about it). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, around the time of the WWC99, my boys were playing U-13, and I would tell them to watch as many of the games as they could (you can imagine what the initial reactions were like), and for two reasons - one, because the game tempo tended to be at a somewhat slower pace, and therefore easier to follow, and, two, because the style of play was closer to what they themselves were playing, with a much greater willingness to challenge for the ball, and therefore less time to make playmaking decisions.

One of the more interesting things that happened during the WWC in '99 was that people in the US were able to see a link between Title IX of the 1965 Civil Rights Law, which mandated equal funding of women's sports for colleges receiving federal funding, and the emerging success of two major women's sports - soccer and basketball. So, yes, it is possible that the sport will continue to develop and grow.

But it's potential as a spectator sport is hampered somewhat by the fact that the US sports landscape is already overcrowded. The "Big 4" - baseball, American football, men's basketball and hockey - already overlap one another, leaving no time during the calendar year in which none are played. Then there are the "event" driven sports, which have their own niches - golf, tennis and (God help us!) NASCAR. MLS, Lacrosse and arena football have also crowded into the sports calendar. After the 1996 Olympics, the WNBA was launched and has found its own niche. So, in the US at least, where there was arguably the largest player pool for women's soccer, a women's pro soccer league was obviously going to face an uphill struggle just for media coverage.

When the W-USA started, they assured their failure before the first player was signed. They waited until 2 years after the high-water mark of the WWC '99 before they launched. All the franchises were owned my media conglomerates, with an idea of providing cheap programming for regional cable TV networks, and not one of the franchises had a general manager with professional sports management experience (other than PR and advertising). And the founders of the league proceeded with the assumption that they were owed success.

Success was not an option.

[gunnerfan]

The English women's league seems to be proceeding along much more modest lines, and so the likelihood of success is greater.

BTW, several years ago, when I was organizing our club's summer soccer camp, I got to know several of the instructors we brought in. One of them was Rachel Yankey of Arsenal. She was great working with the kids, and she got a huge kick out of the fact that there was actually an American (me) who walked around wearing an Arsenal shirt.

[rlovie]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gunnerfan:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Contrary to what some people say, the women's is not rubbish and unable to improve, that is a naive and ill-informed view. A look at women's football around a century ago shows it has potential but fortunately the FA's decsion to try and stop women's football, as briefly mentioned earlier in the thread, meant that the game suffered greatly. I cannot speak for the whole world but in England the game is improving and has grown in popularity, the BBC's coverage of the women's world cup got quite good ratings IIRC. No, you cannot compare it to the men's game, but that doesn't mean it is rubbish and should be dismissed. I also believe that is is fairly well established in America (although I know very little about it). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, around the time of the WWC99, my boys were playing U-13, and I would tell them to watch as many of the games as they could (you can imagine what the initial reactions were like), and for two reasons - one, because the game tempo tended to be at a somewhat slower pace, and therefore easier to follow, and, two, because the style of play was closer to what they themselves were playing, with a much greater willingness to challenge for the ball, and therefore less time to make playmaking decisions.

One of the more interesting things that happened during the WWC in '99 was that people in the US were able to see a link between Title IX of the 1965 Civil Rights Law, which mandated equal funding of women's sports for colleges receiving federal funding, and the emerging success of two major women's sports - soccer and basketball. So, yes, it is possible that the sport will continue to develop and grow.

But it's potential as a spectator sport is hampered somewhat by the fact that the US sports landscape is already overcrowded. The "Big 4" - baseball, American football, men's basketball and hockey - already overlap one another, leaving no time during the calendar year in which none are played. Then there are the "event" driven sports, which have their own niches - golf, tennis and (God help us!) NASCAR. MLS, Lacrosse and arena football have also crowded into the sports calendar. After the 1996 Olympics, the WNBA was launched and has found its own niche. So, in the US at least, where there was arguably the largest player pool for women's soccer, a women's pro soccer league was obviously going to face an uphill struggle just for media coverage.

When the W-USA started, they assured their failure before the first player was signed. They waited until 2 years after the high-water mark of the WWC '99 before they launched. All the franchises were owned my media conglomerates, with an idea of providing cheap programming for regional cable TV networks, and not one of the franchises had a general manager with professional sports management experience (other than PR and advertising). And the founders of the league proceeded with the assumption that they were owed success.

Success was not an option. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The WNBA has survived and continues to survive only because it is propped up by the NBA, mostly for goodwill. It's a money-losing endeavor, but it's good publicity for the NBA to continue supporting it, and perhaps more importantly, would be terrible publicity if it stopped supporting it.

It has its niche audiences, and has done well by marketing itself to the lesbian market, but it will forever be limited by the evident limitations of women's basketball. It's not that people are opposed to watching women play basketball; it's that they're opposed to watching anyone play bad basketball, which is basically what the women's game is.

The thing with soccer in the U.S. is that SO MANY kids play it, but relatively few of them follow it on a professional level, and even fewer continue to do so after they're finished playing.

And yes, the WUSA was horribly executed. I've heard rumblings that another league might start up. More power to them if they do. But even if they put a team somewhere nearby me, I'd think real hard about whether I'd want to spend 90 minutes surrounded by squealing 9-year-olds. But those 9-year-olds all have parents, and their parents typically have deep pockets, so I think a league can succeed in that area.