comment: >
  
  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.
context: /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 >
  
  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. >
  
  Well put. It's entertainment at the end of the day. The only time someone has an obligation to support is when they complain about salaries, but aren't going to games. >
  
  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 >
  
  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.