Opinion: Female athletes have a long way to go.

One would imagine that this grouping of events would further legitimize women’s sports. And one would be wrong. The WNBA Playoffs have gone largely ignored, while the mainstream appeal of tennis stars has more to do with their looks than their play. The growth of women’s sports is suspended in neutral.

WNBA.
The WNBA Playoffs have been the best in recent memory. In fact, when one considers the recent, relatively boring postseasons of baseball and the NBA, there is an argument to be made that the 2007 WNBA Playoffs have been the best of any sport in quite some time. Every series has featured at least one instant classic; from Games 1 and 3 between Connecticut and Indiana to Games 2 and 3 between New York and Detroit, the games have been at a level never before seen in the league. Game 1 of the Western Conference Finals between Phoenix and San Antonio finished with a final score of 102-100, and that was after forty regulation minutes. The San Antonio Spurs and Cleveland Cavaliers would be hard pressed to score 100 points after five overtimes.

And yet, despite close, well-played games, the WNBA has to settle for highlights at the end of SportsCenter. The ratings are abysmal; ABC drew a 0.6 for Game 2 between the Liberty and Shock. Attendance is poor; only 5,735 people showed up to Game 2 between Sacramento and San Antonio in the first round. The television coverage is confusing at best; because of other commitments, ESPN has very few spots open to air a poorly rated, female-centric sports telecast. Game 1 of the playoffs, a triple-overtime epic between the Fever and Sun, was preempted for the first hour and fifty minutes by the Little League World Series, while Game 1 of the West Finals had to air on ESPN Classic. Two of the greatest playoff games in WNBA history aired on NBA TV — Indiana/Connecticut Game 3 and Sacramento/San Antonio Game 3. One is unlikely to build awareness of the product when the games are airing on channels very few either have access to or are aware of.

And no matter how well they play, no matter how exciting the games, the WNBA will always be looked at as illegitimate — for no other reason than the fact that the players are women, and that obviously means they have no idea how to play. One need only peruse sport-related message boards to see comments like this:

With this being the prevailing sentiment among sports fans, it is not hard to see why the WNBA finds itself, even in the midst of its greatest postseason ever, being essentially irrelevant on the national stage.

Tennis.
Women’s tennis has far outclassed men’s tennis at the box office this decade. Stars like Maria Sharapova, Venus Williams and Serena Williams have catapulted the sport into the mainstream consciousness.

Unfortunately for the future of the sport, none of that mainstream appeal has anything to do with tennis. In the case of the Williams’ sisters, the fame comes with the novelty of two African American siblings dominating tennis.

In the case of Sharapova and relative newcomer Ana Ivanovic, looks are the draw. Both have had some success in their careers; Sharapova is a two-time Grand Slam champion, while Ivanovic lost to Justine Henin in the French Open final this year. Their fame has little to do with their on-court success. The typical American male has long considered blonde, skinny, barely legal teenagers to be the at the top of the attractiveness food chain — which explains any interest whatsoever in Sharapova, and her far less-successful predecessor, Anna Kournikova. If one were to keep Sharapova’s talent but replace her looks with those of someone far less attractive, she would become immediately irrelevant.

To a much lesser extent than Sharapova, Ivanovic has become the next tennis ‘it’ girl. Her looks have become her biggest draw, to the point where USA and CBS are using glamour photos of her in their promotional graphics.

And none of that is necessarily bad, at least for those two individuals. For the sport of women’s tennis, however, it is a toxic situation. The game itself takes a backseat; Sharapova and Ivanovic are not considered athletes, so much as they are considered pin-up dolls, their ability and talent irrelevant compared to how they look in the new outfit they are wearing. The same can be said of Venus and Serena Williams as well, though to an infinitely lesser extent; for many reasons, not the least of which is their race, they are not considered anywhere nearly as attractive as Sharapova or Ivanovic.

The question becomes what is more important for women’s tennis: play at the highest level, or having the most attractive athletes? Obviously, the powers that be operate under the thought that great play and attractive players are not mutually exclusive. And certainly, that is true. The problem relates to how healthy it is for the biggest draw in the sport to have nothing to do with the sport itself. What happens when Sharapova, Ivanovic and the Williams sisters fail to reach the final? What happens when Justine Henin plays Jelena Jankovic for a Grand Slam title?

Conclusion.
Consider the Nike ad campaign. The ads feature several star female athletes and a megaphone. The athletes, including the aforementioned Taurasi and Picabo Street, talk about how they would like to be viewed as athletes, without the ‘female’ qualifier. The fact that there even needs to be an ad campaign where these athletes plead for the same respect given to their male counterparts is telling.

Gaining fame and recognition as a female athlete has almost nothing to do with success on the field. In fact, success in sports is an afterthought. The only way to become famous as a female athlete is to be attractive as well. From Jennie Finch, to Amanda Beard, to Sharapova and Ivanovic, to Lauren Jackson and Sue Bird, the only aspect of a female athlete that mainstream America cares about is her looks. Granted, there are exceptions, such as the 1999 U.S. Women’s World Cup team, though those are rare.

By comparison, very few ever consider the looks for male athletes. Success for male athletes has everything to do with their output on the field; Greg Oden is not a traditionally good-looking young man, but he will still be a household name within the next five years — and his looks will be an afterthought. Yes, there are some male athletes whose looks add to their mainstream appeal, i.e. Tom Brady, Derek Jeter, etc., but it is their on-field play that garners the most interest and praise.

In a society where what matters most about a woman is how she looks, it becomes impossible for a sport like the WNBA to succeed. Women’s tennis is far more viable in such an environment, as the players do not need to be as bulked up as basketball players, often wear far more revealing outfits, and the demographic of the players is mostly young, blonde, white women.

When Don Imus made his infamous “nappy-headed whores” comment, many viewed it as a racial, and racist, statement. However, the statement had more to do with the fact that the players on Rutgers were women than the fact that they were black. The message Imus and his crew were sending was that the players were rough and tumble, too masculine — hence the Memphis Grizzlies reference by one of his henchmen — and that made them worthy of ridicule. That is the environment in which female athletes must work. And in that environment, one must be pretty to succeed.