CARSON Calif., Jan 16, 2004 -- Well, someone came out and said it.
Someone at the very top, no less.
And now FIFA President Sepp Blatter is under worldwide
assault for saying women's soccer teams should adopt sexier uniforms to generate
support for the game. He is now feeling the unthinking wrath of a reflexive,
politically-correct response.
Though his word choice was perhaps unfortunate, he has
made a point we all need to ponder. That is, if we really want such things
as a professional women's soccer league.
Since he probably could have worded it better, allow
me to outline his basic point for him:
Attractive players capture new fans who otherwise would
have no reason to watch the sport. Blatter wants the players to make themselves
more attractive. This is critical to sustaining the sport. Why does soccer
have this elitist insistence that only soccer purists are qualified to be
fans? This can only ensure tiny crowds and an early death for any new league
in the sport. Before new fans will come, you first must capture their attention.
Blatter is suggesting -- not ordering -- that the women
make their image more appealing. He could order that change, but he cannot
order fans into the stands. He is doing what he can to ensure the survival
of the women's game, because sooner or later women's soccer is going to have
to earn its own living.
So in spite of that, the furor envelops Blatter, and
players and journalists alike thoughtlessly indict FIFA among others
for its stone-age sexism -- a typical bandwagon response. But the main points
are lost in the furor: 1) that the women's game is dying, and something
needs to be done and 2) a way to attract attention is to do away with the
unattractive, baggy soccer uniform which hides too much. It is in fact the
loosest uniform in all sport save for the floor-length "shorts" of the WNBA
-- another dying league.
For the good of the sport we need to suspend for a moment
the automatic PC reaction, and consider some of the reasons why women's soccer
is completely incapable of attracting an audience other than prepubescent
soccer-playing girls. Because women's soccer is moving backward, fast. Now
that the league has died, women's soccer is just another dead-end sport.
Sure it has college leagues, but those are almost cruel in turning out players
at the top of their abilities because they ran out of eligibility. And this
situation needs to be addressed, beginning with thinking how to get fans
in the stands.
How do certain other women's sports manage to draw equally
men as well as female fans of all ages, for instance, tennis? Is it so wrong
to admit there is such a thing as human nature, and that more than one reason
might exist to watch a sport? The fact is, some fans are there to watch the
athletics, others are attracted by the athletes, some both, and for some
more one reason than the other, and a dollar from one type of fan buys as
much as a dollar from the other type. Who cares why they're there, as long
as they're there?
To suggest, as Brandi Chastain said, that people should
watch women's soccer for their skills alone, and that fans have a duty to
ignore any implied sexuality, nullifies the purpose of even having a women's
league in the first place. When it boils down, a men's game is much faster
and contains much more action. If the idea remains that the only reason to
watch a sport was for action, pretty soon there will be no pro women's leagues
at all. This is one reason men didn't show up at WUSA games. How can you
watch a game if you are supposed to ignore the players?
P.C. damaging women's pro
sports
Politically correct idealization has done damage to
professional women's sports. It ignores human nature. It tries to leverage
people with guilt, instead of motivating them with desire. PC can force people
to act, but because it is a negative force, mind-control really, the average
person is going to avoid situations where it is rampant, particularly when
he is looking for diversion. Because of PC, women's sport no longer possesses
the release of unrestrained emotion the men's sports unashamedly embrace.
How else is it that in the enlightened 21st century,
a professional women's soccer league could only last three years, and lose
a hundred million dollars, while fifty years ago the blatantly sexist
Professional Girls Baseball League lasted more than three times as long,
only losing trivial amounts in the end? Could it have been due to the packaging
that was permissible back then, and impossible now? We do not have to go
back to the Fifties, but humanity is basically the same now as then, and
pretending otherwise guarantees failure.
Wouldn't it be more enlightened to admit there is such
a thing as human nature, that something can be added to the athletics, and
that is OK, even desired?
"Anyone who thinks that a uniform will draw people to
the game is severely off base," Chastain remarked. "The game of soccer itself
is what brings people to the stadium, not what the players are wearing. [Blatter]
should continue to focus on the development of the women's game rather than
trying to sexualize it."
This from the woman who posed nude with a soccer
ball in Gear Magazine. A woman who doffed her shirt in celebration -- a move
unique in sports history, the premeditated move that catapulted women's soccer
into the world spotlight. The moves were all lauded at the time, but she
did not continue. Once she turned off the tap, women's soccer quickly faded
back into obscurity.
The players' attitude is incompatible with entertainment
product, which (successful) sport is. People want to be entertained, not
lectured. They are not there for education, or enlightenment, but rather
to have fun and let loose. That is difficult in the stifling atmosphere of
political correctness. The confusion and doubt of how to relate to women
athletes and their sports is almost certainly the reason crowds at women's
sports are a tiny fraction of men's -- because most fans resolve the conflict
by avoiding it.
FIFA has done all it can to develop the game. Too much,
in fact. By giving the USA two Women's World Cups in a row, every opportunity
to support a league in the US has now been exhausted until 2015. Now all
that remains is the national team. The point of view Chastain currently has
is easily held from the protective cocoon of fully-financed national team
job. They recieve a yearly salary, and play friendlies which attract less
than the average WUSA crowd. They draw a good crowd at the Olympics -- where
the Unicycle medal races would also sell out. Meanwhile hundreds of WUSA
players are looking for work, and hundreds more will never get the chance
to play.
Before the players disparage tennis again, it should
be recalled that Venus and Serena Williams, tremendous athletes who haven't
forgotten their feminine side, and in fact design fashion, each, alone
make enough money every year playing to run the entire WUSA league. That
is the power of putting a healthy athletic appearance on display, and women's
soccer needs to tap into that.
Comments on this issue?
Other suggestions on how we can have a women's league? Email
Paul Martinez.
Please put the article title
in your subject line to make sure your message gets through.
