TV folks aren't (that) stupid. They are in it to make money. Whatever model(s) they use tells them that it is more profitable to show men.

It is not ESPN's responsibility to make women's sport more popular. It is their responsibility to make money for the shareholders.

Edit - I didn't read the article linked there, so I don't know if the tone of the article was that this is a good thing, a bad thing, or indifferent.

A lot of woman's sports are not very impressive and the viewers know it.

A friend of mine has a 15 year old son who plays on a local soccer team, which is competitive but not at the highest level. Their team played the Canadian national woman's team and it wasn't even close. I think the best woman's hockey team in the World would lose to 14 year old boys. etc... etc...

How much of that 3.2% was beach volleyball? ;)

A couple days ago a female friend of mine commented to me how much better watching men's soccer was than women's and how much more entertaining it was watching her 9 year old son's lacrosse matches vs her 11 year old daughter's.

Actually, on the lacrosse front, I enjoy watching girls' more on TV than boys', but they are quite different games so harder to compare.

Main point is that watching female sport is sometimes less interesting, and even women prefer watching the male version.

That's a sad number. But it is partially driven by the 24 hour desire to create and exploit stories (Tim Tebow, LeBron, Johnny Football, etc.).

If ESPN would "stick to sports", I would like to believe that the numbers would improve (you would see more highlights from WNBA, NWSL, college, etc.

And just to be clear, your friends' son team won right?

I've always thought some of the competitive soccer teams I played on in high school could give the US women a run for their money but everyone just laughs and thinks I'm being an asshole.

BTW what the hell was the Canadian women's national soccer team doing playing 15 year old boys?

Are not impressive to you the way you look at women's sport.

I disagree with your view on sport.

Women's sports come in two categories for me. Number one being that it's a sport that men also play such as basketball. The women are slower, can't jump as high, etc. Therefore, men's basketball is much more entertaining. The second category involves sports like gymnastics and diving ( I know men dive too, this applies to them as well). These sports aren't fun for me to watch because they're so freakin' technical. Unless a girl falls face first on the mat or does a belly flop I can't tell a difference from one to the other. A performance that gets a score of 7 and another that gets a score of 10 look identical to me.

Therefore, I don't enjoy watching too many girls sports.

The only exception to this is during the Olympics. I always like to see America beat other countries regardless of the event.

---

The best pace is a suicide pace, and today is a good day to die. -Steve Prefontaine

Watching SportsCenter earlier this morning and the lead story was the beginning of NBA free agency and Anthony Davis re-signing with New Orleans, then followed by the USWNT win last night over Germany highlights. Different priority for their target audience.

---

"You can never win or lose if you don't run the race." - Richard Butler

There's at least one major factor at play there: The WNT will be composed of only the women willing and financially able to continue playing soccer into their adulthood. I imagine many of the most talented female soccer players may have just decided to go into industry, where they can make more money. Or quite possibly, the non-stars on the WNT will probably be part-timers, having to work a job and train. They might even be less-trained than your average high-end teenage player.

This factor also ties into the cycle of lack of coverage: There's no money in women's soccer, so they lose a lot of talent. So the TV networks don't want to cover them, so there's no money coming in. And on and on.

It is possible for networks to make things into a big deal through sheer effort. One of the most-watched hockey tournaments each year in Canada is the U20 world championship. Why is it popular? Because 25 years ago, Rogers (essentially our comcast) decided it needed something to show over the holidays. Before Rogers decided to make it a big deal, nobody cared about it. This is reflected in the tournament's dismal in-person spectator numbers when it is held, even in hockey-loving countries, outside Canada. It's a big risk for a network to take however.

---

STAC Zero Trainer - Zero noise, zero tire contact, zero moving parts. Suffer in Silence starting fall 2016

Like it's been mentioned, it's all about the money. I read an article about the money in the NBA vs the WNBA. It estimated that the entire WNBA salary for every player combined is about 10 million/year. There are approximately 50 NBA players that make more than that individually.

But you have to admit... that tournament is some of the fastest, most frantic and entertaining hockey you can watch. The pace is much higher then your average NHL game, and while some of the skill isn't as great, it's pretty darn close. I think the world junior tournament is some of the best hockey you can watch outside of the first few rounds of the NHL playoffs or the Olympics.

---

Long Chile was a silly place.

Yes the boys won.

Not sure why they played kids. Probably to even the playing field a bit. They wouldn't be able to compete with a mens league team.

It's interesting to me that Ronda Rousey is one of the UFC's biggest draws. The reason is that she is an incredible athlete and she has amazing skills. But that's the exception for most female athletes in organized sports.

You need to watch more female sport. Saying that female athletes do not have skills make no sense.
Let us look at triathlon. How many men ran faster than Carfrae at Kona last year. Carfrae placed 33 overall, so I guess all the other men at Kona was nothing but wash up athletes getting beaten by a girl?

this is like complaining there aren't commercials for hungry jack meals during lifetime movies

50 Women on Sportcenter! Wait...less than 3.2% of sportscenter viewers are women. Should it be proportional???!!! Eject!!

---

------------------

- I do all my own stunts

I think impressive may be the wrong wrod. it is VERY impressive what any professional athlete--male or female does. However, some sports are just more compelling to watch/hear about than others. Candidly, I don't want to hear about most women's sports and I watch ESPN a lot, but that doesn't mean what they do isn't incredibly impressive.

"You need to watch more female sport."

this is the problem with the discussion. any sentence that starts with, "you need to..." needs to be calibrated carefully, if you want people to actually be bent by your argument.

i agree with you, in theory. but the problem is how it works out in practice. you have no skin in this. you pound on ironman, me, espn, anybody who doesn't do what you want. but it doesn't cost you anything to pound. if you said, "there's a push-pull to discussions like these, espn has to balance pulling its readers toward more female coverage while also paying its bills and making its payroll, how do we do that?" nobody would have a problem.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

I don't watch a whole lot of sports, but there are those where I find the women's version just as compelling as the men's. Cyclo-cross, for example. There are also sports where I enjoy the women's more than the men's, like tennis.

Again, though, I don't watch a lot of sports, and I wouldn't waste five minutes on Sportscenter.

ESPN is basically NFL network.

There are no women in NFL.

????

Actually they don't even show football as much as they get a few ex washed up football players in oversized suits sitting at a table talking about football.

No fricken clue why people watch ESPN. They are as entertaining as watching a Men's Wearhouse security camera.

If someone is saying that top female athletes do not have skills, they have to watch more female sports.
I was answering a specific question about skills. I think before you a saying something about all female athlete you should watch a lot.

When it comes to gender and sport, we can look at different markets. Let us take biathlon and Germany, why are some of the biggest stars female? Maybe because viewers can watch them.

I find it interesting that UFC is pushing the agenda when it comes to women in sports.

i don't think very many people doubt that women are catching up very quickly. but i do think there is a skills gap, and yes i think this is the case even in your example. yes, mirinda runs fast. but that's not a skill sport. in my opinion, based on my observation, the level of skill in cycling in triathlon in the pro field, both olympic and ironman, there is still a skills gap between men and women. this is on average.

but to your point, this wouldn't keep me from watching women's sport just as eagerly. i think that skills gap exists because women have been late to cycling in general, and each woman tends to come to cycling late in her life compared to a man. cycling is not inviting to women, and when women do take up cycling there are all kinds of extra hurdles, one of which is the apparent lag in interest (i'm given to understand) between women and men when it comes to the technical elements of cycling. i was taken to task in my interview with sara gross about our attention to the technical elements of triathlon, which are not inviting topics (apparently) to women.

i think the more a sport requires interface with tools, machinery, etc., maybe there's an addn hurdle. women apparently don't want to talk about watts, rolling resistance, etc. okay. but if you don't understand these issues, if you don't understand or have interest in bike fit, pack riding dynamics, waxing skis, whether you're male or female, this lack of interest makes it harder to close the technical gap between you and whomever is curious about those things.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

You are putting the chicken in front of the egg. TV coverage doesnt determine what is more popular. Popularity & demand for popular things creates TV coverage. Whether or not we like it, and regardless of the reasons behind it, women's sport just is not as popular as men's sport. Bottom line, if more people watched women's sports, it would get more time on ESPN.