>

The us women's national team lost 7-1 to the boys under 15 team from Dallas. 
The greatest women to ever play the sport couldn't beat the best 14 year olds in a mid size city.
/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. >

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. >

If quality of the product was the main determination in how many people watch the games, then why are college sports so popular? They are not as good at the sport as professionals, yet a ton of people still watch them. >

I think the main draw of college sport is familiarity. If I go to my nearest professional football team’s game they have millions of supporters and I will likely never interact with the players on the pitch. If I go watch my local college play, I could very likely have a beer with them after the match. The issue is that the average college football team is on par with or better than the average professional women’s football team in terms of quality, which doesn’t give me a good incentive to watch the women’s game. (No disrespect to the women players though, they are still miles better than the average Joe!) >

I am not trying to compare the skill levels between college men and professional women, I am just pointing out that playing at the highest level is not a requirement for having a lot of fans. If fans only wanted to watch the very best, they wouldn’t watch college sports.. so there has to be something else that is the cause. >

Some of that is representation too.  People will cheer for their tier-3 team if they represent the highest level of competition that *represents you*.
Like some small town in England will have fans simply because it represents the local populace.
College alumni often feel similar, and sometimes college ARE the highest level of competition as I said above.
There is no sport or region in which a women's team isn't worse than multiple other teams representing the same geography or group (that I'm aware of).
The women's national team in in almost all sports gets mauled by high school boys, so it's hard to feel as "represented" by them. >


Now this is not to say that support for female leagues falls entirely on females, but if we want to compare it to male sports, which is marketed to and primarily supported by men, then the preponderance of the responsibility does.

The logic there is that since men sport mens sports, women should support women's sports.  Right?
But why should men support mens sports?  And is it even true?  I couldn't find any statics about the gender makeup of different fan bases.  the WNBA is not popular, but women's tennis is.
my intuition is that since most sports fans are men, most viewers of women's sports are probably also men.  But I can't prove it. >

Your intuition is correct wrt the WNBA. More men watch than women >

This is actually true. The reality is that most people that watch sports are guys, and we’d much rather watch guys play sports than girls. 
Women on the other hand don’t watch sports as much. I’ll keep it real, every girl I know watches love island, kardashians, rupauls drag race, etc. for some reason most women rather watch reality TV than wnba, and most men would rather watch nba than wnba. 
I had an argument with my sister about why wnba players get paid less and I made the point that all these feminists argue for wnba players all day, but when the time comes they don’t even watch their games. They constantly complain how the nba players need to sacrifice their own salary and fund the wnba players, but these girls won’t even take time out of their day to watch a single wnba game. They’d much rather find out who Kim or kourtney is dating now. The harsh truth is that WNBA is really difficult to market to the regular tv watcher because it’s not as flashy as the nba. The people Ik that watch it are all basketball fundamental nerds. People that super deep into the technicalities of basketball. It’s always people that play basketball or coach it. I can even watch it because I’m into basketball on that level. But the avg nba watcher that just likes to watch lebron dunk on people and never plays ball couldn’t sit through wnba becuase it lacks that excitement. The average woman who can’t even sit through an exciting nba game, will def have even less interest in the wnba, yet they have the audacity to fight for them instead of becoming that audience the league needs to pay the players. It’s stupid. >

The problem with women's sports is that they try to be too much like men when they are absolutely not. For the WNBA, maybe 1 or 2 people can dunk? And that's just barely getting a hand on the rim? Not exciting. In the NBA you have a handful of men who CANNOT dunk. If the WNBA made it so that the sport is different enough for women that they can make it entertaining, such as lowering the rim, then I think they would be better off. The women's sports are ignoring the basic biology that makes the top 1% in women's sports significantly inferior to the top 10% of men. >

The issue is completely unrelated to any genders who are watching any competition. 
Let's get a few things straight: We're talking about the entertainment industry, where people decide to spend their time to get entertained and get in touch with a sport because it generates value for them.
People usually have a limited amount of free time which they can dedicate to such activities, which means all those sports are competiting against each other. 
About 99% of those viewers couldn't care less about skills of athletes. They are not good enough themselves to judge that, they are not involved enough with the sport, all they care about is being entertained. I can show how that's true: Cristiano Ronaldo once masked up and played with a ball in a pedestrian area. nobody cared. Literally nobody cared. There was a multiple Ballon d'Or winner pulling the craziest tricks and people just moved past without even looking.
So what drives people to those events? Brands.
The bigger the involved brands are, the more attention an event will generate. Which btw also becomes apparent in the video I linked. Once CR7 took the mask off he got immediately surrounded by a bunch of people. It didn't even matter that he couldn't play with the ball anymore, they were attracted to his brand and not to his skills.
Brands need time to grow, which is why some female league don't get any attention when they get out of the box. 
However, that doesn't mean that nobody cares about women. Look at tennis, swimming, skiing - there are plenty of sports which have a long history and support women categories for decades. People watch them. In some sports like swimming you can even make objective comparisons and clearly see that women are slower, but as I've already mentioned, nobody cares. 
People care about entertainment, and you get the biggest "wow" effect when you watch sports/leagues/clubs that are big brands due to their decades long history.
To round this up: 

If women want female athletes to get paid like men, they need to put their money where their mouth is.

This, is completely irrelevant. Only because people spend money on something it doesn't change how said sport/league is perceived by the public. It's not sustainable and wouldn't change a lot. You'd see the same effect like we saw it in football in the past few decades, where some rich companies or people bought out clubs to funnel money into them. At the beginning, this even deeply hurt those brands (clubs) and people spoke out against them, didn't want to support them and said their success isn't justified. It took many many years until some of them recovered.
You'd get the same result when you start a movement where women start to put their money into those leagues, more than you'd judge as usual. People would come out against this and say whose clubs/league don't deserve the money, because they didn't earn it and they'd have an even harder time to stay afloat. >

It's not about supporting one sex vs another. The question people need to ask themselves is why would people watch women's sports as much as men's and for the same reason? It's like expecting the lower leagues to be as popular as the higher leagues and calling it unfair if they aren't. >

I've seen this debunked so many times now lol, and although I can't speak for other sports I know that the US national women's soccer team gets paid more than the men's soccer team.  Simply for the fact that the women's team wanted a monthly salary (which they got) whereas the mens team only gets paid per game they play. Adding everything up the women end up getting paid more.
AGAIN, I'm not speaking about other sports, but I dont think it's because women dont support female sports teams. Here's a video of you'd like more details. >

Both men AND women watch male sports, with the latter audience growing incrementally over the past few years showing that more women are now interested in sporting events than in years past. This fact coupled with the fact that TV largely ignores female sports is very important - it stands to reason that if there was more coverage, both men AND women would watch female sports. If you show it, they will watch. 
Also, roughly the same percentage of males watch reality TV series like Keeping Up With the Kardashians & Real Housewives so your point about only women spending $$ on those kinds of shows is ill informed. >

So the majority of ticket sale of profits for north american sports teams don't come from single ticket sales but companies that purchase suites and season tickets to bring clients to games. The majority of these individuals are male. So you are right that more interest from woman would bridge the divide there is also a larger systemic situation that undercuts the ability for female sports leagues to achieve the same results. 
Additionally there's just the fact that most of these sports leagues are newer and don't have the team name cachet which is why I think there has been greater success with linking male and female teams together like the woman's premier league in england or AFL teams in Australia. >

I have a NY Liberty duffel bag that goes with me any time I leave my home overnight. It's a regular duffel, but I use it to hold my medication. My aunt who got me into the WNBA has a jersey she wears whenever they play.  The thing is, if we wanted to see a game in person, we have no teams near us. New York is the closest, and that's three hours away. 
WNBA games are especially hard to find on TV. Only 11 games this year were on "basic" channels. Most required you to have expanded sports channels or WNBA League Pass, or Amazon with sports additions. It's especially hard to get people into it when there's very little access.
To further the idea, we don't get women in sports movies or media at all. The original A League of Their Own made a lot of girls take up softball, but the recent remake, while it does more justice to the stories of the players, has very little actual baseball, and half the messaging is "they can't do it anyway." You're supposed to rally behind them, but the sport is the B-plot. while I love the queer content...I wanted baseball with a side of queer content, not queer content with a palate cleanser of baseball. 
The only WNBA style movie I can think of is the old Disney Channel movie, Double Teamed about the real-life twin basketball players Heidi and Heather Burge. 
Women don't get sports movies to rally behind and say "I want to be like that." Men do. >

I'm surprised I haven't seen any comments about MMA. Take the UFC, women were barred from competing. Dana White even said nobody would want to see women fight each other, but he ate his words when Rhonda Rousey became a superstar. 
Women fighters receive a lot of serious attention from male and female fans of MMA. I think the key is that they're marketed the same way male fighters are marketed. The female fighters don't have their own events in random separate locations, they're in the same ring as the men and appear on the same ppvs. >

Women’s sports aren’t marketed or treated even in the same ballpark as men’s sports. If from the time a baby girl was born they had the same exposure to women’s sports as society does to men’s sports  it would be an entirely different situation. If I’m watching or doing something that is considered more likely to be a feminine thing, I’m going to be shown ads for real housewives over a wnba ad, but I’ve never watched a second of real housewives. It’s just assumed that’s my preference and so that’s what’s pushed. On top of that, the messaging surrounding women sports and athletes is always skewed toward it being not as exciting or entertaining. Even in school, badass female athletes may get a scholarship but no one talks about her going pro… find yourself an excellent football player who is male and that’s the conversation and hope. So, I dunno, it’s a chicken vs egg scenario I guess - is marketing bad because no one cares or does no one care because of the way it’s marketed? I believe the latter. Now if you start showing me, an adult, a bunch of women sports related ads out of the blue, am I going to suddenly become a sports fan? Eh likely not. But if there was a societal shift in the way women’s sports are treated, talked about and marketed, I do believe the little girls growing up today could have a different view and there could be a change. >


Tell me why this opinion is wrong.

Is there anyone who thinks women get paid less for a reason other than less people watch women's sports? I guess I am confused as to who you expect to change your view. It might help to offer examples of what you have seen or read that say otherwise as a frame of reference. >

Some argue it's because of discrimination of women and because of this, should be compensated. >

Then you look at the WNBA and find out that they get paid way more per view than the NBA. >

The WNBA actually lose a pretty fat amount of money every year. To the point of like 88,000 a player in the negative >

There are no male sports. There are sports, and there are woman sports. Because women are allowed to play "men's version of a sport", they just can't play as good. And men just watch the best teams out there, not a 'limited league'.
It's foolish to expect someone (women, for example) to watch women sports out of solidarity. Because men don't watch sports out of solidarity.
I watch sports because it's fun to watch. And the only female sport that I watch is woman's chess. Cuz I'm not that good, and their games are easier to follow. >

The reason that there are no "male sports" is most sports are designed to showcase skills that men tend to have.
For example, women tend to be able to keep a consistant pace in marathons better than men, tend to be suited more for endurance, and recover from fatigue faster.  Additionally, balance is different, and flexibility  tends to benefit woman.
So, yes, there is "open" and "womens", but that ignores that "the sport was designed for men playing it" angle. >

So what is an exciting sport that is an opportunity for women to excel over men? Because keeping the most consistent pace in a long/ultra-long distance race isn't exactly the most exciting measure of success.
There are very few sports which play to a woman's strengths that a man wouldn't still manage to dominate. The issue isn't just that most major sports were designed by and for men, it's that male advantage is so widespread that it is almost impossible to design a sport that women would be better at.
For a sport to be optimized for female bodies, it needs to play to the advantages of a lower body weight/smaller frame while also not benefiting from higher upper body strength, or just be super-long endurance. That means team sports are out, leaving a few gymnastic events where male competitors could still probably be competitive, and ultra-long distance races. >

I think Ultra Long Distance sports would be fun. Tune in hours later and be like "oh shit, the men all collapsed but the goat Tina Riley is still going strong!" I picture like a Forrest Gump cross country (literally) thing. >

ULD races can be fun to watch short clips of, but no one is going to watch a 24 hour race in full, and it doesn't have the traction to maintain a large viewership. >

yeah but you asked what's exciting and women can compete, not what's a sport that will maintain a large viewership >

Is a sport that people only tune in for brief moments to see if anything interesting has happened in the last 5 hours actually "exciting"?
Ultra long distance races make for good human interest stories after the fact, if something actually happened during the race other than the racers running for a really long time, or if one of them has an interesting backstory. Beyond that, it's just "wow, that's really impressive. Anyway..." >

I mean running in general doesn't have a good audance following because it is..... A bit boring. 
There are lots of people who enjoy running and very low barriers of entry ( easy rules, different length races ) but that doesn't translate into viewing figures yet pretty much every lad who enjoys rugby, cricket ,tennis , soccer watches this and follows a team. >

Absolutely. There's a reason that Usain Bolt was so popular and yet I can't think of a runner in a +800m or longer race who's a household name. Long distance running becomes uninteresting real quick, and remains so until the first few finishers enter the final kick, then it becomes boring again. >

Agree,
Even then Usain bolt is the one of the Rare ones. He has loads of charisma and was the GOAT of running and ehas huge market appeal. 
The 2nd best runner is who? >

I'm all for enterprise. I way am.  But the market has spoken.  TV shows often get canceled after horrible reviews.  New ones pop up that can attract and audience. I don't go to men's basketball games when I can watch it on my couch for the cost of a monthly cable bill.  They're exciting around the playoffs, like all male dominated sports.  With that, I don't think I'll ever go to a women's basket ball game after trying to watch one or two.  Boring.  The women are athletic, don't get me wrong, but I rarely hear about slam dunks after stealing a ball, dribbling crazy humanly possible and flying from the free throw line with an overhand center net slam dunk. Their wild personalized ball handling are incredible and then again, the occasional fights. I'm not alone in my thinking. And not just my gender.  Women are not supporting women's pro basketball in America.  It's bizarre to watch a women's basketball game that's part of national organization for more than 25 years. Don't ask for equality or equity.  I'm for equity and equality in OPPORTUNITY  to flourish, but not at the outcomes.  Ask how you can make your industry a better product to attract a paying audience.   Right now, your audience size is reflecting the attraction to your product.  2 cents, only. >

I think you are putting too much emphasis on who is supporting who. Sports, at the end of the day, is entertainment. You watch sports because you enjoy watching the game played at a high level, thus are willing to spend money and time on it. The fact of the matter is, a lot of women’s sports are just not near the quality of men’s sports from a consumer standpoint. The WNBA is the best example. Lower scoring, slower paced, smaller ball, closer three point line than the NBA. Let’s say there was a second men’s league with the same quality of the product being put out for the fans as the WNBA. Would anyone choose to watch that when you have the actual NBA as an option? It’s not like the G league is bringing in much money/attendance and it’s still a better quality or product. Also what makes a basketball crowd go absolute wild? Huge slam dunks, which more or less never happens in the WNBA. 
Now this isn’t even true in every case at all. Look at MMA. Some of the highest selling ppv cards and most watched TV events ever have been headlined or co-headlined by women’s fights. They are also on the same cards as men’s fights. Tennis is another example. If you surveyed everyone in America and asked them to name one tennis player, men or women, the overwhelming majority would like say Serena Williams. 
So the women’s sports leagues that aren’t making money aren’t really because of their gender, it’s because of the quality of product they are putting out for the fans. >

No, it's because men are better at most sports because they're bigger, stronger and faster and thus most people (men and women), find it more entertaining to watch. People want to watch the best. >

Occam's razor but people will come up with stupid bullshit to cause drama and be opressed. >

The best athletes make the most money. People want to watch the best humans at a sport. 
So you'll never have the same support for womens sport cause it will never be as good as mens sports. 
People just need to get over it. There are other ways to live a happy life other than being a rich athlete. >


People want to watch the best humans at a sport. 

If that was true people would only watch the Olympics or other big international competitions. But people watch their 3rd league local football team even though they are clearly not the best. >

Because men's 3rd best soccer league in let's say England is better than women Olympics soccer. >

Can you back up that claim?