My high school produced two female Olympians and women’s sports was always the first thing to get cut in budget appropriations, ahead of Home Economics and Chess Club. Nothing wrong with learning how to bake a chicken pot pie or open with Queen’s Gambit, but it’s no surprise the budgets were prioritized and doled out by old white men.
There was an article I read the other day on The Athletic (paywalled, natch) by Nicole Auerbach. She talked about the build up to the big Iowa / LSU rematch and the Caitlin Clark / Angel Reese rivalry. What was noteworthy was the (mostly male) talking heads on ESPN were talking about it just like they talk about any other big highly anticipated game. It was incidental that it happened to be a women's game.
I thought I would get e-mail notification for your posts after I subscribed, but I haven't been. Guess I have to check my settings.
ANYWAY, aș a devoted fan of college basketball (my sister played for a major college team at the same time that Dawn Staley was earning a spot in the Hall of Fame playing for Virginia), I shall point out that the founding of the WNBA was not exactly a feminist act.
The ABL started play earlier and the best players, including Staley herself, played in the ABL. The first incarnation of the WNBA used NBA dollars to drive the ABL out of business. And though most of the players did move on to play in the WNBA, the women playing for the men-owners of the NBA earned lower salaries than they had under the ABL's ownership which was more complex and criticized for being undercapitalized, but included more women in ownership.
It is my impression that the ABL would have succeeded but for the deliberate effort to undercut their success by the NBA -- and there is no doubt that this is exactly what the NBA did.
It's also interesting to note that, owned by the NBA who did not want competition, the WNBA was forced to play in the summer during the hiatus in NBA games, while the ABL played during the traditional basketball season, overlapping with the NBA season.
Whatever the WNBA's benefits for women's sports now -- and make no mistake I am very glad it exists and bought season tickets to the Portland Fire when the Portland Power folded with the rest of the ABL -- it's clear that the founding of the WNBA was nothing to celebrate, at least from a feminist perspective.
Billionaire men wanted the profits of women's excellence while shortening their athletic seasons, placing it off-season when there would be less interest and coverage, and eliminating any competition for NBA TV broadcasts. It was cynical and ugly and there was quite a bit of upset at the time.
In fact, I should really probably write a PJ post about all that at some point, but right now I'll just say I'm with you on everything here except celebrating the WNBA's founding. Congrats to PC and to USC both.
My high school produced two female Olympians and women’s sports was always the first thing to get cut in budget appropriations, ahead of Home Economics and Chess Club. Nothing wrong with learning how to bake a chicken pot pie or open with Queen’s Gambit, but it’s no surprise the budgets were prioritized and doled out by old white men.
Woot! Go PC!
There was an article I read the other day on The Athletic (paywalled, natch) by Nicole Auerbach. She talked about the build up to the big Iowa / LSU rematch and the Caitlin Clark / Angel Reese rivalry. What was noteworthy was the (mostly male) talking heads on ESPN were talking about it just like they talk about any other big highly anticipated game. It was incidental that it happened to be a women's game.
I thought I would get e-mail notification for your posts after I subscribed, but I haven't been. Guess I have to check my settings.
ANYWAY, aș a devoted fan of college basketball (my sister played for a major college team at the same time that Dawn Staley was earning a spot in the Hall of Fame playing for Virginia), I shall point out that the founding of the WNBA was not exactly a feminist act.
The ABL started play earlier and the best players, including Staley herself, played in the ABL. The first incarnation of the WNBA used NBA dollars to drive the ABL out of business. And though most of the players did move on to play in the WNBA, the women playing for the men-owners of the NBA earned lower salaries than they had under the ABL's ownership which was more complex and criticized for being undercapitalized, but included more women in ownership.
It is my impression that the ABL would have succeeded but for the deliberate effort to undercut their success by the NBA -- and there is no doubt that this is exactly what the NBA did.
It's also interesting to note that, owned by the NBA who did not want competition, the WNBA was forced to play in the summer during the hiatus in NBA games, while the ABL played during the traditional basketball season, overlapping with the NBA season.
Whatever the WNBA's benefits for women's sports now -- and make no mistake I am very glad it exists and bought season tickets to the Portland Fire when the Portland Power folded with the rest of the ABL -- it's clear that the founding of the WNBA was nothing to celebrate, at least from a feminist perspective.
Billionaire men wanted the profits of women's excellence while shortening their athletic seasons, placing it off-season when there would be less interest and coverage, and eliminating any competition for NBA TV broadcasts. It was cynical and ugly and there was quite a bit of upset at the time.
In fact, I should really probably write a PJ post about all that at some point, but right now I'll just say I'm with you on everything here except celebrating the WNBA's founding. Congrats to PC and to USC both.