Why do our women's teams swagger into World Cups and Olympics as the teams to beat, and frequently stand atop medals podiums throughout the world, but our men's team members feel lucky to raise their arms following victories over Costa Rica or Honduras?
* Title IX. The gender equity legislation that has done so many wonderful things for women's sports at the collegiate level has basically killed men's soccer at most NCAA football-playing universities. With so few opportunities to earn major college soccer scholarships, our best prospects gravitate toward other sports that can afford them those chances.
I'll agree that Title IX has played a major role in providing a relatively deep talent pool for the women's team, but the days when it was the unquestioned best in the world are long gone, and I'd argue that the swagger of being the team to beat has come and gone in recent years.
But my main problem is with the contention that Title IX has "basically killed men's soccer at most NCAA football-playing universities." Anyone who knows anything at all about college soccer knows this isn't true. For example, 14 of the last 16 teams in the 2009 NCAA Men's Soccer Championship Tournament have football programs.
If you delve into the participation numbers, there's no question that NCAA women's programs have mushroomed. But if that growth has come at the expense of the men's programs, then what has been the cost?
Be aware that there are many ways we can spin these numbers. However, for 1981-1982, the first year covered in the report, there were 521 men's soccer programs, 182 of those in Division I, with 12957 and 4631 participants respectively. In 2007-2008, there were 775 men's soccer programs, 198 in Division I, with 21,031 and 5,556 participants respectively.
For the women, in 1981-1982, there were 80 women's soccer programs, 22 of those in Division I, with 1855 and 520 participants respectively. In 2007-2008, there were 956 women's soccer programs, 307 of those in Division I, with 22,682 and 7955 participants respectively.
So, no matter how you cut it, there are more men's and women's programs than there were in 1981-1982, and there are *far* more participants for both genders. In short, so much win.
Now there's no question that women's soccer is in fact great for schools with football programs from a Title IX perspective. And you can make the argument that there would be even more men's programs were it not for Title IX. But if the cost of more men's programs is only having 80 women's programs nationwide, that's not a trade I'd be all that excited to make.
And in terms of how that impacts the national teams, there are a host of other issues to consider: the myriad of shortcomings in our youth development programs before players get to college, the larger international pool of competition in the men's game, the debate as to whether or not NCAA competition is even worth it for players of either gender who want to play at the highest level of the game, and the historically spotty professional leagues in the USA, to name just a few.
The author of the original column does go on to list two other reasons that the men fail where the women succeed, including a divided sports landscape in the USA, and:
* Player allegiance. The loaning and frequent hopping of star players from one team or one league to another can be mind numbing for fringe soccer fans who have a healthy enthusiasm for learning more about the sport. And the act of teams emerging or dropping out of European premier leagues on a yearly basis is too foreign a concept. With those parameters in place, the New Orleans Saints and Chicago Cubs would have been off our radars many years ago.
I'm guessing this reflects his deep knowledge of MLS and WPS.
-FS
7 comments:
It's not Title iX so much as it's been the Amateur lockdown. Relaxing the rules about eligibility would go a long way in helping the cause and talent level. 12 months since you've taken money for the sport. Not some archaic rule of you can't be on a team where someone else was paid, or you lose your status...
Man, I expected that to be a link to a screed by Thomas Flannigan.
Seriously.
Why do our women do really well at soccer while our men do not (relatively)?
Maybe because our women were "early adopters" and our men have been playing catchup for years?
Other countries' women's programs (specifically Germany, Norway and China) have made greater and quicker strides in catching up to the USA than the USA men have done catching up to England and Brazil and Italy.
Big surprise, right? They're two different universes. One is very big, very deep and has a long history. One is very small, very shallow and has a short history.
The bottom line is this: gender equity is the right thing to do. Some of the unintended consequences of Title IX make you shake your head, no question.
But access to opportunity shouldn't be gender-specific, race-specific or anything else but species-specific. Yes, I do not believe that chickens have a right to the same opportunities we do. Plus, they taste good.
FS, your font sucks for numbers. Its like trying to rEad stUPiod tXt like thiS.
For some reason I was always under the impression there appeared to be so few men's ncaa soccer teams because the quota was often taken up by the (pointy) football teams and their 1,2,3 strings of players. I could be wrong. I really don't follow college anything.
The problem isn't that football takes up so many numbers, it's that women don't participate in sports at the same rate men do because Title IX punishes men when women don't show up for sports.
Football creates PR and makes money that the school uses for non-rev sports. Schools won't sacrifice that. It has NOTHING to do with the fact that they're male. It's that the school uses them. If it was a male/female issue, schools would support male soccer teams, they don't. If they cut football numbers and PR slips or money slows down, the schools punish boys. The girls are relatively protected because, well they're girls and you can't hold them responsible for anything according to Feminists.
Here's a thought, instead of requiring schools to have equal participation, require the schools to have equal denial. That way if the interest is the same, no harm no foul. Then again, if the school cuts 200 men, they have to cut 200 women.
It's time for the Feminists to put up or shut up. If you believe their hype that women will show up in the same numbers then they'll have no problem doing this. If they're lying, they'll whine and cry and blame the men for their decisions
I see my boy who wouldn't post my comment outing his abuse of statistics has linked back here.
. . .it's that women don't participate in sports at the same rate men do because Title IX punishes men when women don't show up for sports.
Except for soccer, where hordes of women have gutted men's teams and denied thousands of men the opportunity to play. Uh huh.
The girls are relatively protected because, well they're girls and you can't hold them responsible for anything according to Feminists.
Yeesh, I hope you don't take that kind of strawman aggression out on your daughter.
And yeah, your attempt at summing up feminist ideology? Wrong.
You want to talk about women not taking an interest or showing up, how about we talk about the institutional barriers that for decades have been put up to keep women out of organized sport? Let's talk about the lack of attention the mainstream culture pays to women's professional sports and the excuses that get made for that. Let's talk about the cultural messages that get sent to girls about what their place is and what they should be doing with their time. Let's talk about how, on a related note, society doesn't trust women enough to give them control over their own bodies in a number of ways.
But I'm sure I'm just being willfully ignorant and blaming men when I bring that up.
-FS
What are you talking about wouldn’t post statistic abuse? I’ll debate you on any statistics. You’re misleading or lying about events which never happened.
Yes, hordes of women have shown up to play soccer, but still not as many as men and as I said, women don’t show up for SPORTS in the same numbers.
I hold my daughter responsible for her choices. I would like her to be an engineer and play soccer and field hockey. She’s gifted and a natural athlete. IF she decides to go into business and IF she chooses to spend more time in plays – it’s her choice
I didn’t mention feminist ideology. I’m talking about Feminist actions. If my daughter doesn’t show up for soccer, what do the Feminists do? They invoke Title IX. Does that mean the school gives her a detention or drop a grade in PE? Nope. Do I get, “Gee Mr. Matthews, your daughter isn’t playing soccer, we’re going to require you come to a parent education class or we’ll fine you.” Nope. They go to my son and tell him his sport is cut because his sister didn’t show up for soccer and he doesn’t play a sport that can support the girls.
You talk about institutional barriers to playing for decades? What decades are you talking about, because I’m talking about now. You know the decades in which my son is facing institutional barriers. According to you, it was a horrible thing for the girls, but acceptable for boy, but you’re not being sexist at all. I realize you’re talking about decades from when my father was in school and maybe some residual when I was in school. One of the hazards of sexual reproduction in humans is that male and female are required so my daughter is a result of a union of a man and a woman. That’s right, the benefits I had playing sports my daughter received as well, and any of the hurdles my wife faced, my son received. Instead of offering help to the women that were affected, you punish their sons
Lack of attention for women’s professional sports? It might be because they’re not as good as men at that point. They get more attention than the men with the same level of talent. Think about Michelle Wie and Annika Sorrenstam.They can’t make it on the men’s tour, but you know their names. Do you know the names of the guys just barely on the PGA? The US women’s hockey team got beat by a high school team a few years ago. I didn’t see that team everywhere even though they were better. It’s not even then. I have a godson that plays field hockey, not for his school though. The Feminists say that he’s too big and strong to play high school field hockey – even though he’s in SIXTH grade. And great segue into abortion. Funny, you didn’t bring up the 14 year old boy that got drugged and raped by a 22 year old woman and then was forced to pay child support to her.
I also find it disheartening that you try to put me in my place “my boy”? I’m not your boy. Don’t bring that up especially when you are promoting a racist program like Title IX. Why is it that we keep adding sports like crew, lacrosse, soccer etc. that cater to rich white girls and foreign nationals while cutting sports like track and wrestling? Do we have a dearth of rich white girls in colleges? Is it because we have decades of treating 18 year old foreign nationals poorly? Maybe you’ve never seen a black man that can run track. You do realize that sadly the centuries of intuitional barriers to EVERYTHING that African Americans faced is passed generation to generation because most marriages are still within one’s race. You ignored that part of Title IX. Why is it that you give more rights and opportunities to rich white girls over poor African American males? Maybe we just need to keep those black ‘boys’ in their place – playing football and basketball to make money to support the rich white girl.
Here’s a thought, how about we promote non discrimination or if anything help those that we’ve hurt the most – even if they are black and male.
Post a Comment