4 ms·

The only reason the US is interested in the women's game is because it is the only one in which they compete, the men's team is a joke. The reason the US women

by evgen 8y ago

The only reason the US is interested in the women's game is because it is the only one in which they compete, the men's team is a joke. The reason the US women are competetive is really pretty simple: title IX. Funding equality means that collegiate women have a lot of scholarship slots and team funding available for women's teams so they have a good pre-professional program. A woman who wants to play football looks to get a place on a US collegiate team in the same way a man hopes to get picked up by a U-21 junior squad -- you get better by playing against the best and in a competitive environment.

lordnacho 8y ago
> the men's team is a joke They didn't qualify this time round, but they are by no means a joke. They tend to do ok until they come up against real contenders. And they have a fair few players in the top leagues, though not so many at the very highest Champions League level.
lvoudour 8y ago
the men's team is a joke. Not American, but I think you're too harsh. It's certainly not top tier but lately it has fared much better than teams with bigger history and love for the sport
saghm 8y ago
> The reason the US women are competetive is really pretty simple: title IX. Funding equality means that collegiate women have a lot of scholarship slots and team funding available for women's teams so they have a good pre-professional program. I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here; wouldn't the funding being equal imply that both teams should perform well? Or is the argument that other countries don't spend money on women's teams?
- ghaff 8y ago
  The argument is that 1.) Colleges spend most of the men's money on other men's sports; 2.) There's a lot of money that colleges need to spend on women's sports (if they're going to spend on men's--which they do) and a fair bit goes to soccer; and 3.) Yes, a lot of other countries don't spend much money on women's sports at that level.
marchenko 8y ago
I think interest in women's soccer in the US is much more organic than this comment implies. Soccer was touted to young girls (and their parents) in the 90s and 00s as a safe and inexpensive sport particularly well-suited to women; one of the few where women can play with pretty much the same rules and equipment as men (contra softball, basketball, football). And it had a bit of foreign mystique. So there is a fairly large spectator pool of women familiar with the sport from high school or club sports who follow the games, as do some of their siblings and parents. Men are more interested in the sports they played as kids. University-level athletes are such a small population that they don't really affect viewership much. I don't even think Title 9 accommodations have much to do with the female talent pool; as in most of the world, US soccer players get hooked early and start intensive training before University. They just happen to be predominantly female.

by evgen 8y ago

lordnacho 8y ago

> the men's team is a joke They didn't qualify this time round, but they are by no means a joke. They tend to do ok until they come up against real contenders. And they have a fair few players in the top leagues, though not so many at the very highest Champions League level.

lvoudour 8y ago

the men's team is a joke. Not American, but I think you're too harsh. It's certainly not top tier but lately it has fared much better than teams with bigger history and love for the sport

saghm 8y ago

> The reason the US women are competetive is really pretty simple: title IX. Funding equality means that collegiate women have a lot of scholarship slots and team funding available for women's teams so they have a good pre-professional program. I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here; wouldn't the funding being equal imply that both teams should perform well? Or is the argument that other countries don't spend money on women's teams?

ghaff 8y ago
The argument is that 1.) Colleges spend most of the men's money on other men's sports; 2.) There's a lot of money that colleges need to spend on women's sports (if they're going to spend on men's--which they do) and a fair bit goes to soccer; and 3.) Yes, a lot of other countries don't spend much money on women's sports at that level.

marchenko 8y ago

I think interest in women's soccer in the US is much more organic than this comment implies. Soccer was touted to young girls (and their parents) in the 90s and 00s as a safe and inexpensive sport particularly well-suited to women; one of the few where women can play with pretty much the same rules and equipment as men (contra softball, basketball, football). And it had a bit of foreign mystique. So there is a fairly large spectator pool of women familiar with the sport from high school or club sports who follow the games, as do some of their siblings and parents. Men are more interested in the sports they played as kids. University-level athletes are such a small population that they don't really affect viewership much. I don't even think Title 9 accommodations have much to do with the female talent pool; as in most of the world, US soccer players get hooked early and start intensive training before University. They just happen to be predominantly female.