Why don't women follow women's sports?

gormdubhgorm

With all the sport on Telly this year and the probable success of Ireland's Gold hopeful Katie Taylor, the question why women do not follow women's sports is annoying me.

Katie Taylor has won one Olympic gold and five world titles in boxing. Yet I cannot name any of the women she defeated.
Why is this? I asked myself.
It does not get enough coverage why does it not get coverage = not enough interest in the viewing public. You would think at least the women would show show more then a token interest in thier own sports? Thereby increasing interest.


I then thought about the women's Rugby, Camogie and Ladies Football. Wouldn't you think the women would support thier own games and follow the teams in greater numbers?
Yet when the men's equivalent sports are on the women go to games!? (This maybe because it is a good day out, a chance to be seen there, or to get a fella! Who knows?)

Now I realise that statistically women prefer to go to the theater/show rather then follow sport. In fact relationships could be said to be the female sport of choice. To discuss who is going out with who from the celebrity world or down the road. Or better still who broke up with who. Soap operas are created for this market.

But then why do women not go to the soap operas that are played out in sport between female competitors?

I found an American article which discusses this dated 2003!
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/15/weekinreview/ideas-trends-why-don-t-women-watch-women-s-sports.html

Nothing much seems to have changed.

gimmick

Most women don't like sports and those that pretend to do only so they can bag a man.

DrumSteve

I feel like you answered your own question in the OP.

seamus

A rather odd line of thinking that assumes that women should want to watch women's sports more than men's. Or that it's women's fault that women's sport isn't as popular.

I'm pretty sure women watch men's sports for exactly the same reasons that men do. And a large part of it comes down to the fact that men's sports take the lion's share of the advertising and funding in a continuous feedback loop that means that men's sport is better resourced than women's.

PARlance

I'm busy working on my "why don't more men wear makeup" project but I'll help you crack this one once I'm done.

_Whimsical_

Because if you like sport you watch all sports and if you don't like it you watch very little. A lot of women tend not to watch any sport, women's sport is not any different than men's so why would they watch it?

Why don't men who enjoy watching sport generally watch women's sport is a better question surely?

topper75

Bag a man.

Sounds like a good game.

Who will win?

To Paddy Power for the odds...

DEFTLEFTHAND

Mens sport is more popular than women's sport because by and large men are physically superior to women. This is due to nature, there's nothing we can do about it.

People like to see the very best of human athletic performance.

Potatoeman

seamus wrote: »

A rather odd line of thinking that assumes that women should want to watch women's sports more than men's. Or that it's women's fault that women's sport isn't as popular.

I'm pretty sure women watch men's sports for exactly the same reasons that men do. And a large part of it comes down to the fact that men's sports take the lion's share of the advertising and funding in a continuous feedback loop that means that men's sport is better resourced than women's.

It could be the skill level. The same reason the league of Ireland doesn't attract the same level of interest as the premiership.

SEPT 23 1989

I witnessed the whole of Houston Station coming to a standstill to watch one of her fights they had on TV one afternoon a few years ago

osarusan

Potatoeman wrote: »

It could be the skill level. The same reason the league of Ireland doesn't attract the same level of interest as the premiership.

Actually it's the other way round - if the LOI had all the funding the Premier League had, it would be just as good - the players would just move to the LOI instead - as many of them now move to Russia or China or wherever will pay them a massive wage. It would still be the LOI, but all the players would be different.

But the women's league, even with a level funding that could make it the best women's league in the world, would still be at a lower level of skill, pace, and physicality, to the best men's league.

Things are changing in some sports though - the women's football world cup gets a lot of crowds and coverage these days. I think maybe we don't notice it in Ireland because the women's team is never there.

In other sports like tennis and gymnastics, the women's versions are popular in their own right.

Buona Fortuna

Beach volleyball is great.

jamesbere

Buona Fortuna wrote: »

Beach volleyball is great.

Very competitive, definitely has to be watched

ToddyDoody

Count the number of women coming out of a women's Wimbleton match.... plenty.

bodice ripper

The women aren't into sports thing falls down whenever you meet some woman who does roller derby. **** is a cult.

seamus

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

People like to see the very best of human athletic performance.

I actually disagree.

Women's tennis is the one example I'd throw out here (though there are others). It's arguably as popular as men's tennis, even if they don't earn as much.

People aren't really interested in seeing the strongest or the fastest unless that's the primary measure in the sport - e.g. Boxing or the 100m sprint.

But it's not in most sports. Tennis is a game of skill and strategy first, athletic performance second. So too are the majority of other sports. A professional womens' football game involves just as much excitement and skill as a mens' game.

A team of fat former professionals in their 40s will steamroll a team of physically fit 20-year-old non-players every day of the week. Soccer is a game of skill first and foremost.

It's not about the raw physicality. That's not why people watch sports.

jamesbere

bodice ripper wrote: »

The women aren't into sports thing falls down whenever you meet some woman who does roller derby. **** is a cult.

Huh!

gormdubhgorm

PARlance wrote: »

I'm busy working on my "why don't more men wear makeup" project but I'll help you crack this one once I'm done.

Icaras

_Whimsical_ wrote: »

Why don't men who enjoy watching sport generally watch women's sport is a better question surely?

Because its not at anywhere near the same level, women football/soccer/camogie etc. have a significantly lower skill level and speed than the mens game.

gormdubhgorm

ToddyDoody wrote: »

Count the number of women coming out of a women's Wimbleton match.... plenty.

Tennis appears to be one of the few exceptions. But this may be due to the fact that men watch women's tennis so more women go there as consequence because it is high profile.

mdwexford

Male or female, nobody wants to sit through the horror show that is the majority of women's sporting events.

jamesbere

mdwexford wrote: »

Male or female, nobody wants to sit through the horror show that is the majority of women's sporting events.

Tennis, athletics, boxing, skiing, rowing, swimming. All enjoyable to watch involving women and very competitive

Vegeta

Yup I love men's and women's alpine skiing. Would happily watch either.

mdwexford

jamesbere wrote: »

Tennis, athletics, boxing, skiing, rowing, swimming. All enjoyable to watch involving women and very competitive

I did say the majority, I can list tons where the standard compared to men is appalling. I know that's not the be all and end all but it helps if they aren't rubbish.

I love women's tennis.
I'll give you athletics as I enjoy it during the olympics.

Women's boxing isn't for me.

Ski-ing, rowing and swimming are awful regardless of who's doing them.

namloc1980

In general I enjoy individual women's sports, but men's team sports are superior.

Halloween Jack

seamus wrote: »

I actually disagree.

Women's tennis is the one example I'd throw out here (though there are others). It's arguably as popular as men's tennis, even if they don't earn as much.

People aren't really interested in seeing the strongest or the fastest unless that's the primary measure in the sport - e.g. Boxing or the 100m sprint.

But it's not in most sports. Tennis is a game of skill and strategy first, athletic performance second. So too are the majority of other sports. A professional womens' football game involves just as much excitement and skill as a mens' game.

A team of fat former professionals in their 40s will steamroll a team of physically fit 20-year-old non-players every day of the week. Soccer is a game of skill first and foremost.

It's not about the raw physicality. That's not why people watch sports.

The fat 40 year old ex (male) pro's would also steamroll a team of fit 20 year old women players though...

arybvtcw0eolkf

Well I have to admit the amount of sports I'd spectate at is limited.

I don't watch any ball games, so GAA, soccer & rugby is out for me.

I follow (mostly) combat sports, and coach Judo.

I much prefer to watch women fight than men, I prefer to coach a woman too ~ they're easier, they don't pretend they already know how to fight without coaching and when they do learn they're fecking tenacious.

When women fight its almost entirely technical and very aggressive.

Give me a woman to train to fight over most men, and they're usually spectacular to watch.

My other sport (I don't compete) would be cycling, tbh I've no idea why I don't watch women cycling events ~ maybe they're not televised as much.

ahnowbrowncow

seamus wrote: »

I actually disagree.

Women's tennis is the one example I'd throw out here (though there are others). It's arguably as popular as men's tennis, even if they don't earn as much.

People aren't really interested in seeing the strongest or the fastest unless that's the primary measure in the sport - e.g. Boxing or the 100m sprint.

But it's not in most sports. Tennis is a game of skill and strategy first, athletic performance second. So too are the majority of other sports. A professional womens' football game involves just as much excitement and skill as a mens' game.

A team of fat former professionals in their 40s will steamroll a team of physically fit 20-year-old non-players every day of the week. Soccer is a game of skill first and foremost.

It's not about the raw physicality. That's not why people watch sports.

Women's tennis isn't as popular as the men's game, this is despite earning the same prize money and having just as much coverage so your point is null and void.

Andre 3000

seamus wrote: »

I actually disagree.

Women's tennis is the one example I'd throw out here (though there are others). It's arguably as popular as men's tennis, even if they don't earn as much.

People aren't really interested in seeing the strongest or the fastest unless that's the primary measure in the sport - e.g. Boxing or the 100m sprint.

But it's not in most sports. Tennis is a game of skill and strategy first, athletic performance second. So too are the majority of other sports. A professional womens' football game involves just as much excitement and skill as a mens' game.

A team of fat former professionals in their 40s will steamroll a team of physically fit 20-year-old non-players every day of the week. Soccer is a game of skill first and foremost.

It's not about the raw physicality. That's not why people watch sports.

Women's tennis is nowhere near as popular as men's tennis. Not even close.

Jack Killian

seamus wrote: »

A rather odd line of thinking that assumes that women should want to watch women's sports more than men's. Or that it's women's fault that women's sport isn't as popular.

I'm pretty sure women watch men's sports for exactly the same reasons that men do. And a large part of it comes down to the fact that men's sports take the lion's share of the advertising and funding in a continuous feedback loop that means that men's sport is better resourced than women's.

Resources don't make a sport interesting though ? Nor exposure.

American Football and Baseball and NASCAR and WWF / whatever Conor McGregor does is funded to the hilt, and I still wouldn't watch them.

Cricket is rammed down our throats by Sky forgetting we're a separate country and I wouldn't watch it.

So there's more to it than those.

DEFTLEFTHAND

ahnowbrowncow wrote: »

Women's tennis isn't as popular as the men's game, this is despite earning the same prize money and having just as much coverage so your point is null and void.

Yes they don't draw the same revenue or viewing figures. There was a scandal recently when tournament director Raymond Moore was pressured into resigning his position for pointing out this fact.

enfant terrible

seamus wrote: »

I actually disagree.

Women's tennis is the one example I'd throw out here (though there are others). It's arguably as popular as men's tennis, even if they don't earn as much.

People aren't really interested in seeing the strongest or the fastest unless that's the primary measure in the sport - e.g. Boxing or the 100m sprint.

But it's not in most sports. Tennis is a game of skill and strategy first, athletic performance second. So too are the majority of other sports. A professional womens' football game involves just as much excitement and skill as a mens' game.

A team of fat former professionals in their 40s will steamroll a team of physically fit 20-year-old non-players every day of the week. Soccer is a game of skill first and foremost.

It's not about the raw physicality. That's not why people watch sports.

The only reason female tennis players are paid as much as men is because they play in the same tournaments.

If they were separated their prize money would drop significantly because the skill and athleticism level is much lower.

Halloween Jack

Andre 3000 wrote: »

Women's tennis is nowhere near as popular as men's tennis. Not even close.

It is however one of the most visible of women's sports. The reason for this is the fact that the women's grand slam events occur alongside the men's events, meaning they get exposure that other women's sports can only dream of. It wouldn't work for every sport but it could be an idea to getting more exposure and hence earnings for female athletes.

enfant terrible

Halloween Jack wrote: »

It is however one of the most visible of women's sports. The reason for this is the fact that the women's grand slam events occur alongside the men's events, meaning they get exposure that other women's sports can only dream of. It wouldn't work for every sport but it could be an idea to getting more exposure and hence earnings for female athletes.

But why would you want to do that, watch a lower standard of play. It would be like the tennis.

Andre 3000

Halloween Jack wrote: »

It is however one of the most visible of women's sports. The reason for this is the fact that the women's grand slam events occur alongside the men's events, meaning they get exposure that other women's sports can only dream of. It wouldn't work for every sport but it could be an idea to getting more exposure and hence earnings for female athletes.

Also to do with the fact it's a rich person's sport.

sullivlo

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

With all the sport on Telly this year and the probable success of Ireland's Gold hopeful Katie Taylor, the question why women do not follow women's sports is annoying me.

Katie Taylor has won one Olympic gold and five world titles in boxing. Yet I cannot name any of the women she defeated.
Why is this? I asked myself.
It does not get enough coverage why does it not get coverage = not enough interest in the viewing public. You would think at least the women would show show more then a token interest in thier own sports? Thereby increasing interest.


I then thought about the women's Rugby, Camogie and Ladies Football. Wouldn't you think the women would support thier own games and follow the teams in greater numbers?
Yet when the men's equivalent sports are on the women go to games!? (This maybe because it is a good day out, a chance to be seen there, or to get a fella! Who knows?)

Now I realise that statistically women prefer to go to the theater/show rather then follow sport. In fact relationships could be said to be the female sport of choice. To discuss who is going out with who from the celebrity world or down the road. Or better still who broke up with who. Soap operas are created for this market.

But then why do women not go to the soap operas that are played out in sport between female competitors?

I found an American article which discusses this dated 2003!
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/15/weekinreview/ideas-trends-why-don-t-women-watch-women-s-sports.html

Nothing much seems to have changed.

Way to tar all women with the same brush :rolleyes:

I couldn't name any of Katie Taylors opponents. Mind you I couldn't name any of Paddy Barnes' either. Because I don't follow boxing.

I could probably name more Irish female soccer players than Irish male soccer players.

I follow rugby. And I go to more womens games than mens. I go to AIL women's games and interpros. I can name all of the women on the Ireland squad.

Andre 3000

sullivlo wrote: »

Way to tar all women with the same brush :rolleyes:

I couldn't name any of Katie Taylors opponents. Mind you I couldn't name any of Paddy Barnes' either. Because I don't follow boxing.

I could probably name more Irish female soccer players than Irish male soccer players.

I follow rugby. And I go to more womens games than mens. I go to AIL women's games and interpros. I can name all of the women on the Ireland squad.

You're an outlier. The point is still valid.

Rothko

seamus wrote: »

A professional womens' football game involves just as much excitement and skill as a mens' game.

No, it doesn't. At all.

PressRun

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Tennis appears to be one of the few exceptions. But this may be due to the fact that men watch women's tennis so more women go there as consequence because it is high profile.

So women only watch women's tennis because men do. :rolleyes:

Women are capable of watching a sport and enjoying it on their own.

Jack Killian

namloc1980 wrote: »

In general I enjoy individual women's sports, but men's team sports are superior.

Disagree.

Men's Gaelic Football is a spiteful and cynical dig-and-dragfest, whereas Ladies Football shows - ironically - "sportsmanship".

wakka12

The majority of women I know, vast vast majority in fact, are only interested in some of the big finals of world cup or all irelands etc and other events like olympics and wimbledon. Im the same really.
But I don't know of any women who would follow seasons of rugby or football or gaa or any sport throughout the year religiously

sullivlo

Andre 3000 wrote: »

You're an outlier. The point is still valid.

Not amongst my friends I'm not.

wakka12

mdwexford wrote: »

Male or female, nobody wants to sit through the horror show that is the majority of women's sporting events.

The majority of olympics events in particular are no less impressive in the womens section really. In fact some sections seem more elegant and probably more highly anticipated such as gymnastics

I'd watch women's oly or power lifting if I watch any at all
Female gymnastics is always amazing as well

Not really into watching other sports though

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Andre 3000

Women's gymnastics is incredible alright. It's scary to think how early they retire though. Only two of the Fierce Five are still competing and they're all only like 20 years old.

Joe_ Public

Andre 3000 wrote: »

Women's gymnastics is incredible alright. It's scary to think how early they retire though. Only two of the Fierce Five are still competing and they're all only like 20 years old.

Remember reading Joan Ryan's Little Girls in Pretty Boxes a few years ago, frightening stuff. I was under the impression that the average age of Olympic medallists was going up, but not sure about that.

Corruptedmorals

I follow women's gymnastics. Mens gymnastics is more powerful but I find the events they do are boring. There's something spectacular about women's gymnastics and it's much more popular, in terms of spectators it's up there with athletics and swimming.

2 members of the fierce 5 retired this year alright, it's unusual to compete in more than one Olympics although less so than it used to be and average age is now trending upwards. Kyla Ross grew about 5 inches since London which gave her back problems and McKayla Maroney gave in to her shopping list of injuries, she was already broken by London anyway.

Corruptedmorals

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Remember reading Joan Ryan's Little Girls in Pretty Boxes a few years ago, frightening stuff. I was under the impression that the average age of Olympic medallists was going up, but not sure about that.

A lot has changed thankfully. Such as body type, it's a lot more free now. They compete much harder stuff than they did back then so they need to be strong, pixie types aren't the be-all and end-all. Check out Simone Biles, she is triple world champion and is poised to possibly take 5 golds in Rio. Greatest gymnast ever and she is ripped.

Corruptedmorals

Corruptedmorals wrote: »

A lot has changed thankfully. Such as body type, it's a lot more free now. They compete much harder stuff than they did back then so they need to be strong, pixie types aren't the be-all and end-all. Check out Simone Biles, she is triple world champion and is poised to possibly take 5 golds in Rio. Greatest gymnast ever and she is ripped.

Just checked her out on youtube, holy moly!
That's some skill

Joe_ Public

bluewolf wrote: »

Just checked her out on youtube, holy moly!
That's some skill

Same here, look forward to more of that in Rio!