Kc current is a perfect example. Imagine that, you get mahomes involved and build a new stadium and they draw crowds and interest. Of course it is not mls caliber crowds. But bringing in 10k on the regular attendance is nothing to sneeze at and something the best teams in the wnba aren’t pulling in. By some peoples logic the empty stadiums were proof there was no interest as opposed to saying people will come if you give it the infrastructure to grow. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Pasta Little Brioni:
Who am I shitting on? I just talked up the countless talented women athletes that get ZERO respect and you attack for no reason :-)
So you just choose to shit in Clark? Who's had the best career out of all of them so far?
Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501:
That’s bullshit. Women’s tennis is arguably just as popular as men’s despite way less marketing, or at least it was when Serena was around.
Women’s soccer, last years debacle aside, is extremely popular. It was underinvested for decades and I’m guessing when Nike started raking in billions they realized how damn stupid they were for not promoting it sooner.
And women’s pro volleyball is only just now getting started.
There was money to be made but no one with the proactive foresight to realize it. It’s chicken or the egg because you are assuming that without world class facilities, marketing, mega media deals some of these sports wouldn’t take off.
I'm only referring to sports in the USA, but tennis is a 5th or 6th rate sport at best, whether you're talking about men or women.
As far as soccer, what does Nike raking in billions have to do with viewership? Selling soccer gear to kids doesn't equal adult viewership. Not in the USA, anyway.
No major sports in the US started out with world class anything, yet here they are. [Reply]
Originally Posted by ThrobProng:
I'm only referring to sports in the USA, but tennis is a 5th or 6th rate sport at best, whether you're talking about men or women.
As far as soccer, what does Nike raking in billions have to do with viewership? Selling soccer gear to kids doesn't equal adult viewership. Not in the USA, anyway.
No major sports in the US started out with world class anything, yet here they are.
Sports in the USA mostly did not allow women. And they had decades to evolve from a court with peach baskets to a small gym to small to big arenas.
Look at the kc current or the new pro women’s volleyball league. Or even the mls. You would have given up on the mls for the decades where they were hemorrhaging money and huge markets could only find a few thousand fans. It took decades to build fan loyalty, star power, add new markets which were willing to build great stadiums. Hell look at the kc current. Imagine giving up on women’s soccer in kc because of past failures versus saying all it took was mahomes and a new stadium to create interest. And as they make more money, they can pull in bigger media deals, and with those deals pull in better star players, and with that pull in even bigger media deals. Those fans with better experiences will raise young kids who grow up to be loyalists. That’s how this works. It doesn’t happen overnight. And it takes investment and patience which mens sports like mls got, but women’s sports largely did not. The irony is I think the one exception is the wnba who got investment and just could not grow the game.
And yeah the huge sponsorships like Nike absolutely matter. Large sponsors drive media, sponsorships. Because Nike wants more viewers so they can sell more cleats and shorts. It has absolutely materialized into outstanding tv viewership for national women’s soccer games. That is in spite of lack of investment in a women’s pro league which seems to be a turning tide. So again, there is probably a lot more chicken and egg here. Where you assume investment isn’t there because of a lack of viewers, it can easily be argued just the same that viewers aren’t there because of lack of investment.
Hell, is anyone going to pretend that a lot of Caitlin Clark’s and angel reeses large followings aren’t largely due to NIL that finally allows college athletes to be marketed and celebrated? [Reply]
Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501:
Sports in the USA mostly did not allow women. And they had decades to evolve from a court with peach baskets to a small gym to small to big arenas.
Look at the kc current or the new pro women’s volleyball league. Or even the mls. You would have given up on the mls for the decades where they were hemorrhaging money and huge markets could only find a few thousand fans. It took decades to build fan loyalty, star power, add new markets which were willing to build great stadiums. Hell look at the kc current. Imagine giving up on women’s soccer in kc because of past failures versus saying all it took was mahomes and a new stadium to create interest. And as they make more money, they can pull in bigger media deals, and with those deals pull in better star players, and with that pull in even bigger media deals. Those fans with better experiences will raise young kids who grow up to be loyalists. That’s how this works. It doesn’t happen overnight. And it takes investment and patience which mens sports like mls got, but women’s sports largely did not. The irony is I think the one exception is the wnba who got investment and just could not grow the game.
And yeah the huge sponsorships like Nike absolutely matter. Large sponsors drive media, sponsorships. Because Nike wants more viewers so they can sell more cleats and shorts. It has absolutely materialized into outstanding tv viewership for national women’s soccer games. That is in spite of lack of investment in a women’s pro league which seems to be a turning tide. So again, there is probably a lot more chicken and egg here. Where you assume investment isn’t there because of a lack of viewers, it can easily be argued just the same that viewers aren’t there because of lack of investment.
Hell, is anyone going to pretend that a lot of Caitlin Clark’s and angel reeses large followings aren’t largely due to NIL that finally allows college athletes to be marketed and celebrated?
There is no reason to think that with enough time and patience, women's sports can't become as big as men's sports...even in the same sports currently dominated by men's leagues.
The only thing that would make it unrealistic is if women's sports are inherently inferior products that not even women prefer to watch over men's sports. [Reply]
Originally Posted by ThrobProng:
There is no reason to think that with enough time and patience, women's sports can't become as big as men's sports...even in the same sports currently dominated by men's leagues.
The only thing that would make it unrealistic is if women's sports are inherently inferior products that not even women prefer to watch over men's sports.
I doubt women’s sports in most cases will ever be bigger than men’s sports. But several have a good shot to be much more popular than they are today and pull in respectable numbers. I don’t think the quality of play matters nearly as much as you think it does. I know several parents of teenage athletes who follow women’s athletes because they can relate.
But I think you’re also missing on how much star power, game day experience and media blitzing matters. Both men and women were way more into USWNT and women’s tennis when Alex Morgan and Serena were relevant vs when they’re not. And now you see it with Caitlin clark. You have your typical fan girls who don’t know shit about fuck, but lots and lots of men seemed to love watching the women’s final four even knowing it was a much more inferior product. [Reply]
Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501:
I doubt women’s sports in most cases will ever be bigger than men’s sports. But several have a good shot to be much more popular than they are today and pull in respectable numbers. I don’t think the quality of play matters nearly as much as you think it does. I know several parents of teenage athletes who follow women’s athletes because they can relate.
But I think you’re also missing on how much star power, game day experience and media blitzing matters. Both men and women were way more into USWNT and women’s tennis when Alex Morgan and Serena were relevant vs when they’re not. And now you see it with Caitlin clark. You have your typical fan girls who don’t know shit about ****, but lots and lots of men seemed to love watching the women’s final four even knowing it was a much more inferior product.
Don't know with the Men's with NIL and transfer portal was a better product this year. It always has been. However the women's games were more competitive, had rivalries and it was actually better executed basketball. [Reply]
The best thing the WNBA could do is orchestrate games so that Clark bombs/makes threes all game long and then gets in a fist fight with Angel Reese.
Ratings through the roof.
These old worn-out hides like Taurasi need to quit their bitching and thank the gods Clark showed up and will bring at least a temporary bump in viewership. [Reply]
Originally Posted by BEAVER:
The best thing the WNBA could do is orchestrate games so that Clark bombs/makes threes all game long and then gets in a fist fight with Angel Reese.
Ratings through the roof.
These old worn-out hides like Taurasi need to quit their bitching and thank the gods Clark showed up and will bring at least a temporary bump in viewership.
They should do everything possible to frame the Clark/Reese rivalry as a modern-day Bird/Magic rivalry. Two skilled players who are polar opposites in virtually every way, who have already faced off in college. There's also the obvious "black vs. white" factor that drives up interest.
Of course the WNBA's version of Michael Jordan will need to explode onto the scene in the next few seasons to maintain whatever momentum they build, but that's another topic. [Reply]
