1/16/2004
THE COMMENT THAT LAUNCHED 1000 PHOTOSHOP CONTESTS
The head of FIFA, the international soccer-sanctioning body, says that maybe female soccer players ought to follow a time-tested tactic for getting attention:
“Tighter shorts, for example,'’ [FIFA president Sepp] Blatter told the Swiss newspaper SonntagsBlick. “In volleyball the women also wear other uniforms than the men. Pretty women are playing football today. Excuse me for saying that.'’
I can’t wait until FARK gets a hold of this. It could lead to an international server meltdown.
As to Blatter’s point, I don’t want to agree with him, since his point is of questionable morality. But he’s probably right, if his only goal is to draw attention. When’s the last time you saw men’s volleyball on TV? That would probably be never, right? But beach volleyball is on almost every weekend, largely because women jumping around in swimsuits is bound to get somebody’s attention. And even “legit” volleyball has become a Spandex festival.
Would Anna Kournikova have drawn so much attention if she’d played golf instead? Those flappy little skirts have at least something to do with her popularity, don’t they?
But, to the credit of female soccer players, most would prefer their sport remain obscure rather than go the dirty-old-man route:
Swiss captain Evelyn Zimmermann and Norwegian players Lise Klaveness and Solveig Gulbrandsen also rejected Blatter’s fashion advice.
“You can’t compare us with volleyball players and, apart from everything else, those shorts are uncomfortable,'’ Zimmermann said.
Klaveness said soccer is about sport, not sex.
“If the crowd only wants to come and watch models then they should go and buy a copy of Playboy,'’ she said.
Added Gulbrandsen: “If I wanted to wear a bikini, I would have chosen to play beach volleyball.'’
It’s sort of sad–OK, more than sort of–that we’re not yet to the point where women athletes can be respected as athletes without having to be judged on their physical attractiveness or how much skin they reveal. But I don’t see human nature changing anytime soon. Comments like Blatter’s may seem to belong to a bygone era, but there’s plenty of evidence that he’s just trying to keep up with the times.
What, you thought all those middle-aged guys at Britney Spears concerts were really into the music?
4 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Many women’s sports are a hard sell because women are not as strong, as athletic, or as fast as men. Given a choice between being forced to watch men’s or women’s soccer, I’d pick men’s, because it’s a better game.
The place where I see women having an advantage is where the lack of size and strength makes their game substantially different. Tennis is a good example - Anna Kournikova aside, the women’s game is much more interesting because there are fewer aces and more volleying.
Think about college football… who runs the option or wishbone offense in the pros? Yet because the defenses in are slower in college, they become possible. There are a lot of people who think the college game is more interesting than the pros because the lower level of play creates more variety.
So, if women want to be taken seriously as athletes, and have people want to watch them play, they should stay away from sports that men are simply better at, like soccer and basketball. Instead, they should find or create sports where they’re going to be able to provide a product that men cannot.
Comment by Dave Fried — 1/16/2004 @ 3:32 pm
You’re absolutely right about tennis, Dave. The women’s game is much more fun to watch, since they actually play the game, instead of trying to smoke the serve down the line.
Supposedly the same is true of basketball as well–that women run better offenses and defenses to make up for the lack of 7′ centers who can simply go over any defenders.
Women should be equally competitive to men at motor sports as well. And horse racing is a truly unisex sport.
But I thought the great appeal of soccer was that size and strength really didn’t matter that much. Or is that only an advantage for the players?
Women figure skaters are generally more entertaining to watch than their male counterparts, since figure skating requires tremendous flexibility, something most men don’t have. Gymnastics is a slightly different case, since men’s and women’s gymnastics have slightly different focuses. But, with both those sports, it’s another case of skimpy tight uniforms + hair and makeup–sex appeal still has something to do with each sport’s success.
Comment by Mark Hasty — 1/16/2004 @ 4:22 pm
I’d point out, though, that the women who dominate their sports are the ones who CAN do the things the men do. Martina Navratilova dominated “women’s” tennis because she was so much more powerful than the thin, attractive women she played against. Now, the Williams Sisters are far more muscular than John McEnroe or the male tennis stars of old–steroids or no.
Comment by James Joyner — 1/19/2004 @ 8:40 am
That’s certainly true, James. Navratilova and the Williams sisters are all phenomenal athletes with tremendous strength–and ISTR that many people lamented/continue to lament their success because it left little room for the more “traditional” (read: more petite) athletes in those sports.
Although, to be fair, I saw Monica Seles in a Rochester, MN shopping mall once, and she’s not exactly tiny.
I’m also reminded of a French skater named Surya Bonaly who could do all kinds of insane jumps and flips, the sort of athleticism one would not expect from female skaters. I thought she was far superior to her competition–but, since she was about 6 feet tall and black, she was low on the “sweetheart” factor, and consequently didn’t “win” the competitions she won.
Still a long ways to go, I’m afraid.
Comment by Mark Hasty — 1/19/2004 @ 9:25 am