Just read another blog, http://sportsmediasociety.blogspot.com/2009/05/womens-pro-sports-can-gender-really-be.html , and wanted to point out the massively flawed logic that is the crux of the author's argument.
First, the author points out the differences between the WPS and the MLS. He points out that WPS attracts more international players and may benefit from a "ready made fan base." Okay, all this makes sense, but then he goes on to demonstrate the typical American ignorance regarding the beautiful game.
He says that soccer is "a gender-neutral sport, and thus less appealing to fans." How is that even remotely logical? First of all, this gender-neutrality is good. Anyone can play soccer. Anyone can watch soccer. Soccer can attract a very broad spectrum of fans.
Only a certain kind of person can sit in front of the television and watch overweight men maul each other over and over again, but anyone and everyone enjoys a well-played world cup match between two international powerhouses. I think the absolutely huge international following that soccer enjoys proves that.
Sadly, I think this comes down to sexism. Just because women can play this sport, with the exact same rules - unlike softball - it is suddenly deemed unprofitable and solely participatory?
No comments:
Post a Comment