It’s Faaaantastic
DID YOU KNOW that the WNBA Finals just happened? Yeah, I’m serious! Like a few days ago! Who won it? I think it was the Utah Starzz. What? They moved in 2002? Shit. OK, how about the Miami Sol? Shit, they folded in 2002 also? Goddamnit. OK, I give up.
Oh yeah, it was the Detroit Shock, their third title in six years. Coached by Bill Laimbeer, the Shock are (apparently) a WNBA powerhouse, bringing the packed Palace house down with all of their games. Of course, for these particular finals, the Shock weren’t able to bring the Palace down because the Palace was already booked. That’s right: the Detroit Shock, a professional, nationally televised basketball team, could not play a championship series on its own home court. Instead, they got booted to the Eastern Michigan University basketball court. What was booked at the Palace instead, you may ask? That’s right: Disney on Ice.
The Palace doesn’t even keep an ice surface anymore.
But hey, not all is bad for the Detroit Shock; after all, several hundred people came out to see their victory rally. Several hundred! Can you imagine??
The WNBA is a sad, sad league. It’s rather baffling to imagine how it stays afloat. Watching any game is depressing; not just for the absurd lack of attendence, but for the putrid quality of the games themselves. I guess that their summer advertising campaign in which (”)stars(”) of the league stood before the camera saying such things as “you could post on me all day” and “you couldn’t pay me to watch women’s basketball” didn’t quite work. How much longer are they going to hope that people care? Probably until they realize that no one’s watching.
But hey, look on the bright side, WNBA: at least you’re not the NHL.
If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
Comments
I agree, Pat, but I will quibble with this point:
“Why watch MLS when it is so far below what people get exposed to when they catch the Euro Cup or Champions League on ESPN? Same thing for the WNBA.”
I think the problem with MLS is not that we can find better soccer played elsewhere in the world. The problem is that, for whatever reason, Americans just aren’t into professional soccer played ANYWHERE nearly as much as American football, basketball, or even hockey. It’s not like the bar scene goes crazy in the US when the Euro Cup is on. Even with the opportunity to watch great soccer, Americans will usually turn it down in favor of, say, the NFL or NBA.
Sold out 50,000+ crowds from Beckham last summer in DC and New York seem to indicate that Americans are interested in soccer if they know what they’ll be seeing is top notch. Giants stadium sold out in June for USA vs Argentina.
I think Americans turn up if they know its good. Obviously, the Argentina game had tons of Argentine fans, but at least a 1/3 were supporting America (and you can’t assume all those supporting Argentina were from Argentina).
Even the Women’s Soccer World Cup sold out their final in the US, presumably because the US team was in the final and is consistently the best in the world.
Clearly soccer will never achieve the popularity of the big four sports, but I think that Americans do value the quality of their sports and that soccer’s major problem in the United States is the lack of quality players playing domestically.
You’ll have to come up with more substantial evidence than that to prove that there is some latent love of good soccer waiting to be tapped among the American people. Especially in light of this
If Beckham or the Argentinian team can fill up a stadium, that means that the people like Beckham (different from “liking good soccer players”) and there are enough soccer fans in the US to fill Giants Stadium. It doesn’t prove that we’re willing to shell out money on a *regular basis* to watch soccer games in numbers at all comparable to those in which we watch baseball, American football, or even basketball.
Take a look at how Americans treat the sustained opportunity to watch world-class soccer. In 2006, ESPN was “amazed” by the fact that TV coverage of the first three games of the World Cup drew 2.2% of US households (I imagine that can’t be more than, oh, 3 million people). In contrast, last weekend’s Cincinnati-Dallas football game netted more than 10 million viewers.
I’m not saying this will never change, but it does no good to ignore that soccer is right now relatively unpopular in the US, and that’s not just because our players suck.
Forgive the rampant typos. Also, my math was off. I think 2.2% of US households would probably be ~5-6 million people. The point still stands, though. World Cup = roughly half as popular as watching the Cowboys beat the Bengals.
Pat, I think the logic in comparison to the US Women’s World Cup is a little faulty — the US has the best women’s basketball team in the world, winning Olympic medal after Olympic medal. Clearly the WNBA isn’t an international league or anything, but it’s not like we don’t have the world’s best players.
In fact, many of the stars of WNBA teams are actually international players and stars — they can earn at least five times the pay playing in Europe than stateside. I do think the decided lower salaries of WNBA players contributes to the so-called lower quality of play that is a common criticism — you end up with superb athletes that are playing competitively for about 80% of the year. For many, there’s pretty much no off season.
College women’s hoops is gaining a lot of traction, I think, especially with the visibility of Candace Parker’s move from Tennessee to the LA Sparks. Schools like Tennessee have made women’s hoops marketable again, which can only mean good things for the WNBA’s future. If Parker succeeds, and she’s already broken record after record, perhaps more stability and salary will bring in better players and a bigger audience. Also, hopefully the WNBA can get a better marketing team.
Plus, you’d think cities without a lot of sports going for them (Seattle, mostly) would look to capitalize their one successful franchise (the Storm, home of GW alum Kim Beck).
I want to chime in about the MLS. Bill F., I think you’re mistaken about the lack of interest in soccer in the US. TV viewership of course shows that the major american sports do a lot better. No-one doubts that. The question is whether the interest in soccer is growing, and whether it is significant. On both counts, it is. ABC’s viewership for the 2006 world cup increased 65% from 2002. That doesn’t include Univision’s several hundred percent increase in viewership. Of course the number of total viewers pales in comparison to footbal, baseball, and basketball. But Americans are interested in soccer. More Americans play soccer growing up than any other sport. I have gone to bars in several states that are regularly packed on the weekend with soccer fans - these bars frquently get several hundred people to see big games - its standing room only. I see shirts supporting european soccer teams every week when I walk down the street. I have been to exhibition matches in seattle that have sold out seahawks stadium, without David Beckham. My point is that soccer has a tangible presence. It is also growing. The MLS is expandng on a successful model, and is bringing teams to new cities in the next few years (including seattle). The prolem faced by the MLS is quality - I agree with Pat. It is not hopeless, MLS just needs to sort out some issues. For example, the amount of travel required is ridiculous. That’s not standard for soccer teams, and it needs to be addressed. Currently, the most pressing issue is a weakness in solid mid-level players. When teams want to get great players (like beckham) they often have to sacrifice quality in other areas to the extent that the team is actually awful (like the LA Galaxy). That incentive structure needs to be reworked. In general, though, the MLS is in real good shape. MLS teams make money, and are seen as a good investment - they are a hot commodity,and there is lots of competition to bring new teams to various cities (they want to bring a second team to NYC).
That said, I don’t watch the MLS. I think I will start watching when Seattle’s team starts playing.
I agree with Max. Also, I do think the biggest problem facing the MLS right now is the level of talent, and as the league continues to slowly become more and more successful, moves like acquiring Beckham from overseas will not be so unique. It will slowly become a better idea for players to come to America to play soccer, and that will raise the bar for American players to get their shit together. Our generation is particularly important as well, because there is a larger talent pool coming up in the ranks (baby boomer kids, a rise in more intense development programs, etc.)
My initial comparison was that given the choice between watching basketball, people will choose the superior product. the NBA has more compelling basketball than the WNBA. This is why I thought the MLS comparison was apt: American soccer is not as compelling as European soccer.
This isn’t to say that the MLS or WNBA can’t be exciting or fun to watch. I just think that all things being equal, a sports fan chooses the NBA and European soccer over the WNBA and MLS.
The WNBA will never be as popular as the NBA. I think that’s a fact anyone can recognize. Basketball fans already have the best league in the world in the NBA. Why watch an inferior (putrid seems a bit strong…) product? I think the WNBA suffers from the same thing MLS does: Americans are used to watching the best in sports in their leagues. The MLB, NFL, NBA, and NHL have no equal in their respective sports. Why watch MLS when it is so far below what people get exposed to when they catch the Euro Cup or Champions League on ESPN? Same thing for the WNBA.
However, in general, the WNBA is a good thing to have around. There’s no reason why a young girl shouldn’t be able to watch professional female athletes and have them to look up to. Especially since many of them are far better behaved in public than their male counterparts.