It is actually just as true to say that the very reason people watch the WNBA is precisely because they are women. No other lesser basketball league in the U.S. has as many fans, and its for an aesthetically less appealing product (the game is played below the rim, by smaller, slower, weaker athletes -- the true problem with "the players being women").
The lie is put to the problem being nothing more than sexism when you see a sport like tennis, with a women's and men's tour on almost equal footing. Not equal, but close. The women are still smaller, slower and weaker athletes, but the critical factor is it does not make the game aesthetically less appealing (in fact many, myself included, think it may acually be more so as the men's game is so dominated by blinding service points). There is always sexism involved at some level in these things, as unfortunately we always get someone to demonstrate in these conversations, but the problems attracting fans for the WNBA are deeper than just that.
But it's not a "lesser" brand of basketball like the D-League is. These aren't players who are not good enough to make an NBA roster, they aren't even eligible. These are the best of the best
women basketball players in the world. It doesn't make sense to consider it a subset of the NBA. It's not the junior circuit, it's women's basketball. I don't see why this is so complicated. We have the World Cup every four years and the Women's World Cup every four years in soccer and I don't see anyone referring to women's soccer as a lesser version of men's soccer.
And on the other matter, regarding aesthetics, how many people complain that the NBA has become more about acrobatics and one-on-one basketball in the post-Jordan, Allen Iverson era than solid fundamentals? Sure I like to see dunks and alley-oops too, but there's a lot more to the game than that. And seeing brilliant passes, spinning layups, fierce swats, clutch three-pointers, and three-point plays is exciting no matter what size the athletes are. The inherent drama in any sport comes from seeing very talented athletes square off against each other in a context where only one can win. That's universal to all sports and it's just as apparent in women's basketball as it is in men's. The women's game isn't aesthetically inferior, it's a more balanced team game. It's really only inferior if you're obsessed with a brand of basketball that includes knocking people around and dunking.
Women's tennis and gymnastics have a long history of generating interest within the context of certain events. People watch the major tennis tournaments, people watch the Olympics. And those events generate viewers for that reason. But I never hear anything about gymnastics except during the Olympics and I'm not a tennis fan so I don't watch it anyway, but the Grand Slam tournaments -- there's like 4 a year? Is that right? I don't think that's all that comparable to a professional league like the WNBA. Actually, what those are good examples of is a level playing field. Men and women compete side by side in those events (though not with each other) and people tend to watch both about equally. That indicates to me that, given the chance, women's athletics can be successful. But ask yourself if either women's gymnastics or women's tennis would ever have been successful if there weren't some corresponding men's event alongside them.
What you're seeing with the WNBA is a league that is 10 years old and just starting to come into it's own. The NBA is more than 50 years old. Major League Baseball is over 100 years old. NFL football is almost 90 years old. You think those leagues got where they are now overnight? The WNBA faces the even greater challenge of succeeding in a national sports market that for the most part ignores women's athletics. Title IX was 1972. If you think about it, that's really not that long ago. I wasn't around to see what women's athletics were like before then, but if it took national legislation to get comparable funding than I imagine it was pretty bleak.
Until 10 years ago, women could not make a living as a professional basketball player. That means the girls in college right now or just entering the WNBA were the first ones to grow up with that as a goal. Do you think there ever would have been a Michael Jordan or a Kobe Bryant or a Lebron James if there wasn't an NBA to aspire to? Those kids would have put their time into something else. I think it'll be at least 10 more years before the talent level of the WNBA is on a scale with the NBA for that reason (not directly equivalent obviously, just relative). That hasn't been a viable career choice until very recently. Think about what the talent level in the NBA was in the 1960s compared to what it is now.
And women
can dunk. There was all sorts of hoopla in LA when Candace Parker dunked for the first time in a WNBA game, but she's certainly not the only women's player who can dunk. And when this girl
Brittney Griner gets to the WNBA, dunking might be a routine part of the game too. Sylvia Fowles was the first WNBA player to get called for goaltending this season. And then there's the girl who was
kicked out of the boys' league because she was dominating them so thoroughly. The talent is coming down the pipeline.
So my point is, all of these are just excuses. People said they would watch women's basketball when women can dunk. Well they can. People say the games are too slow. The Phoenix Mercury averaged 89 ppg in 2007 when they won the championship. That's in a 40 minute game. Extrapolate that to 48 minutes and it's 106.8. More than any NBA team is averaging so far this season. People say all sorts of things to get around admitting that they just won't give it a chance.
