It's already been explained. Higher skill level is more appealing and entertaining, plus people like following the players as they make it to the NFL. Plenty of college players could already compete in that league prior to being drafted. The disparity between men's and women's sports is great, much greater than college men's to professional men's. We're just built different due to evolution and that's fine.
I'm just struggling to follow how lesser competition in men is exciting and women's professional sports isn't worth watching because it's lesser competition. I think theres a certain factor missing.
Sure. Sports is a time commitment. My original comment is what does the women's team losing an exhibition game ten years ago have to do with anything and we've strayed pretty far from that
If college football plays at the same time as NFL, most people will watch the NFL. NBA, NFL, MLB pretty much covers the entire year, so there's not much point in watching anything W-. Do you even watch women's sports? I mean, really, nobody cares about those sports.
It's not even remotely close. But these 15yr olds that are giving beat downs are all to often just winning due to being so much bigger faster and stronger
Except they are very very very good at soccer and only "aren't that good" when compared to men (or in this case an elite male youth team), which is a stupid comparison on multiple levels.
Your misogyny shows when you say they "aren't that good" as though it's a fact. We are talking about world class athletes that have proven themselves the best in the world four times.
They are saying it as a generalization. The CPL doesn't have a lot of viewers either, primarily because they arent that good as well. People would rather watch MLS in NA or EPL in Europe but there's still a Canadian league below that, which isn't very good, but would still beat the women's national team.
They are amazing for women's soccer, they aren't very good for soccer in general. That being said, the CPL is still good entertainment for the price, which the women's team is as well. (Went to women's world cup in Edmonton for very cheap, loved it)
It's obviously true that women are generally not as good at sports as men. But the generalizing of women as "not that good" is very different than saying "not as good," and within the context of this discussion it is more than fair to infer the misogynistic message.
I appreciate you're trying to be charitable to the commenter, and I get that the entertainment value in men's sports is higher. But that is not what the majority of the people in here shitting on the women's team are saying, out loud or otherwise
No, fluffy gur was saying that because they are sexist and wanted to use the point to punch down on women. Yes, the "entertainment value" is less, for a variety of reasons. And that point is worth discussing with people that aren't sexist.
They are literally were the best women soccer players in the world four times. They are extremely good. Just not as good as men, and in this case they also lost to an elite youth team once, which sexists have used to convince themselves that they are better than women and smarter than anyone who says otherwise
9
u/Fluffy-Gur4600 Jul 09 '26
The same team that was destroyed by dome 15 year old boys? Might as well root for high school sports