WUNRN
Also Via Shevolution
TV Ratings for the
Women’s World Cup Final Were 3 Times Higher than the Stanley Cup Final, So Why
Did FIFA Discriminate
·
Rebecca Campany, Brookings
Institution Press – July 6, 2015
A few
weeks ago we kicked off the Women’s World Cup by sharing an
interview with Brookings Press author Andrew Zimbalist on how
FIFA treats the Women’s World Cup differently than the men’s.
Zimbalist’s latest book, “Circus Maximus,”
delves into the outsized costs of hosting major sporting events and asks the
important question: Is it worth it?
We caught up with Zimbalist again after the incredible victory by the U.S.
Women’s National Team over Japan to learn more about the game. How many people
tuned in? Did Sepp Blatter attend? And why, despite continually strong TV
ratings, do teams in the Women’s World Cup play on subpar fields and winless
prize money than the men? And for a limited time, you can celebrate last
night’s victory by purchasing “Circus Maximus” at 40% off its
list price. To learn more, read the full interview with Zimbalist below.
The Women’s World Cup seems to have been a big success.
From what you have seen, how did it fare in terms of TV ratings, attendance,
and payoff for host country Canada?
Zimbalist: The TV
ratings have been impressive. The semi-final game between the U.S. and German
teams earned a 6.1 rating with 8.4 million viewers in the U.S. In Germany,
despite the fact that the match started at 1 am German time, it garnered a 42.6
percent share with an average of 2.63 million viewers.
Yesterday’s final game between the U.S. and Japan earned a 15.2 overnight
rating. That handily beats even the previous U.S. record for the single
highest-rated soccer game of all time, which was a 13.3 overnight for the
Women’s World Cup USA-China final in 1999.
NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman can crow all he wants about the resurgence of
hockey’s popularity, but its Stanley Cup final game this year drew only a 5.6
rating. The women’s final even came within a hair of matching the NBA
championship game last month between the Cleveland Cavaliers and the Golden
State Warriors which garnered a 15.9 overnight rating.
Attendance at the games has also been strong, the small size of some venues
notwithstanding. Authorities are expecting close to 1.5 million tickets sold.
There were a lot of complaints at this World Cup about
how the women were treated compared to how the men are treated. The women were
forced to play on turf, opposing teams shared hotels, brackets didn’t seem well
planned or thoughtful (top teams met in earlier stages of the tournament, which
does not typically happen in a men’s tournament). Do you think that these kind
of things will start to change in a post-Blatter regime? What else needs to
change at FIFA?
Zimbalist: While FIFA president Sepp Blatter likes to take full
credit for the growth of women’s soccer, by any objective measure FIFA
continues to treat the women in a blatantly discriminatory manner. The men play
their World Cup on grass. The women wanted to play on grass as well, but were
denied. Turf is not only a different game in terms of ball movement, but it
entails rubber pellets from the turf flying into the face, hair, and uniforms
of the players. Despite the strong TV ratings and attendance of the Women’s
World Cup, the prize money for the men’s Cup is 38.5 times higher than it is
for the women’s Cup. And just to put an exclamation point on the prejudicial
treatment of the women, neither Blatter nor his chief lieutenant, FIFA
Secretary General Jerome Valcke, appeared at any of the Women’s World Cup
games. They were both in Brazil for the entirety of the men’s World Cup in
2014.
Since announcing he would step down at a date in the
future, Sepp Blatter has given murky comments about his future with FIFA. When
do you expect Blatter to actually step down, and if so what do you think his
role will be in the future of FIFA? What will it take for FIFA to turn itself
around?
Zimbalist: Blatter is hanging around long enough to try to
influence the selection of his successor. After the previously corrupt FIFA
president, Joao Havelange, retired in 1998, Blatter arranged for Havelange to
have a handsomely remunerated and perked position as the president emeritus.
Blatter would like a similar deal, along with the possibility of playing an
eminence gris role. Whether this comes to pass will be a function of how the
U.S. and Swiss investigations of FIFA’s corruption play out.
FIFA is a monopoly of the world’s most popular sport. It is subject to no
regulatory authority. We shouldn’t expect abuse from FIFA to disappear. The
best we can hope for is that it be minimized. To accomplish this FIFA needs to
change its voting system for selecting its president, to accept oversight by an
independent board of directors, to make the votes of its executive committee on
the host country transparent, and to incorporate women equally into its
decision-making apparatus.