Title IX Toppling Football?

There seems to be a large chunk of collegiate sports fans that are convinced that big bad TitleIX legislation (see previous post) is responsible for the removal of many of the football teams (and perhaps hockey) programs at the college level. How do I respond to that? Umm... NO.

Forcing schools to equally support men and women's sports could mean that some funding will have to be shifted from men to women. This legislation combined with the fact that financial problems have led to the dropping of certain sports programs, have people blaming TitleIX. However, the fact is that certain sports (men's football and hockey, for example) are simply immensely and ridiculously expensive.

These sports require a vast amount of players (who must be clothed, travel, fed/housed on the road, etc.), an expensive facility (plus upkeep), etc. It is not the legislation that is causing the financial problems, but the sports themselves. Yes, football brings in money and publicity. However, contrary to popular belief (and as I have been learning in my Sports Economics class), very few football, basketball, and hockey teams (with the exceptions of the few top Div.1 teams at public universities) are actually making a financial profiting off of these athletics.

"The cost of TitleIX and the entry of women into the big time should not be blamed for today's highly publicized financial problems for college sports. At the heart of the problem is an addiction to lavish spending." said Walter Byers, Executive Director of the NCAA until 1987 (This quote and more info on collegiate sports can be found in the book Unpaid Professionals, by Andrew Zimbalist).

The Women's Sports Foundation has a similar opinion on this. They note that additionally, top Div.1 schools are dropping men's sports like golf and gymnastics instead, in order to provide for the expenses of sports like football. They also note that it has become an "arms race" in terms of which school can have a lavish team to attract great players and thus win championships. Let's not blame Title IX, lets blame greed.

Tennis Tension

Tuesday, the Wimbledon announced the prize money amounts that will be awarded at the next tournament. While almost all tennis tournaments nationwide have finally put aside old-fasioned ideas and adopted the practice if equal distribution of prize money for men and women, Wimbledon will be sticking to old ways. The men's winner this year will receive $1.170 million, while the female champion will be getting $1.117 million. Do the math, that's a $53,000 difference.

Before giving my thoughts here are what others said...

WTA tour chief executive Larry Scott said,
"In the 21st century, it is morally indefensible that women competitors in
a Grand Slam tournament should be receiving considerably less prize money
than their male counterparts."

Venus Williams told BBC in an article,
"This is not just about women's tennis but about women all over the world. At
Wimbledon we would like to have equal prize money to prove that we are equal
on all fronts."
Wow... this simply boggle my mind. Out of all women's sports, tennis has seemed to achieve a lot of respect in terms being competitive with men. Perhaps we can thank Billie Jean King's publicized defeat of (the male-chauvenist) Riggs. Anyway, women's tennis now has an impressive following. I really think that the Wimbledon will feel repercussions of this because of such negative publicity. The other tournaments have changed their ways, Wimbledon must keep up with the times

Title What?

There is one law that has changed the face of women's sports more so, in my opinion, than any other in the history of athletics...Title IX. Not familiar? For the complicated version, look at the government site. Looking for something simpler? Better yet, read on(we just covered this in my Economics for Intercollegiate and Professional Sports class)...

In a nutshell, TitleIX is a comprehensive law that strives to ensure more equity between men's and women's sports interscholastically and intercollegiately. There are three main criteria for schools:

• The amount of opportunities for women's participation in athletics must be reflective of the percentage population (If a school is 50% women, yet 75% of the athletic opportunities go to men, there is a problem).
• Funding for women's and men's sports must be matched in some way (You may match women's and men's basketball spending, or perhaps match the spending of women's crew and men's golf. Whatever the combo, it must be comparable).
• The above must be continually looked at and examined, according to changing student population and budget.
  
  Title IX has made a huge difference in the frontiers of women's highschool and college sports. It has paved the way to allow for a more equal division of sports spending and thus opportunities.
  
  According to the National Organization for Women, before Title IX, only 1 in 27 girls played varsity high school sports. Today a total of 2.8 million girls now sport a varsity letter. Similarly, 32,000 female athletes played on intercollegiate teams before Title IX, which has now changed to 150,000 today. Scholarship money has also now opened up doors for a whole new generation of female athletes.
  
  As these opportunities continue to open up women's sports, I think women's will only to change towards the positive.
  
  The Women's Sports Foundation released findings on how well this is working. While much progress has been made, women still lag behind men by quite a bit. For example, while 52% of college students are female, female athletes receive only 42% of sport participation opportunities and 36% of operating expenditures. Uneven? Yes.
  
  While this gap is a bit wide, we must remember that men's sports certainly bring in a fair amount more than women. This is simply the reality- Sports is a business. However, I still believe that much of collegiate spending on men's sports is superfluous. While men are receiving numerous amenities, women are still fighting to get necessities. However, women must fight hard to keep what they have finally earned. The Bush Administration has been looking into revising Title IX in ways that could truly harm this forward movement.
  
  
  

More NCAA tourny complaints...

In a previous post I referenced some other bloggers' complaints concerning the amount of coverage the women in the NCAA basketball final four tournament received. Well, I just came across the NCAA blog, Double-A Zone, which agreed with me, and of course yet another blogger, ParadigmBlog who didn't.

"It disturbs me that after one of the greatest championship games – men’s or
women’s – in NCAA basketball history – people are still criticizing the
women’s game. It doesn’t make any sense to me and I’m confident that if
the majority of folks watched women’s sports, they would appreciate the
quality of competition immensely."

I completely agree with this point. It is this exact reason why I think the media can have such an influence on the progress in the area of women's sports. However, many male sports fans refuse to be supporters of this progress. In fact this blogger refers to the above post as "absolute dogshit". How eloquent.

ParadigmBlogger goes on to claim that sports fans support sports because of their admiration of the athletes who are playing at a level that is far superior to that of themselves. He states that sports like women's basketball are not good enough to merit ESPN sportshows and heavy media coverage.

"Let's get something straight here, women's basketball sucks. An elite high
school boys' team would wipe the floor with almost any women's college team, and
could probably hold their own with a WNBA team."

I'd love to see this blogger just sit and watch a player like Sherly Swoopes play, who has racked up over 2,000 career points and over 200 careers steals. Also, perhaps this player simply does not know the game he's talking about.

Women's and men's basketball are two very different sports. Men's hoops are played above the rim in a fast-paced game where physical stregnth and size are two overwhelming components. Women's basketball is played below the rim in a slower paced game where quickness, strategy, and finesse are more important than sheer muscle.

Also, as far as media coverage goes... the women's final game of the tournament was ten times more exciting than that of the mens. The guy's game was a blowout (I stopped procrastinating and turned it off to do a paper). Meanwhile, the women's game featured a remarkable comeback by Maryland with a win by a mere 3 points in OT. Now that's worth watching.

Cheerleading; respected sport or negative mindset?

Ok, I'll admit right off the bat to being quite biased on the topic of cheerleading. I've never tried it nor have really ever given it any credit as a sport. Maybe I am therefore in no position to judge, but I will anyway.

I had always considered myself pretty much against anything having to do with cheerleading. However, I have found myself with an ex-cheerleader as a roommate and have since learned a little more about it... so I guess I now give it a than I had before.

I think cheerleading gets a mixed reaction from a lot of people (including me). Some disregard it totally and a fluffy sub-par sport. However, those who are involved in it seem more than eager to defend it. So I guess here is my rather mixed opinion... let me know what you think.

I can longer can dismiss cheerleading as a "not even a sport". I've seen some competitive cheerleading on ESPN and witnessed a few highschool tournaments (ok, and yes, I admit to being a fan of the movie 'Bring It On'), all of which have convinced me to finally give these girls some credit. It certainly takes skill and hard work to perfect some of the moves that cheerleaders perform. I mean, you will not see me performing any back-handsprings or any time soon.

However, it is only the higher-level competitive teams that I can really acknowledge as deserving praise. There is something about cheerleading, at the beginner level, that I simply cannot accept. I believe when girls start off in the cheering world it is a fun, social, and physical activity for young girls. This is great, but why not do dance or gymnastics instead?

I recommend these alternatives because I think there is something about the mindset that cheerleading imparts that can be harmful to young girls. Cheerleading puts girls on the sidelines to watch and root on the boys as the boys play. Rather than taking this passive supporting role, young girls should be empowered to play for themselves, rather than simply cheer on the opposite sex. I am NOT saying this is always the case, however I believe that until cheerleaders reach higher levels of their sport, where they are competing themselves, the entire mindset of the sport is damaging. Remember, there is a reason the cheerleading uniform consists of a short, pleated skirt and a midriff-showing shirt rather than a jersey and shorts. Looking cute matters, not just the moves.

There are a lot of opinions about this. Some that agree (like sunjoy ) and others that don't. Also, some news is that the National Federation of High School Association in the US just put a ban on cheerleading shirts that don't cover the midriff. This is definitely a step in the right direction to me, but not all are happy.

Here is the Women's Sports Foundation's Stance...

"Danceline, cheerleading, drill team, baton twirling and marching band are normally considered to be extracurricular activity programs that are conducted in conjunction with sports contests and involve elements of physical activity. They usually exist to entertain or educate a spectating audience, or, in the case of cheerleading, to coerce audience enthusiasm and participation for an athletic team that is engaged in competition...These exhibition activities are secondary and indeed unnecessary to the existence of an athletic team or the purpose of an athletic activity...Similarly, danceline, cheerleading, drill team, etc. may periodically act like sports teams when they engage in state or regional championship competitions conducted under the jurisdiction of high school federations"

Ok I admit that is a little harsh... but they certainly have a point.

Ch-ch-ch-changes

At first I was angry...I blamed it on ignorence... Then I took a step back...Does he have a point? Hmmmm....

I came across a livejournal entry today that I'd like to comment on & I'd love some feedback. Toolwise posted that he enjoys watching and/or playing...

"pretty much anysport except women's sports. Sure they're fine for women, but
they make it easy. Like softball, they hsprten and bring in the wall, they throw
slower with a bigegr ball, use the samesized bat and they still can't hit. Their
power hitters hit like 5 hr's a year! ...That ball is floruescent and huge compared to a
baseball. Then in women's basketball, they only socre like 55. The only women's
sports that are worth a damn are volleyball and soccer."

Wow... thats a blow. In order to dismiss women's sports this writer uses an argument that I believe many sports fans who are not supporters of women's athletics use to boast their position. At first I was appalled at such a notion... but hmmm. Instead of dismissing it as chauvenistic, I'll take a closer look. Does this point have an itsy bitsy bit of merit? Have some women's sports been watered down in the past?

I'm going to take the stance that yes, some women's sports may have been watered down a bit historically, however the sole reason for this was preconcived social contructs of the times. Thus, I believe that as times change, so may this. I think basketball is a perfect example...

Surprisingly, women did not start playing basketball long after the sport was invented and played by men in 1891, accoridng to the WNBA website. Of course until bloomers were introduced, women were playing in long skirts and coursets, not exactly athletic gear.

Senda Berenson is the woman who is credited with first bringing the sport to women. She brought the game to Smith college, where rules had to be changed a bit to be "proper" and so women did not suffer from "nervous fatigue". This meant that the court was divided into 3 sections, in which a group of players were assigned to a section (I mean, they want to allow the girls to run around tooo much). Players were also no allowed to snatch the ball from one another, dribble more than 3x, or hold the more for more than 3 seconds.


By 1895 the game was being played by women across the country, with rules changing from place to place. As the game became more popular, more attention was turned to this scandelous behavior and there was great tension beween feminity and athleticism. In 1936 an exhibition team, "The Redheads" traveled the country playing men. In 1938, the three-section rule was reduced to two sections. In 1931 women were finally granted full-court play and of course the sports entered the Olympics games 40 years after the men.

It took awhile, but changes were made. There are similiar stories for other female sports and I wonder if some sports may still be in the process of changing. Never the less, women's sports will always be different from men's. Many men's sports are more about brute strength and size while women's sports concentrate on fine skill and finesse. Both deserve respect.

Women's History in Sports

The St. Lawrence County Branch American Athletic Association compiled an awsome timeline of women's achievements... Here are a few from between 1850 and 1950 that I found most interesting (It is shocking how recent some of these are!)

1875 - The "Blondes" and "Brunettes" play their first match, heralded as the "first game of baseball ever played in public for gate money between feminine ball-tossers."
1876 - Nell Saunders defeates Rose Harland in the first U.S. women's boxing match.
1884 - Women's singles tennis is added to Wimbledon.
1886 - The first known women's lacrosse game is held.
1890's - Over a million American women own and ride bicycles during the next decade- marking the first athletic activity for women will to become widely popular in America.
1890's - The Bloomer Girls baseball era begin, offering employment, travel, and adventure for young women who could hit, field, slide, or catch until 1934 (pictured at right- photo by E. Houghton © Exploratorium ).
1892 - The Journal of Physical Education devotes an issue to women, stating females do need physical strength and endurance and thus dismissing the idea that women are too weak to exercise.
1895 - The high school softball team is formed(but still no coach for competitive play until 1899).
1896 - Susan B. Anthony says, "the bicycle has done more for the emancipation of women than anything else in the world."
1896 - The first women's intercollegiate basketball championship is played between Stanford and the University of California at Berkely before a crowd of 700 women!
1900 - The first 19 women compete in the modern Olympics Games in Paris, France. The play participate in onlu tennis, golf, & croquet- Margaret I. Abbott is the first American woman to win an Olympic gold medal.
1914- Women's basketball rules change to allow half-court play (changing the original one-third court rule). Full court play for women doesn't come in until the 1970's.
1920 - At the Summer Olympics, Suzanne Lenglen abandoned the customary tennis garb for a short skirt, sleeveless blouse, and sweater. She wins two gold and a bronze medal and becomes the first female celebrity athlete.
1923 - 22% of U.S. colleges have women's varsity sports teams.
1930 - Jennie Kelleher becomes the first woman to bowl a perfect 300 game.
1932 - The U.S. Women's Lacrosse Association is formed, holding its first tournament the next year.
1935 - Amelia Earhart becomes the first person to fly non-stop between Hawaii and C.A.
1936 - Women's gynmasticsis added to the Olympics at the Berlin Games
1949 - The US Volleyball Association begins sponsoring the women's open title.

And the Billie goes to...

Move over Grammies, the Billies are in town. The Billie Awards were held this past Thursday, April 20th in Beverly Hills, California to commemorates superior coverage of women's sports in the media. The event, which included an array of celebs and a performance by Elton John, is named after Billie Jeane King, founder of The Women's Sports Foundation, which hosted the celebration.

I think Media Coverage is a key facet in shaping the the future of women's athletics. How female athletes are covered and portayed are key in shaping public opinion. The public needs to see for themselves, I mean, a viewer simply can not watch a professional WNBA game and not gain a respect for female athletes. Women's games must be covered, athletes must be credited, discrimination must be publicized, etc.

I'm glad that the Billie Awards gives those in the media who are doing this a chance to get recognized. Perhaps this will push others to do the same. Many women's professional sports are struggeling financially. The more media coverage they get, the more sponsors will be willing to pay them, since a whole new market of viewers can be reached. This could greatly help balance the great gap between the income of male and female athletes.

T h e W i n n e r s . . .
Christine Brennan won the Journalism Award. She is an sports columnist for USA Today, television sports analyst & author of two figure skating books.

Game Face Productions won for breakthrough and Innovation for the collection of words, photographs, and stories that was entitled "Game Face: What does a Female Athlete Look Like?"

Date to Dream- HBO Sports won for Entertainment, which chronicled the 17 year journey of some of women's soccer biggest icons. (picture at right is Ross Greenbergm who accepted the award for HBO and Billie Jean King).

Bud Greenspan won for most Influential Personality for his coverage of the Olympics, which included the capturing the dedication of such female athletes as Jackie Joyner-Kersee and Lisa Fernandez


Kudos to this organization and these winners for recognizing the need for excellence in media coverage!

A look to the Future...

Ok, I admit that many of my postings about women's sports point out the dispairities between the two sexes when it comes to athletics. However, I was just reading an article entitledThe Future of Women's Sports and Fitness, by The Women's Sports Foundation, and the verdict is that the future looks rather promising.

Two Notable Stats: In 1970, 1 in every 27 girls played a varsity highschool sport. Today, 1 in every 3 girls is sporting a varisty letter. Also, today women actually outnumber men as active sport/fitness partcipants... I have to admit I'm suprised.

The world of sports has changed... here are some reasons the article points to :

• Today, parents are encourging their daughters to participate in sports and there a much more opportunities for them to do so, imparting a more athletic-minded mindset within the new generation
• Companies are jumping on the bandwagon. Sporting goods and equiptment are now made directly for female athletes. Companies such as Reebock and Lady FootLocker have lines exclusively for women. The female athlete represents a whole new market.
• Stereotypical images of women are slowly losing hold. The media has been making an effort to recognize females as athletic and able.
• Male sportsmodels are becoming increasingly characterized as money-hungry and as having bad conduct, while female athletes as role-models are on the rise. This compounded with the rising prise of professional men's sporting events has led people (especially families) to become more open-minded to attending women's professional sporting events.
• Title IX has evened out the playing field somewhat in terms of equality in for interscholastic and intercollegiate sports.

Media Outlets Out Money

Yesterday, I posted a blog about my observation that while men support other male athletics, women do not neccesarily do the same for female athletics. This issue of patronage has a siginificant effect on the entire industry of professional and even intercollegiate sports for both sexes.

A large part of the revenue made on sports comes from media contracts leagues hold with local television networks, radio broadcasters, and newspapers. An example of this can be cleraly seen in baseball. The New York Yankees have a huge metropolitan market from which to draw from. Thus, cable networks (including YES) have profitable contracts with the team for coverage. Cities with smaller markets, do not recieve the amount of money in exchange for their coverage because it is simply not as valuable.

The market for women's professional sports is even smaller. Not enough women or men are consuming news and coverage of female athletics. Sponsors of such events therefore do not get as much publicity. Thus, media contracts (which are a huge part of revenue streams for professional sports) are not making nearly as much of a profit as their male counterparts.

Thus, unless marjets increase in size (more people develop a vested interest in women's sports), female athletics will continue to lag behind in the business end of professional sports. The same goes for intercollegiate sports... I'll save that for another blog :)

Who's Watching Who?

Men often consider themselves the ultimate sports fans. However, for many men, 'sports' tend to only include that which are played by men. Guys support their own sex when it comes to sports, however women seem ia bit more divided.

While men are supporting mostly men, female sports fans are often supporting guys sports as well as women's. In fact, I'm willing to say that many female sports fans focus on men's sporting events more so than that of their fellow females.

Is this wrong? I don't think so. I admit to following many men's sports (such as baseball) closer than I do for that of women (sorry, softball simply hasn't caught my interest). However, I wonder if this is represenattive of deeper-seeded social doings.

Professional sports is supposed to showcase the most talented players of a particular sport. Of course, people love to watch these athletes because of the degree of skill that is showcased. Yet, athletic prowess is considered to be a male thing. Thus, in search of the ultimate players in a sport, a sports fan is steered by societal norms to men's sports.

I think this social construct is slowly changing. The media coverage and increased talent in the sports arena by female athletes are demanding the respect of the public eye. Right now, I believe that the main supporters of women's sports are those women who used to play a particular sport themselves (i.e. an ex-highschool tennis player, is more likely to be a tennis fan). However, as sports gain more coverage and thus respect, I think that others (both men and women) will be drawn to the athletic prowess that is permeates the world of women's sports.

NCAAs Boost Women's Reputation...

March Madness, culminating with the NCAA tournament, is always a great time of the year for sports fans. It is an especially good time for women's basketball because, in my opinion, while women's college basketball games tend not to receive very much recognition during the regular season, this tournament certainly grabs many sports fans' attention for both sexes. Of course, the men will usually get much more coverage and attention,but hey... that just how it is, I guess.

My teacher was late for class the other day, and as the rest of the students and I waited, I overheard a conversation between two guys in my class. They were discussing the women's NCAA tournament. One of them commented that after watching the game he realized that women's basketball "really is a real sport" after seeing them dunk during the game. Obviously, I knew he was being a bit facicous, and I am not going to tear down what he said.

The fact that he did not have much respect previous respect for women's college basketball is not something I'm going to rant about. Rather, I choose to emphasize how much such a publicized show of women's athletic prowess, as seen in the NCAA tourny, can make a difference in changing people's pre-conceived gender-bias.

One can not watch a women's final-four game and ignore the utter talent and level of competition that is playing before one's eyes. Women simply need the publicity and the chance to prove themselves. This is something that the NCAA tourny suceeds in.

Women's Semi-finals vs. Men's Opener...

I just blogged about how the women's NCAA tournament helps in building respect for women's sports, however some things just don't change...

Upon searching through some sports blogs, I came across who blogger to took note of a pretty blatant disregard for the women's side of the tournament in the press, which I couldn't help commenting on. This Just The Sports. Not the Idiocy blog ousted Sports writer Peter King for some rather chauvinistic comments for Sports Illustrated.

King complained that it was "incredulous" that NCAA women's final four semi-championship game played on ESPN, forcing him to view that opening White Sox game on ESPN2, meaning the women's game was shown in High-definition, while the men's was not.

"I can see ESPN ditching a September baseball game for a September NFL game, but for a women's basketball game?" said King.

I'm sorry this was such an inconvenience(::insert sarcasn here::). However I agree, with the above-mentioned blogger that this was a totally chauvenistic comment. The men's game almost always recieve the prime media spots. In this case, the women's Maryland-North Carolina surpassed the men's baseball game in importance. Let's think about it... this was a semi-champoinship game in a highly publicized and watched tournament. These two teams were duking it out for a chance to complete for the ultimate national title in women's college basketball. Meanwhile, the baseball game was just the beginning of a season that is extraoidinarily long. Baseball has over 160 in-season games. This one simply wasn't going to make or break anything; it was insignificant. Plus, King (along with the many others who I am sure agree with his chauvenistic comments) were still able to watch the baseball game. Honestly, the fact that he could not watch it in high definition gets no sympathy from me. Get over it, King.

Beginnings of the Blog

Alright, to start off, here's a little bit of what to expect from this blog...
Women's game analysis, scores, player bios? Nope, you're not going to find them here. You're checking out the wrong blog. Rather than those facts and figures, I'd like to delve deeper into some significant and broader issues in female athletics.

I was searching around the internet trying to find some sites devoted to girls sports, but was met with little success. Of course, I was flooded with that of the opposite sex. Guys and sports just seem to go together, but for women this is just not the case.

Don't worry. I'm not kidding myself... I'm not rallying for equal attention for both sexes when it comes to sports, or a women's professional football league. Please, it is no secret that men are the majority of sport spectators and players. I intend to be realistic with my analysis, however, I also intend on hitting some issues that may not meet the average sports fan's eye, no matter what sex. Comments are encouraged! :)