Interesting article about women’s sport and media in Bloombergview.
It is not a shock that woman’s sport only get 3.2% of network television coverage in 2014. That is less than in 1989.
So no progress in 25 years, even though popularity and participation has increased.
http://www.bloombergview.com/...e-women-s-world-cup-
I wonder if women’s sports had been more popular if it got 90% of television coverage…
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?
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…
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.
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.
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…
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.
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.
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…
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
I think that’s a very unlikely explanation. Boys and girls are both free to participate in team sports through high school and university. It has nothing to do with funding or sports coverage at that point in their lives. The woman on the national team have played their whole lives and have devoted far more time than the 15 year boys on a local rec. team.
The skill level in U20 hockey is amazing. It’s popular for the same reason college basketball is popular… the sport is being played at a high level. Nobody watches the WNBA because it’s cringe worthy.
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 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.