Mike C
Registered User
Not in my worldIf nobody watches it, does it really count?
Wouldn't count even if I did watch truth be told
Not in my worldIf nobody watches it, does it really count?
Buy you got wnba player who think that there entitled to charter flights because of “ equalliyy” and yet even less popular men pro leagues like the nll aren’t complaining about that
And England men WC TV ratings aren't all 55m people, they "Only" had 8.1m watching a group game last November "because it was a workday" (aka country didn't shut down), while the women in a similar time slot, quarters instead of R16, got the same 11m in TV ratings the men did the year before.
They get better ratings than the NHL. You should see how few people in Dallas watch a Stars game. Abysmal local tv ratings down there.If nobody watches it, does it really count?
And? A lot of things get better ratings than every NHL team, let alone a sunbelt team.They get better ratings than the NHL. You should see how few people in Dallas watch a Stars game. Abysmal local tv ratings down there.
Meanwhile in the home nation of Qatar versus Ecuador...more people in the U.S. watched Qatar-Eduador group stage match last year than watched the WWC Final this year.
When it's non-home nation playing, significantly fewer watch the WWC.
If you don't discuss it then you do it wrong...
These comparisons still aren't showing what you think they are. Also continue to exclude what makes the World Cup the World Cup in terms of worldwide popularity, and that's people watching worldwide.
You can extrapolate the point with U.S. TV ratings.
2023 WWC Final, that the USWNT obviously wasn't in, did 2.21 million. Which isn't good.
2022 WC Final, that the USMNT obviously wasn't in, was the most-viewed soccer match in U.S. TV history.
That is the difference.
Around the world, people will watch -not just the final but- whatever two countries are playing in a group stage match of the [Men's] World Cup -- e.g. more people in the U.S. watched Qatar-Eduador group stage match last year than watched the WWC Final this year.
When it's non-home nation playing, significantly fewer watch the WWC. Certainly it's nowhere near the 'WWC gets 50%, 75%, the same! viewership of the men's World Cup' you tried to claim based on some non like-for-like comparisons from a single countries m&w national teams.
And? A lot of things get better ratings than every NHL team, let alone a sunbelt team.
The WWC averaged 610k viewers on Fox through 41games. The "pinnacle" event for Womans soccer.
Regular season NHL games on ABC averaged 1.1m.
You're really going to compare TV ratings in the US for a match that started at 3 PM Eastern/Noon Pacific to one that started at 6 AM Eastern/ 3 AM Pacific?
You can use time-zone excuse for two of those if you'd like but can't for all three.
Men's world cup has never been anywhere near that low. Even the aforementioned 2002 (worst of men's World Cup U.S. viewership in 21st century which naturally is the one you chose for a comparison) had more than twice the viewers for the Final than the completely different generation but we'll call it "like-for-like" 2023 WWC.
Again, the point was worldwide. You used a single country where the WNT is popular to extrapolate that to "50-75%" worldwide in a non like-for-like comparison. Disingenuously, as you're want to do. I gave an example of a single country watching NT's that aren't their own, which was the point.
People will watch their national teams -like the Olympics when people watch sports they otherwise would never watch and don't care about but they're rooting for their country- but the difference between the men's and women's world cup is that neutral fans, again nowhere near the 75% watching the WWC worldwide as you try to claim, will watch ANY men's World Cup match (especially the Final) in large worldwide viewership numbers. That's the major difference between the two.
FWIW, look how many in Spain watched their WNT win their first WWC.
This is not how businesses work if FIFA considers themselves as a business. It is basic supply and demand economics.If this FIFA group has the money to pay the women then pay them. Any comparison of what the women generate in revenue to the men in most sports, including soccer, is going to show a big disparity. To play in the World Cup men would not even need to be paid. These guys (especially on the top teams) make huge money from their club teams and endorsements. They don’t play in the World Cup for the money.
I don't recall saying that the interest level in women's soccer worldwide was 75% of the men.
if you actually quantify it....
- 20.4 million people in the UK watched England men in a knockout (vs France) at 7 pm on a Tuesday in 2022.
- 11 million people in the UK watched the England women in a knockout (vs Australia) at 11 AM on a Tuesday in 2023.
That shows you how close it is.
It's not 10% of the interest or 20% of the interest. At worst, it's 50% and at best it's 75% -- but those numbers get better every single cycle.
When you consider that FIFA SAYS their men's business is "$7 billion" you see how much revenue they're leaving on the table.... HALF as many people caring about a $7b product is a $3.5 billion product!
This is not how businesses work if FIFA considers themselves as a business. It is basic supply and demand economics.
That's all I've been responding to, as I've had no takes on equal pay or attendance. Just merely pointing out that using a non like-for-like ("knockout" was a disingenous way to get around different rounds / national viewership obviously goes up the further the NT advances) from a single country (one that the WNT has a fair amount of popularity) to extrapolate to a worldwide "50-75%" of the interest is extremely flawed, for the reasons provided in previous responses.
That's talking about the "what IT IS NOW" (your words) that you're now claiming you "don't give a damn about." You literally said between 50-75% and used England viewership from non like-for-like rounds to extrapolate that to 50-75% WORLDWIDE are how many care "NOW." That's the sole thing I've been responding to.
If that's not what you meant, multiple replies could have been avoided as a simple: "what I said isn't what I meant, I meant it has the potential for 50-75%" would have sufficed.