Storyline: Sustaining momentum in women’s sports requires sports leadership–the kind we see in women’s college basketball and have had historically in men’s baseball, football, and basketball.
It was inevitable, I suppose, perhaps an expression of wishful thinking—what people are saying about the impact of the U.S.’s victory in the 2015 FiFA World Cup. Does it show that Americans are finally showing greater interest in women’s sports?
Courtesy: zimbio.com
What we do know is that millions of Americans followed the U.S., team over the tournament’s course. TV numbers for Sunday night’s final rivaled ratings for recent men’s pro semi-finals and finals.
But what more can we say about outcomes? That’s the question; and it’s a very big and ornery question.
Well, we know that millions of girls play youth soccer annually. It’s a primary team sport. And we also know that attempts to rev up women’s collegiate and pro soccer have yielded marginal success. (Name one woman who plays soccer at your favorite university. I can’t.)
Will the 2015 championship spur next-step development, catapulting interest in women’s sports and soccer significantly? It might. Let’s say this confidently: It will!
But the problem with parlaying what happened in Vancouver to sustained momentum is this: for millions of Americans Vancouver 2015 wasn’t about either soccer or women’s sports. It was about the U.S. competing against the world.
Courtesy: dailymail.co.uk
Think about it. How many friends and family members–before the Vancouver tournament–had a habit of watching women’s soccer? How many people you know watched the game primarily (if not exclusively) because it was a U.S. team playing against other countries?.
In my case the needle tilted strongly to pride in nation. I call it “The Olympic Effect.” Millions of Americans will watch a U.S. team complete—in just about anything—because it’s an American team playing other nations. They want their country to win, to be the best.
But fan interest often wanes when the same sport is played domestically. You’re more likely to watch or go when it’s a football game. But that interest doesn’t always translate to women’s lacrosse, softball, or soccer.
Alex Morgan (Photo courtesy, zimbio.com)
That’s not to say that the 2015 World Cup wasn’t wonderful theatre. It was.
That’s not to say that 2015 World Cup didn’t have its share of wonderful athletes and “followable” stars. It did.
And that’s not to say that there won’t be some degree of impact from the 2015 games—generating new fans of women’s athletics and soccer. It will.
The question is how to sustain the magnitude of that impact. The track record? Past international victories have contributed to growth on the amateur side of women’s sports. Will the 2015 victory do more?
What many want to see—and I’d include myself in that category—is for the women’s side to develop into what we now have in men’s baseball, football, basketball, golf, and hockey. There are structures and systems in place for men that connect high school, college (or minor league play), and the professions. Major men’s sports generate fan interest, revenue, and followings. Players can make careers out of their athletics.
Courtesy: floridaleisureblog.com
That exists for women today, too, but the platforms are few and participation is limited. Take two examples. The WNBA isn’t anywhere close to the NBA, especially in terms of fan interest. And while I once thought that the LPGA would be “the” breakthrough sport for women in the U.S., that sport has devolved, not advanced. Why? It’s overwhelmed with players from the Pacific Rim and underwhelmed by American players. When somebody says, “Lee is leading the tournament,” you have to ask: “Which Lee?”
I’m actually tired of women’s sports lagging the men’s side of athletics. I follow women’s college basketball and softball, especially, attending games and watching contests on TV. And I really hope Vancouver will make a difference over time.
But women’s sports needs more than the 2015 World Cup to sustain momentum.
Of all the women’s sports only women’s college basketball seems to have what I think is the “it” factor. What’s that? I’m talking about major figures who’ve lead and shaped the game. I can name plenty of women’s basketball coaches. Some are bigger than life, too—Gino and Pat come to mind (first names convey who I’m talking about). Can you name big-time leaders in other women’s sports? I can’t.
Jackie Robinson with Branche Rickey (Photo courtesy 170baseball.com)
Pat & Gino (Photo courtesy, savingthroughsports)
But when I think about how men’s sports have developed over time, I can name larger than life people—people who’ve led and shaped the games. Where would we be in football without people like Vince, Halas, Rockne, and Landry? Where would we be in baseball without names like Judge Landis and Branch Rickey?
“Help wanted: Transformational Leaders in Women’s Sports.”
Without big-time leaders, women’s sports will never be what they could and should be. To grow significantly and sustainably women’s sports need more than “The Olympic Effect.”
