Last week's class continued over the subject of Title IX and the differences between male and female athletics. One of the areas we looked at was the progress women's sports has made since Title IX, especially since the 1996 Olympics in Atlanta. Just recently at the 2012 London Olympics, the women out-tallied the men in overall medals including gold. By the numbers, many outside observers would say that women have become more successful during the olympic games, or that the progress of women's sports has now outdone the men's side. However, is that true? My solid belief is still no.
Even though the progress of women's sports in the U.S. has achieved some of its highest points, that doesn't say the same for everyone else. While Title IX has given equality and balance to both male and female sports in the U.S., many other countries most likely don't have the same equal opportunity laws that the U.S. does. This is clearly evident by the level of competition displayed from the women's and men's side. U.S. male athletes faced stiffer competition all-around than their female counterparts. Now I'm not taking anything away from what the women were able to accomplish, but to use an example, our women's olympic basketball team looked like a high school varsity squad playing the freshmen team. That goes all the way back to how countries view women's sports in their countries. Do they have the same funding and facilities for women as we do in the U.S.? I highly doubt it. But do they have the same funding and facilities for men? Now that I could believe.
Another point mentioned in class is why women's soccer doesn't have a league of their own, as opposed to the men which have MLS. For awhile now, the women's Olympic/FIFA team has received greater attention than the men's team. Our expectations as fans has raised for the women's team over the mens' team. If our men's team got to the finals, it would be the most amazing accomplishment. If our women's team got to the finals, we'd expect them to win it. So in all this popularity and success, why do the men have a league of their own and not the women? My opinion is that fans in the U.S. just want to see the Olympic/FIFA women's team play. Together, players like Abby Wambach, Alex Morgan and Hope Solo have this popularity that makes people want to see them. However, alone, I don't think they would create enough buzz that would make people want to go out and spend money to see them. There isn't enough marketability to have, "Watch Abby Wambach and her team take on Hope Solo and her team." The other players aren't important to the media and wouldn't create enough attention to get people interested. Granted the men's side isn't pulling away in popularity either, but that can stem back to the idea that men's sports is just more interesting and fun to watch. I know they were trying to get a new women's league started, and who knows, maybe it will be a success.
Nate,
ReplyDeleteYou might want to read a comment written by Chris Cournan under Nate Riley's entry ("Fueling the fire"). In it Chris wrote about going to see some of the women's soccer players (e.g., Abby Wambach) on a victory tour where they competed against one another. He said the turn-out was very good. So apparently the success of the women's team is being parlayed into ongoing competition. Of course, there can always be more publicity.
Good entry.
Dr. Spencer