Interesting NY Times story about pro basketball player Diana Tarausi, the former U Connecticut star.
Women players make much more overseas than in the WNBA. No surprise there because Americans in the main do not show enthusiasm about women’s sports, particularly women’s’ professional sports, equal to the interest they bestow upon men’s sports. Tarausi’s salary from her Russian team is 10x greater than the one she receives from the WNBA team in Phoenix. At the U.S. college level some programs are wildly successful (and show a profit); U Connecticut, U Tennessee and Louisiana Tech, for example. Yet that popularity reveals tremendous disparity, as the margins of victory in the women’s’ college game can be laughable, which contributes to the difficulty that some teams have in attracting a supportive fan base. Doesn’t look like we will see a change any time soon in American attitudes towards women’s’ athletics.
Skirts can be more comfortable as well. I often wear skorts while hiking and camping. On me ( ok, I am about 7-10" shorter than WNBA athletes), they are much more flattering.
I have the impression women’s athletics in Seattle is more of a draw, than perhaps other parts of the country.
Especially if they play.
However, there still is a great deal of inequity at even being recognized.
The Seattle Storm for example has gone to the playoffs eleven years out of fifteen.
Can any male Seattle sports team make that claim?
Women athletes - in general ( not talking about you, Hope Solo), are also better behaved off the field than the men’s teams, making it more family friendly.
As a counterexample, in the US, female figure skaters make a lot more than male figure skaters. (But only a handful of top figure skaters make significant money.)
High school girls basketball teams in the late 1920’s and early 1930’s did have skirts as part of their uniform. I have seen pictures of my grandmother in her high school basketball uniform. She never complained about the skirt, so it must not have gotten in the way.
I’m a huge Diana Taurasi fan. I don’t think sexualizing the uniforms would help, and particularly not help the league get taken more seriously. I think to some degree people have to be willing to emotionally invest in watching Diana, and Brittney Griner, and Elena Delle Donne and Candace Parker playing some really good basketball. It’s not cool to like the WNBA right now. It’s not cool to follow the women’s NCAA tournament either. I grew up in Uconn country, where it is cool.
Isn’t this thread about PROFESSIONAL sports, not amateur sports? Pro sports is not just about athletic skill; it’s about spectacle, entertainment, corporate sponsorships.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the Russian oligarchs who “pay through the nose” to fund their womens teams do it as a front for money laundering.
I link the college game (generally) and the WNBA because both get relatively short shrift from society at large. The NCAA women’s tournament is lightly televised and its championship game suffers from the indignation of being broadcast days after the mens championship, making the women’s game seem anticlimactic. The WNBA is rather, meh, with notable exceptions in Seattle and a couple of other places.
Your take on the uniforms is interesting. Don’t know how I would feel about a return to skirts on the hardwood. Yes, plenty of folks, male and female, watch Serena Williams to oogle at her ample physique, in addition to her talent. But in the main, ardent sports fans want to see exquisite skill. I’m no saint, but I am not especially interested in a female champion’s er…ah…assets.
LW: I’m having a hard time understanding your headline: the person in the article is making $1.5 million a year, which is pretty decent change. Heck, many US college men go over to Europe to play and make excellent livings. Top cyclists also have to go to Europe to make $$. So what?
There just is not a profitable market for women’t b’ball in the US (as there is no profitable cycling market). Are you suggesting that the NBA should support the WNBA even more financially?
“Are you suggesting that the NBA should support the WNBA even more financially?”
Heavens, no. That’s up to the ticket-buying public. I am just perplexed as to why that public doesn’t pay more attention to women’s basketball. By the way, the NBA ended its 100% [financial] support of the WNBA years ago. The Seattle Storm is but one of the independent teams, as is the Connecticut Sun. There may be others.
Kind of a chicken and egg kind of thing, other than the finals of the NCAA women’s basketball tournament, women’s sports are still confined mostly to local access channels and ESPN3 and ESPN2, along with ‘lesser’ men’s sports like lacrosse and so forth. You will see the men’s NCAA tournament all over various tv networks, and men’s college football is big business and gets tv coverage which in turn builds their base…other than some targeted sports, like the gymnastics at the olympics or skating, that can generate some money for the best of the best, women’s sports in general are not promoted or valued much.
The one exception I can think is women’s MMA fighting, Rhonda Rousey is turning into a cash cow for the UFC guys, pay per view revenue when she is fighting is much higher than when she isn’t, yet she doesn’t make as much per bout as some of the male MMA stars make.
Funny talking about sexualizing uniforms, when they had professional women’s baseball (made famous by “A League of Their Own”), they wore dresses with short skirts…I can’t imagine how the heck they played in them, I can just imagine what they looked like after sliding and such…grrr
Tennis is the only sport, as far as I know, in which the women’s prize money equals the mens. A lot of that is due to the set up of the tournaments. Women and men play the same tournaments and, therefore the tickets for the matches allow access to the women’s and men’s matches. From what I’ve seen though, the fan attendance is usually higher for one of the male stars than for the female stars. The women stars, particularly Maria Sharapova, make most of the money from endorsements from Nike and other brands. She’s the highest paid woman in sports. Number one she was blessed with beauty as well as talent and Number two: there’s a large market for women’s tennis clothing. (Not so much for women’s basketball clothing). Women will see the clothing on the stars and buy the outfit for themselves.
And that is more political/PR decision than anything else. Think back to the dark ages when Wimbledon used to pay the men’s winner a much larger prize…the men’s tour still outdrew the women’s by far, but they equalized prize money for appearances.
Exactly, which is why paying the women the same prize money is not a purely economic decision.
Regarding prize money, men and ladies singles skaters receive the same amount. Ice dancers and pairs skaters are awarded as a team. (Their overall award is greater, but when split in half, each ice dancer and pairs skater receives less than a singles skater.)
True. When women and men are appearing at the same tournaments, it does look bad for the women’s prize money to be less than the men’s.
The prize money issue in tennis is not so much men versus women as highly ranked players versus lower ranked players. In other sports, lower ranked players do make a lot of money. In tennis, the lower ranked players barely earn enough to stay on the tour and cover their expenses.
Besides men’s football, major league baseball and basketball, all of which have fat TV contracts, in which other sports to lower ranked players make a “lot” of money?
The lower players on the PGA tour, for example, may sleep in their cars to cover expenses. Baseball minors pays enough to get by but not enough to support a family.
