Women's soccer is only popular for the world cup and nothing else. I seriously doubt all the fans and viewers they had watching them during the WC will translate to increasing their viewership in the US women's soccer league.
A National soccer team (men or women) gets paid to train for, and hopefully win, the World Cup. That’s the goal. The entire 4-year cycle is specifically built just for that. aka, a women’s pro league or men’s pro league, or hockey or all the countries of the world besides USA, or various teams degrees of difficulty under which the two soccer teams operate… they simply do not have a thing to do with the legal action by USWNT.
Again US women's team has been facing lesser opposition much of the time which makes their accomplishments much less meaningful the same way US and Canada women's hockey has been dominating against weak opposition and it makes their accomplishments less meaningful.
No, you missed the point of this one: The US Women are probably trouncing the US men in REVENUE if we include 2019. Per the lawsuit and USSF financial records, the women have earned roughly $1.7 million more in revenue than the men from 2016-2018.
Well, 2019 is the men’s first year of a new cycle - the slowest of the four year cycle, AND the men just missed the WC. Their ratings and attendance are down 47%. While it’s a Women’s World Cup year (always the most popular year of the cycle for any national team), and Nike hasn’t been about to keep WNT gear in stock for US to sell.
(And remember, this is about LOCAL revenues. WWC attendance vs Men’s WC attendance/revenue doesn’t mean a damned thing because that money goes to FIFA).
You could spend a billion dollars on marketing women's soccer and it isn't going to make much of a difference in getting people to care about them and come out to support them by buying tickets and turning on the TV to watch them. Women's soccer will ALWAYS be a niche sport with minimal interest outside of women's world cup and nothing is going to change that the same way nothing the NBA does is going to change how unsuccessful the WNBA is.
The revenue data and USWNT attendance data makes that a gross exaggeration. You’re underestimating the difference between the USWNT and every other women’s sports team on the planet.
Generally speaking, NO ONE CARES about the women’s version of sports compared to the men, because the men’s version has been around for 50 to 150 years, and women’s sports didn’t really become a thing until attempts in the mid/late 90s.
Pro basketball started in 1946, the WNBA in 1996. The FIFA World Cup started in 1930. The Women’s World Cup in 1991. Pro men’s soccer in Europe for 200 years, and women’s pro soccer started like, a few years ago. Fans don’t NEED a women’s team because they’ve had a men’s team for decades already.
But in the United States from 1951-1993, NO ONE CARED ABOUT MEN’S SOCCER, EITHER!
The US Men didn’t make a World Cup from 1951 to 1990 (which coincides with the history of TV. Soccer just wasn’t on TV in the US and no one cared: Men’s 1990 WC TV viewers were just 369,000 per game). America’s first real introduction to soccer was hosting the 1994 World Cup (during the explosion of ESPN popularity).
And when it ended, there was NO PRO LEAGUE. MLS didn’t start until 1996. And that’s when Americans discovered that the women’s team were defending World Cup Champions. The US Women’s Soccer team had a 1994 attendance of 5,150 before the men’s World Cup started. Not average, but total. Six matches, the last 500 fans. Their first game AFTER the men’s world cup ended: 5,731. Then 5,826. Then 6,511.
In England, they watch their club team by 40 to 50 regular season games a year, and then 40 or so national team games over four years. And then the women get introduced. And it’s “That’s 240 matches for the men, who has time for the women?”
In the US, fans were introduced to both men’s and women’s teams together, there was no club, so your choices were 40 mens, or 80 men’s and women’s. And maybe have VHS tapes mailed to you from Europe to watch pro soccer.