• Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

What's the most underserved sport in terms of coverage?

On womens sports, there seems to be this notion on social that the lack of interest is the media's fault. If the meteo paper and national outlets covered the semi-pro leagues, fans would take them seriously. The paper counters with we can't devote resources to something no readers care about.

What's the truth in this chicken and egg scenario?

A greater number of national outlets are pouring resources into covering women's sports, and it's not uncommon now to see women's basketball games on ABC. I've seen NWSL games on CBS lately too. I don't think this would be happening if the interest wasn't there. More coverage will lead to more interest, sure, but I think the coverage is currently growing because it hasn't yet caught up to the interest.
 
Softball.

Volleyball.

Gymnastics, but I'm not sure that's on the media. How many meets are there?
 
Of note: There was a nice boost in women's coverage in the late 90s/early 2000s that has been lost through mass layoffs. Not that it should have been lost - less coverage of bad men's teams, please, but it was.
 
There is definitely interest in some women's sports, but it is niche interest. And it varies by sport. Soccer has a lot of teenage and preteen girls who play, and the success of the U.S. women's team has definitely created interest that ebbs and flows. It seems like a pretty strong niche.

For the networks, it's all a matter of how much the rights cost (or don't cost). Sports programming is cheap programming to produce, so they love it, and if you can get the rights without having to pay much, it's a great way to fill air time. It doesn't take much in viewership to make it worthwhile. ABC / ESPN had the rights to the WNBA for nothing for the longest time, which made it a no brainer. I believe they started paying a rights fee on the last contract, but it can't be a lot of money. I'd guess it is something just north of the cost for the rights to the cornhole competitions and strongmen contests.
 
National TV and ESPN has shown women's sports since the late '70s.
 
For the networks, it's all a matter of how much the rights cost (or don't cost). Sports programming is cheap programming to produce, so they love it, and if you can get the rights without having to pay much, it's a great way to fill air time.

Wait, really? Man, my mind is blown!
 
A lot of it is regional, it seems. College wrestling is huge in B1G country, but all but dead in the west. Volleyball and water polo have good following out here, maybe not as much in the east.

Women's sports and soccer are sports that have changed a lot in my lifetime. I was in high school when Title IX came into play and nobody really knew what to do with girls sports, but now we've had a generation or two grow up in a time where girls playing sports is normal. Soccer? When I was in the business I knew enough to blow out World Cup with or without U.S. participation. When NBC got the EPL contract, I asked a younger colleague if we should be running any agate on this, until he explained how many levels there were in the sport. So stuck with MLS agate and getting into the bigger tournaments and CONACAF qualifying.
 
I respect wrestling and had a chance or two to see some bigtime prep invitational wrestling. It's hard to write about, but I also suspect it's harder to read about.

Wrestling dads were some of the more exemplary sports parents I've seen, BTW. Most probably because they knew the sport inside out, unlike other sports parents.
 
I love rugby but only watch it during the Olympics. So I don't know if it's underserved, or I just don't watch it.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top