Women's televised basketball
So my good friend Michael M calls me the other day, and says, "I have an idea for a column for you."
"What is it?" I respond.
"I think you should write about the WNBA and women's college basketball. I just turned on my TV and it's on Primetime TV! How is this possible? No one watches it! This is so stupid!"
I then tried to explain to him that I was trying to up the patronage of the fairer sex on the blog, and so it might not be a good idea. When that argument was less than successful, I pointed out that I am very good friends with many outstanding female athletes--including a professional female athlete, congrats Brande--and that such an article could result in physical violence to my person, up to and including my death.
"Stop being a pussy" was his reply. I'm glad that my good friend has such concern for my well being.
So, why is the WNBA and female college basketball on TV? I decided to do some research. Maybe Mike is mistaken in his beliefs; maybe there is a nice little market out there watching female basketball on TV.
Well, there's not. I could quote you specifics, but just take my word for it: the WNBA is losing a lot of money (an estimated $12 mil in 03), and the ratings for both college and the WNBA are really, really bad.
So why keep them around? Why show them on TV, especially during prime time spots? Here's my theory.
We live in a politically correct era. This isn't news to anyone. The NBA keeps the WNBA around because it's good PR. It's as simple as that. Do you think David Stern wants to be the man who pulls the plug on women's basketball? There will be outrage. The headlines about the WNBA leaving the world would far exceed any headlines they receive while they are in existence, now. The NBA would have to admit that it doesn't have the marketing power to keep such a league afloat, in spite of the massive (and annoying) advertising that they beat us (us being the last 20 true NBA fans) over the head with. Basically, I think that David Stern sat down, thought about it, ran a few numbers, and said, "You know what? I'd rather lose ten mil a year than have to put up with the headache of calling it quits."
But what about the TV stations themselves? Why do they permit these games that no one attends or watches (now I haven't watched a WNBA game...well, ever really, but last night I stopped by Fox Sports and checked out the women's college bball game that was on there--Stanford versus Arizona State, #7 versus #15--and there was NO ONE in the stands) to be on TV, in prime spots? You'd think they'd say no way.
The answer is they have to. It's something that you're required to do when you go after the NBA. If you get to show college basketball games on your network, isn't it worth the cost to show a women's game every once in awhile? Same with the NBA? Sure you will. It's part of the cost of doing business; it's all part of the deal. And even if you did have a financial objection, are you going to bring it up? Do you want David Stern to announce at a press conference, "Well, we wanted to sign a TV deal with ABC, but they refused to carry any WNBA games?" Do you want to be that bad guy? Of course not. So the networks bite the bullet every once in a while, and toss the Politically Correct dogs a bone.
I'm not saying women can't play basketball. This is not an indictment on female basketball skills in any way, shape, or form. TV is entertainment. It's as simple as that. And female basketball is not as entertaining as men's basketball. I'm sorry. It's just not. An underhanded layup is not as exciting as a dunk. I'm not being sexist here; the ratings prove that America agrees with me. But, because of the politically correct world we live in, we've still got women's basketball on TV, even though it has proven not to support itself.
And before anyone even does it...don't send me the "screw you, my daughter loves it" and the "it's an important step for women in the world today" comments. That's fine that your daughter loves it, but unfortunately, there are not enough daughters that do. It's a numbers game people; I'm not being judgmental. And the "it's an important step for women" argument...whatever. The World Cup in 1996 was an important step for women. Rebecca Lobo's Connecticut teams were important steps for women. These helped not only advance the cause of women's athletics, but of female equality in general. I consider Mia Hamm (one of my favorite athletes of all time) to be as important to women in history as Susan B Anthony. But women's professional basketball today (and that includes college sports, sorry people, but there is NOTHING amateur about that) is not making any significant social progress, nor making any women's athletics progress. The only interest that is generated is when another WNBA star poses for Playboy, and I don't think that's what we would call progress.
So that's it. That's why we've got the women's basketball on TV. I'm not saying it's never going to happen that there will be women's professional basketball league that can make it; but now is not the time. Someday perhaps. But for now, enjoy it while it lasts.
"What is it?" I respond.
"I think you should write about the WNBA and women's college basketball. I just turned on my TV and it's on Primetime TV! How is this possible? No one watches it! This is so stupid!"
I then tried to explain to him that I was trying to up the patronage of the fairer sex on the blog, and so it might not be a good idea. When that argument was less than successful, I pointed out that I am very good friends with many outstanding female athletes--including a professional female athlete, congrats Brande--and that such an article could result in physical violence to my person, up to and including my death.
"Stop being a pussy" was his reply. I'm glad that my good friend has such concern for my well being.
So, why is the WNBA and female college basketball on TV? I decided to do some research. Maybe Mike is mistaken in his beliefs; maybe there is a nice little market out there watching female basketball on TV.
Well, there's not. I could quote you specifics, but just take my word for it: the WNBA is losing a lot of money (an estimated $12 mil in 03), and the ratings for both college and the WNBA are really, really bad.
So why keep them around? Why show them on TV, especially during prime time spots? Here's my theory.
We live in a politically correct era. This isn't news to anyone. The NBA keeps the WNBA around because it's good PR. It's as simple as that. Do you think David Stern wants to be the man who pulls the plug on women's basketball? There will be outrage. The headlines about the WNBA leaving the world would far exceed any headlines they receive while they are in existence, now. The NBA would have to admit that it doesn't have the marketing power to keep such a league afloat, in spite of the massive (and annoying) advertising that they beat us (us being the last 20 true NBA fans) over the head with. Basically, I think that David Stern sat down, thought about it, ran a few numbers, and said, "You know what? I'd rather lose ten mil a year than have to put up with the headache of calling it quits."
But what about the TV stations themselves? Why do they permit these games that no one attends or watches (now I haven't watched a WNBA game...well, ever really, but last night I stopped by Fox Sports and checked out the women's college bball game that was on there--Stanford versus Arizona State, #7 versus #15--and there was NO ONE in the stands) to be on TV, in prime spots? You'd think they'd say no way.
The answer is they have to. It's something that you're required to do when you go after the NBA. If you get to show college basketball games on your network, isn't it worth the cost to show a women's game every once in awhile? Same with the NBA? Sure you will. It's part of the cost of doing business; it's all part of the deal. And even if you did have a financial objection, are you going to bring it up? Do you want David Stern to announce at a press conference, "Well, we wanted to sign a TV deal with ABC, but they refused to carry any WNBA games?" Do you want to be that bad guy? Of course not. So the networks bite the bullet every once in a while, and toss the Politically Correct dogs a bone.
I'm not saying women can't play basketball. This is not an indictment on female basketball skills in any way, shape, or form. TV is entertainment. It's as simple as that. And female basketball is not as entertaining as men's basketball. I'm sorry. It's just not. An underhanded layup is not as exciting as a dunk. I'm not being sexist here; the ratings prove that America agrees with me. But, because of the politically correct world we live in, we've still got women's basketball on TV, even though it has proven not to support itself.
And before anyone even does it...don't send me the "screw you, my daughter loves it" and the "it's an important step for women in the world today" comments. That's fine that your daughter loves it, but unfortunately, there are not enough daughters that do. It's a numbers game people; I'm not being judgmental. And the "it's an important step for women" argument...whatever. The World Cup in 1996 was an important step for women. Rebecca Lobo's Connecticut teams were important steps for women. These helped not only advance the cause of women's athletics, but of female equality in general. I consider Mia Hamm (one of my favorite athletes of all time) to be as important to women in history as Susan B Anthony. But women's professional basketball today (and that includes college sports, sorry people, but there is NOTHING amateur about that) is not making any significant social progress, nor making any women's athletics progress. The only interest that is generated is when another WNBA star poses for Playboy, and I don't think that's what we would call progress.
So that's it. That's why we've got the women's basketball on TV. I'm not saying it's never going to happen that there will be women's professional basketball league that can make it; but now is not the time. Someday perhaps. But for now, enjoy it while it lasts.
posted by Michael Pondrom at 9:31 AM
2 Comments:
Women play professional basketball???? I hadn't noticed....along with not noticing the NHL lockout.
See, you didn't cause any problems!
What I wonder is - the WNBA must have known it could not make money. So why does the NBA keep giving them money? The only thing I can think of is that it is part of the marketing plan for the NBA.
College basketball on the other hand, I don't know who's subsidizing that. But maybe it is a matter of the conferences and the NCAA putting politically correct requirements in their TV contracts.
This is hard for someone with a background in economics to explain, since we are supposed to assume that people act in their rational self-interest - of course, this is not always true, as you can see from the types of movies that get produced...
mjm
Post a Comment
<< Home