Another antiquated argument is that the quality of play doesn’t equal that of the men’s game. To be fair, women’s soccer has not progressed as far internationally as it has in the United States making for a slightly smaller overall field than in the men’s tournament along with a greater talent gap from top to bottom.
The simple argument would be that it is a case of supply and demand. The more Americans watch women’s soccer, the more it is covered and the more advertisers will spend on the product, right? But that argument fails to hold water considering the final between the U.S. and Japan was the most watched American soccer game in history. So the interest in the team and the sport is evident.
What Cowherd was saying in itself was correct. More prestige is given to the men’s tournament and with that comes more coverage and more advertising, making it a more lucrative event for everyone involved. But where Cowhered was wrong was his blind acceptance of the discrepancy without asking the obvious follow-up question: why?
Cowherd’s main point was that gap was understandable and acceptable due to the greater worldwide interest, visibility and advertising dollars that rolled in for the 2014 tournament in Brazil.
Not long ago I caught a few minutes of sports talk radio in the car and the topic centered around the U.S. Women’s World Cup team. Specifically, Colin Cowherd brought up a report about the discrepancy in bonus money that was doled out to the German men’s national team for winning last year’s world cup compared to what the American women received for their efforts.