Average Joe Sports Fan doesn't know the NASL and USL even exist. And even if he did, he wouldn't care about minor league soccer. He barely knows MLS exists. And one can say WPS clubs were/are actually the larger clubs, or at least on the same standing, as the NASL and USL. Look at the attendance for WPS vs. NASL this year. About the same. And WPS was drawing far bigger crowds than the NASL after the WWC. WPS was the league with the stars. So aligning yourself to minor league men's teams, who have their own numerous problems, does nothing. Maybe aligning with MLS clubs would work in certain markets. But like was said, MLS doesn't have the ability to laugh at debt like many of the European teams do. There is no real incentive for MLS/SUM to get involved in a women's league. There is no money in it. Just loses. That is a great thing? I can look at that as a negative. Because they were independent entities, they weren't strong enough to fight as one with some sort of central structure. A single entity might have been able to survive. And a rogue owner like Borislaw would never have been in position to destroy the league.
Good article by Jane McManus at ESPN on WPS suspending its season and whether this bodes ill for professional women's sports in general. The focus of the article is on some research done by two academics at Penn State who interviewed a number of women who grew up playing sports and looked into their sports watching habits as adults. In general, it's a pretty good summary of the dynamics working against women's pro sports. But it doesn't quite address the flip side of the gender question -- to what extent men will watch women's sports just as they make up the majority of the audience for men's sports.
the hook in kolabear's post had me prepared for another shining example of the ray barone school of journalism, but the article is serious and thoughtful. what escaped me at first was the point of tracking female sports spectatorship... until the mention of stuporbowl beer commercials (one of those doh moments). the hardin-whiteside study certainly goes much more in depth than mcmanus' article shows, but if they're considering 8-10 yr olds as the startpoint that's a major flaw. to draw a significant M-F comparison i think you need to consider girls who are still playing at 14, maybe even 16. for those younger than that soccer is indistinguishable from campfire girls or glee club; an activity, not a sport. once you've whittled the population down to those real potential sportswomen, my guess is that the curves are comparable for both sexes... but it's also clear that if you're depending predominantly on a support pool of that size you can't go far. the fatal problem is pointed out in the article: to be telemarketable, you need a core demographic. the audience for women's soccer being extremely disparate the business model has to be dimensioned to stadium attendance: in the grandstands a butt is a butt. my observation about the "crossover" spectatorships mentioned in the article: in their overwhelmingly majority neither women watching the NFL nor men watching the WTA are there for the sport; the former is explained in the article, to be convinced of the latter just googleimage "sharapova" or go to the WTA website and weigh the cheesecake. the makeup of OL ladies' fanbase is is doubtfully fully portable to north america but is certainly not more feminine overall than for the men's team, so is worth examining: first, a considerable number of retirees happy to attend a live sporting event for free but who would have to forego if required to pay more than a few euros; faithful fans but unfortunately useless to a league that needs to make money to survive. there's the contingent of young female players (unfortunately another population with limited resources) which is probably more robust in the states than here. there is of course a fringe of the male (and female) audience that simply has a crush on louisa, lotta or amandine but that's marginal. now we come to the rest of the crowd, and perhaps the answer to kolabear's question. this portion, probably the lion's share, definitely hails from the revered shores of18-34 maledom but is also largely touched by the economic aspect; not always the cost of attendance per se, since a good many even travel to away games at considerable expense, but by the fresh, honest, sportsman... errr, womanlike atmosphere of a game that hasn't been obnubilated by mammon. so there's the fatal paradox: the more professional women's soccer becomes, the more it alienates its potential fanbase. the true beauty of sport is on a different level from, may even be inversely proportional to, the hype and hooplah surrounding it. if you realize this you're ready for women's soccer, but also wary of magicjackery. if not? hey! superbowl dude!
"A company will get men by advertising during a women's sporting event, but not as many. And a company that might be drawn to a women's league, like Tampax was to the WTA, won't reach as many women in the audience as they would by advertising during a prime-time drama. The result: Women's leagues struggle for sponsorships and female viewers." It is what it is, but yes, I assume I watch more commercials about beer during sporting events than when watching National geographic. Anothe line that sounds familiar. " Hardin also said women's sports have to fight the perception they are just a watered-down version of men's sports, or that women are pantomiming an endeavor that is inherently masculine" I have invited a friend and his wife to WNBA games on many occasions, his excuse is that he doesn't want to see a bunch of layups.