>

men don't want to watch women's sports, this mostly applies to teams sports. 
it's for a variety of reasons, it could be argued that sexism is one. but imo sexism accounts for a inconsequential amount of their lack of viewership. 
performance is the number 1 reason imo.
do people really believe that if women were more atheletic then men that nobody would watch due to sexism?  
even the most sexist men i know would still watch women if they are doing something physically impressive.
/u/Sicily_Long (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >

I'm about to say something very controversial.   The types of sports women and men have been drawn to over the years are very different.  I consider gymnastics, figure skating, ballet, and anything with horses to be very enjoyable athletic pursuits to watch.  Disney on Ice brings in over a billion dollars per year in ticket sales and probably spurs purchases of Frozen fanwear.  I bet Simone Biles influences more purchases than her endorsement money reflects, but if I want to buy a Simone Biles shirt, I gotta go to etsy.  Women's tennis and golf are doing okay.  But overall women's sports have not been fully developed or corporately exploited.  Instead, there is an effort to take traditional men's sports and insert women.  Unfortunately, I think many audiences would rather watch men excelling at men's sports.  I think soccer may eventually be an exception due to universal appeal. >

This delta has been rejected. The length of your comment suggests that you haven't properly explained how /u/ScurvyDervish changed your view (comment rule 4).
DeltaBot is able to rescan edited comments. Please edit your comment with the required explanation.
^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >

At least in the case of the WNBA, men actually support and watch the WNBA more than women. The WBNA could be more successful if more men watched the WNBA, even if there wasn't a change in women's viewership and support. The flaw in this is the belief that there is some obligation by men to support the WNBA and make it successful out of some patriarchal compensation, or by women to support the WNBA and make it successful out of some feminist sisterhood.
Neither men or women have any obligation to watch a sporting division that they do not enjoy, regardless of the gender of the players and any gender politics surrounding it. The WNBA is a business, and it and its players are the ones with both the opportunity and obligation to grow their marketshare. WNBA players will be paid more when they earn more. It's literally in their Collective Bargaining Agreement.
Instead they've chosen to argue that they only want pay structure equity while comparing their 60 million in annual revenue and -10 million in uncovered expenditures (which is subsidized by the NBA) to the NBA's +6 billion in revenue, while ignoring that they only pull minor league numbers and yet are paid 3-4x minor league salaries.
It isn't up to women to support female sports. It's up to sports fans to watch the sports that they enjoy, and female sporting leagues and competitors to provide performances which attract viewers. >

The WNBA is an investment. It raises the global profile and development of the sport. Women who play basketball will more likely watch basketball. That $10 million returns far more revenue for the NBA. By having a professional women's league it supports millions of women to try basketball at a young age and make future fans.
Lastly.. in our lifetimes there will be a transcendental basketball talent in the WNBA that will take it to new heights. >

So it makes sense as an investment for the NBA. It doesn't mean women players should have pay parity though does it? >

To partially address the topic, there is frequently a misunderstanding caused by the difference in pay structure specifically chosen by female athletes vs those chosen by male athletes.
Men frequently utilize a high risk-high reward pay-for-play model - They only received compensation if they get called up. If they are injured, too bad -- they miss out. 
Women frequently opt for more financial security; a system that included guaranteed (but lower) salaries for a subset of players, as well as game bonuses. If a player was under contract - they would still receive the guaranteed salary even if they didn't get called in for whatever reason. >

1) you’re considering only one sports whereas other sports like women’s tennis are just as popular as their male counterparts
2) women’s sports aren’t as popular because in general the potential around the world for a woman to become an athlete essentially doesn’t exist outside of the industrialized world at all, women are treated as second class citizens in a healthy portion of the world where they’re not allowed to drive or attend school let alone wear appropriate athletic clothing accordingly, that limits markets
3) specifically for the wnba the athletes don’t have an opportunity to market themselves and create a brand like their male counterparts because in the off season they’re playing overseas in order to get more money, most athletes are on a livable wage in the wnba but it’s not luxurious by any means
4) women’s sports are very popular specifically around the Olympics, women’s gymnastics, women’s volleyball, women’s beach volleyball among several others but Olympics sports in general don’t get the recognition other professional sports do outside of the Olympics that goes for men and women
5) there also is the whole motherhood thing, male athletes make enough and their bodies do not go through massive changes during child birth to allow male athletes to dominate and be successful we’ll into their 40s, this isn’t the case for their female counterparts yes serena was able to come back to tennis after the birth of her child but she was nowhere near as dominant, you can see it in other sports too where it’s just really really really hard to get your body back to the point of being one of the best in the world after a 9 month layoff
In sum, no there isn’t one reason female athletes aren’t paid the same and a lot of it has to do with market share but as illustrated above there’s a tonnnnnnnn of other reasons too including longevity >

One other point is that all of the "men's" leagues are actually co-ed just no women are good enough to make the teams. People aren't watching men's basketball when they watch the NBA. They are watching the best basketball when they watch the NBA. >

Former woman athlete here and I can say that women are not supporting sports, indeed. Men championships are more expensive and that's okay. Let's try to make ourselves better instead of wanting others to get worse. >

Men and women spend the same money. It’s not that women aren’t supporting women’s sports. It’s that nobody, regardless of gender, are supporting women’s sports. The inverse is also true; Men’s sports aren’t just supported by men, they’re supported more by all genders than the women’s sports. >

Men and women don't spend the same money. Women spend a LOT more money than men. >

You make it sound like women just go around throwing cash at stupid shit when the article clearly states women are being exploited for their money. 
I don't think this is the argument you want to make here. >

That article says women pay 9 for shampoo and men pay 6. Why don’t women just buy gender neutral or male shampoo, it’s exactly the same but in a white or blue packet >

You have no idea what you're talking about. It's not the same, ingredients matter. I can't even use most of women's shampoo on my hair and I definitely won't use men's shampoo which isn't meant for long, dry and wavy hair. I don't want my hair to break. >

Well then sounds like you’re getting a specific product - you’ve got to expect it to be more expensive than the standard product >

Yes and most people who have long hair need some specific product, when you have short hair you could basically use even soap to wash it. Majority of people who have long hair are women so our products are more expensive. So no, we aren't paying for flowery sent and nice looking bottle. >

Wait. I have a sports car. It needs premium fuel because I like high performance engines and so I have one.
Would it be fair for me to say that premium fuel is unfairly expensive because mostly men like performance engines and will be forced to purchase it, so it's essentially sexist?
You have special body features that you like because they are feminine and they require special care and you are saying that the upscale products required to care for those features are more expensive because of sexism?
This is seriously the argument you're making? >

What the hell are you talking about? You're now confusing me with some other person, I never said a single word about sexism. Where did you get that?
I answered to a comment claiming that men's and women's products are the same and women should just switch to men's products. I correct them that those aren't the same, I'm not paying more for a pink bottle and flowery sent, I'm paying more for quality. >

You need to read the parent comment and sub comment you’re replying to. >

I sincerely doubt the revenue cares for the genitals of where the money came from.
They don't earn as much because they're not as attractive for sponsors, whom the money the sponsors are after comes from is not irrelevant. >

People watch what interests them. There are pro badminton players that are just as skilled at their craft as Lebron James is at Basketball. But, Americans don’t watch it. So there’s no money in it, in America. Women’s sports are similar. The audience is much smaller, which means less advertising, less sponsorships. Women golfers and tennis players seem to do well. It depends on the sport. 
You can’t force people to care about something. Athletes are paid based on the popularity of the sport and the amount of revenue it generates based on viewership. >

Why is that though? 
Like do you think things like access make it harder? 
For example, in the year where the women’s euros were shown on major channels in the UK and televised live, 1 in 4 people in the UK watched live. Which is comparable to the mens. 
Before that they were not majorly advertised or televised. If I want to watch women’s league… how do I? Do they get any where near the advertising even slightly? No. 
Is it impacted by women not being allowed to play in the same stadiums as men, making it consistently harder for people to show up?
Is it impacted by commentators who show less enthusasism for the reason being they are women playing? 
Is it impacted by women being barred from these sports within the last century? With women being actively surpressed and pushed aside for their male counterparts? 
Do you think their achievements being overwritten by men impacts this? For example, where people were claiming Andy Murrary was the player with the most gold medals in Tennis, he wasn’t Serena and Venus Williams were. Or where recently people claim that multiple male football players have the most trophies and are the highest stat wise, they aren’t, Putellas is. 
Do you think that a thread throughout culture as seeing woman as the secondary sex effects how we treat women and treat their endevaours in all accounts?
do you think it is effectsd by how we treat youth leagues? For example not offering girls to play? Not giving then access to the same sports as men? And giving access later in life? 
For example, 10 years ago, in my hometown there was and is a prominent youth football club. Prominent enough scouts from premier league clubs come for youth players. 
I was only allowed to play in the boys team until it got “serious” (until scouts began watching matches. There were no girls equivilant. Now there is, and they have a A team and B team for each age group. But, this isn’t common people travel hours to play, and the people that often have to travel multiple hours are girls. Do you think this has a carry on effect? 
Compared to boys where in a town of approx 40k have 4 different teams avaliable to join, where these hurdles to jump are not there.
EDIT: 
I am not saying women’s sports should be paid the same. I am saying I think these reasons are a stronger case rather than there isn’t enough woman to woman solidarity
I also do not know american football or basketball. Those sre not sports in my country.
Also… Capitalism and buisnesses existing does not mean the owners and people involved are devoid of bias. Remember, buisnesses used to turn away paying customers because of their prejudice. Capitalism existing does not mean people couldn’t possibly be sexist etc. >

!delta
I think that women’s sports does have less of a history than men’s sports which could play into the support. How long do you think it will take women’s sports to take hold now that opportunities are more abundant? >

They never will.
When people go to watch sports, they always watch the best. No one watches D4 college sports unless it's to follow a specific team/player. No one ever watched the weird alternate American football leagues (USFL) unless it was to follow a specific team/player. People watch the players who are the best at whatever they are competing at. Almost exclusively.
This is easily demonstrated by the US women's soccer team. For the past 10 years they have dramatically outperformed the US men's soccer team. They have also been watched more, and generated more revenue than the men's soccer team. They have also been paid more than the men's soccer team. This is proof that people will watch whoever is better at what they are competing at, regardless of gender, and the revenue and pay will follow.
It's not a matter of women's sports needing exposure. It's a matter of women needing to be better at the sport than their male counterparts. Then they will get viewership and compensation accordingly.
It makes no sense that this ridiculously false supposition changed your mind. >

Its not about who is better, its about how much people know about the games. Usually female sports don't get as much publicity as male so its harder to know about the games. >

I disagree. Look at ticket sales of any sports team when they are having a good season and compare that to the ticket sales they get in a bad season.
Good season = more ticket sales, more merchandise sales, etc...
Bad season = less ticket sales, less merchandise sales, etc.. >

In the US. In Argentina fans always go and fill up the place. >

Sure.  But what about women's leagues in Argentina? 
Being a fan of sports is cheaper everywhere else than the US. >

Being a sport fan is not cheap here either. Shirts are at least 1/3 of minimum wage. >

Like to a month's minimum wage? That's insane >

That is Argentina. The cost doesn't stop people from being fans. Here the fields aren't cover but people will still show up to watch their favorite team regardless of the heat or the rain. >

It's not about gender supporting their own, it's about the sport itself and which is more entertaining.
Basketball - men's sports are more entertaining because it's more physical/aggressive and they dunk.
Tennis - it's an even sport because the way the men and women play are pretty evenly entertaining. Some women even play better than the men, and they're often watched.
Most sports are dominated by men not because other men support it, it's because men are genetically/biology stronger (most of the time) that there's a lot more variables and possibilities that can happen, like how men continually break the world record for swimming or running. People care about record breaking results, regardless of gender - if a woman broke the world record (for all, not exclusive to girls) then she'd have more viewership.
And note, the salary discrepancy in WNBA is because of the revenue. The NBA is actually subsidizing the WNBA. >


Some women even play better than the men, and they're often watched.

I don’t think this is really true at the top levels of tennis. Probably the 100 best men could each beat the #1 best women every time. I think sometimes you can watch games with mixed gender doubles, and basically a woman can never return a serve by a man. >

Try like top 700 maybe even more. >

For the most part, there are no such things as men’s sports. Those competitions are typically open to everyone but at that elite level it’s only men who can compete. People of all genders like to watch the best of the best for entertainment which is why those competitions get more viewers than the artificially created women’s-only sports. >

With all respect, nobody is gonna watch a 3-2 nba game >


Why are corporations going to invest money into lucrative endorsements, television deals, marketing, etc, if women don’t care about it? As Bill Burr pointed out, and polls prove, women are much more likely to watch Real Housewives and or the Kardashians; and those women make millions if not billions.

if women prefer the Kardashians then the solution is market women's sports to men because men prefer sports. would be foolish to rely on a demographic that prefers watching soap operas instead of the one that prefers watching football.