Women's Sports, Nationalism, Mass Hysteria, and Globalization

This recent women's run in the World Cup has been fascinating on so many levels. Forget about the legitimately exciting, competitive games against Brazil and Japan. To ESPN, the mass promoters of this fiasco, the great games were just cherries on top to what they needed - the US women's team to be successful. Instead, what I found so interesting is how much people rallied to support the women's team, and why in 2011, there is really no reason we should be. This article does not apply to every single person who was watching the Women's team. In fact, most likely 99% of my readers would fall into the category of who this article doesn't apply to. That being said, read the fucking thing anyway.

Lets start with some facts that are irrefutable (this is where I say that this article may not apply to everyone, so if you fall into the minorites here, just ignore it. I believe you).

- A large majority of the American population thinks soccer is boring. They watch every 4 years to see what America does in World Cup.

- A large majority of people thinks womens sports are a joke. Nobody watches the WNBA, womens college basketball, or anything else.

Therefore, a logical conclusion would be that soccer + women = the most hyped sporting event of the Summer (sans NBA finals). Does that make senese? Well, there is of course one ingredient that is missing.

- Americans will watch anything that has America in it, and that will become the end all be all of human existence for 24 hours. So much so that we get this formula:

Nationalism > Disgust of womens sports + Disgust of Soccer

This is obvious. If you disagree, ask yourself if the womens world cup would be as popular or as watched today if it were Japan vs Brazil.

Why dont people like women sports? Certainly, most of it is based out of ignorance or arrogance, where most men say "I am better than them." This isn't true. Period. So I am not going to pretend that I don't watch the WNBA because I can beat all the WNBA players. I don't watch the WNBA because there is a better product out there; namely, the NBA and College Basketball. It is the same game, and there are two products out there that do it better.

To illustrate this, consider two examples. One, I personally enjoy softball and womens volleyball on TV. Why? Because there are no better products. There is no Mens college softball, and while Men may be better at volleyball, it isnt on TV enough for me to compare. Two) Comparing apples to apples, think of the XFL. It had nothing to do with gender, and the league failed. Why? Because it was inferior to the NFL (and probably college). That is why womens sports fail.

So I was watching the women's final like anyone else. I admit, I was swept up in the nationalism (and I would be one of the people not watching if USA were not in it). When Morgan scored in the second half, I was excited for approximately 5 minutes. Then, when the announcer pointed out that Morgan's father used to bribe her with a Lexus car in high school based on her goals, I lost all interest. Why would I continue to root for this person/team? If this were a film, Morgan would be in the fraternity with Niedermeyer, not the Delta House. She'd be hanging out with David Spade in PCU, not Jeremy Piven. She would be closing down Zachary Ty Bryan's friends' dads junkyard in "Slammed." She would be the archetypal, rich, spoiled girl bad guy in a lot of films. I slowly came to realize that I probably had more in common with the Japanese team than I did with the American team.

There is a lot to say about this. 1) It would be unthinkable that 50 years ago anyone could identify with another nation. But in this day and age of globalization, it is more than possible. I feel that the Olympics have become less popular as a result of this. Back in the 40s/50s/60s, we were at war with several countries, and had no idea how their countries or people behaved. We didnt know anything about daily life in USSR, Germany, Japan, etc. When you don't know something about someone other than "they are your enemy," you're going to want to beat them. I think it is safe to say that the US vs Japan game would be more amped up if it were 1942, and they had just destroyed Pearl Harbor, or 1946, and we just dropped an atomic bomb on them. Now, we have people traveling to Tokyo every day. I know people whose parents live in Japan. The greatest film director of all time hails from Japan. I eat sushi once a week. Sofia Coppola made a film where somehow a beautiful young woman and Carl Spackler connect with each other in Tokyo. All in all, the more we understand about the country's culture, the less we hate (sounded like such a hippie there). International sports competition reached an apex in 1980 with the Miracle on Ice, continued through 1984 with the reciprocal boycott by the USSR, and by 1989, when the wall came down, nobody cared anymore.

2) To continue with the Lexus comment. Blue collar sports, which soccer isnt really part of in America, are usually driven by necessity. Think of boxing. In the 1930s and 40s, you had LaMotta, Marciano, Dempsey. Now, you would be hard pressed to find any Italians or Jews in the ring. In the 60s and 70s, you had Holmes, Ali, Frazier, Foreman, but today there are less African Americans in boxing. Instead, the sport is populated by Russians, Mexicans, and as the case with Pacquiao, Filipinos. The point is that any person who would subject themselves to the brutalities of boxing at an early age must be doing so for economical gain. If a child didn't need to make money, they wouldnt be boxing. The sport shows the progress that racial and ethnic groups have made over the past century. Can you imagine a young Jewish kid training to be a boxer in today's day and age?

That being said, there are of course sports that reflect a white collar background. Lacrosse, crewing/rowing, polo, sailing are all examples of this. As you already know, these sports are about as popular as a beesting! In all seriousness though, their popularity, or lack there of, stems from an inability to connect with the participants of the sport. In 2004, in an attempt to show that he was a man and a sport fanatic, John Kerry was pictured riding on a boat. This did not go over well. I have never been on a horse (not that I ever really wanted to). Therefore, how could I appreciate the game of polo, which I presume are just a bunch of rich northeasterners riding around all day waiting for their trust fund to kick in?

I'm not saying soccer is a white collar sport. In fact, it may the sport that least exemplifies those qualities. Children play in back allies in Argentina, Peru, Brazil, as well as England, Germany, and Spain. That is what makes the game great. When Ian said today "I think Obama's children play soccer too," I sarcastically said "yeah, so do 99% of children less than 12," I was saying this in truth (in addition to disdain regarding Obama). That is the whole point. But it is the ones who are catered to, nurtured, and who go to private universities that are rewarded and make the Women's National team. The three goalkeepers for the US went to U Washington, Stanford, and Villanova. The aforementioned Morgan went to Berkley. Cheney - UCLA. The captain, Rampone, went to Monmouth University, a private university in New Jersey. I could go on, but I think you get the feeling that there are no young men from West Texas who live with their grandma working their ass off to get a scholarship to Texas Tech, and then going on to the pros. Or the youngest of 8 children growing up in Detroit going on to get a scholarship from MSU basketball.

I AM NOT saying that the women did not work hard in their lives. Im not saying they aren't talented. I'm not saying they arent good. As I mentioned through the whole article, Im not hating on women or their talents. My point is is that with the makeup of the women's roster, and US women's soccer specifically, the sport belongs in the group of polo, crewing, archery, and lacrosse, not football and basketball.

So what wins over when talking about commonalities and fandom? I'm assuming that commonality is the reason that people root for teams, otherwise we wouldn't root for our hometown teams and alma maters. The idea is that I like Illinois because all the players live in the dorms, go to the same bars, take the same classes, breathe the same air that I do. But does this apply to national products? Do Morgan and I share a commonality because we each have a Social Security card, despite the fact that she drove a Lexus in high school and I drove a Dodge Shadow? Why wouldn't I root for the Japanese IF (and I dont know), they were from a more similar socio-economic background? They would theoretically have more in common with me, and that is what its about, no?

Share your thoughts.