Caitlyn Clark is billed as the savior for women's basketball. She's tall. She has privilege because she's white. She was the number one draft pick. All the femmenazis were angry because her first round draft pick salary is exponentially less than her male counter parts. Never mind the fact that the audience for women's basketball is exponentially less than that of men's basketball.
It seems the news is quick to point out the fever loses games despite having a star player. First off, one player doesn't make a winning team. And highlighting her teams loss isn't going to draw spectators or interest into the game or league.
If I were running the league, I'd rig the competition and have the Fever win as many games as possible and pay the other team to lose. There would be a mix of close wins, a few blowouts and maybe one or two close losses for the season.
Why?
People want to see a winner. Winning teams and close matches develop the sport. Next year gradually start easing up on rigging the competitive landscape. Then start having real competition. People need hero's and they coalesce around winners. At least get fans interested in the sport. Then as then audience grows, eyeballs watching grows. As eyeballs watching grows, sponsorships and advertisers grow. As sponsorship and advertisers increase, salaries increase. Then they can stop feeling slighted compared to men's basketball.
No comments:
Post a Comment