FIFA Oscars 2013: ¡Messi! ¡Messi! ¡Messi! ¡Messi!

Ah the annual pageant of the Ballon d’Or.  Every year the spectacle becomes ever more bloated, which means that every year I appreciate it all the more as a camp spectacle, or more accurately, only as a camp spectacle.  Like the real Oscars, the FIFA Oscars are less about the awards themselves and more about big names vying for media attention.  It’s so tacky, that one can only laugh at it.  Which is why Lionel Messi’s polka dot tuxedo (he apparently gets his fashion tips from El Diego) may represent the epitome of the ridiculousness that is the Ballon d’Or.

As with any year, there are a whole bunch of little awards that FIFA wants me to care about, but I don’t.  I feel like FIFA keeps adding awards just to stay relevant–if you can consider giving an award to Franz Beckenbauer, a man who has not kicked a ball competitively in decades, relevance.  And of course there is the annual Puskas award for best goal, which never seems to go to the most interesting goal, but rather to a long ball volley from a player who either plays in or for Turkey.  If you want to know about those other awards, the Guardian has a nice live blog.  Otherwise you are on your own.

Women’s Player of the Year

Every year I wonder whether people who vote for these awards actually watch women’s football.  This year is no exception.  Given that the US team won the Olympics, the only important international competition in 2012, it is no surprise that two US players–Abby Wambach and Alex Morgan–were nominated.  What is something of a shock (if you follow women’s football, that is) is that the third player in the final three was Brazil’s Marta.  I am a big fan of Marta, as I have made clear numerous times on this blog.  I have called her possibly the greatest individual player the women’s game has ever seen (or second behind Michelle Akers), but this year was not a particularly good year for Marta.  Last year when she was also somewhat surprisingly a top three finalist, at least it made sense because of her good club season and because she played well at the World Cup was stellar (if her team did not).  But this year?  By Marta’s standards it was pretty mediocre.  Nevertheless, Marta is a name and a known international commodity while the person who should have been in the top three in her stead, Canada’s Christine Sinclair, is not.  (One might also suggest that FIFA look beyond the international game into the club game where Lyon won a second Champions League in a row, but that may be asking too much.)

I have no complaints about Abby Wambach winning.  She is certainly deserving.  Over the past two years, the US got to the finals of the World Cup and the Olympics almost sheerly by Wambach’s will alone.  But for Homare Sawa’s incredible World Cup performance last year, Wambach probably would have deserved last year’s award too.  Alex Morgan arguably had the more spectacular year, but Wambach is very close to breaking Mia Hamm’s international goal record, one that I thought would stand forever.  Therefore, there is a certain symmetry to Wambach being the first American winner since Hamm.  Alex Morgan will probably win next year because FIFA will not pay attention to women’s football until the 2015 World Cup, and Morgan is the new star.

Women’s Coach of the Year

Unlike Wambach’s win, which was not easy to predict, there was no doubt that Pia Sundhage would win the women’s coach of the year.  And being Pia Sundhage, she sung when accepting the award.  Like with the player of the year, there were two candidates who deserved to be there, Sundhage and Japan’s Norio Sasake, and one candidate who was a complete head scratcher, France’s Bruno Bini.  FIFA’s website says that he was nominated because:

Semi-finalists at the FIFA Women’s World Cup 2011™, Les Bleues continued their excellent run of form at the Olympic Football Tournament by again finishing fourth, a few months after their success at the Cyprus Cup. The credit for this new consistency in reaching the semi-finals of major competitions must go to Bruno Bini, who has been coach of the French women’s national team since February 2007.
Notably, France won neither semifinal.  Moreover, I would argue that the teams achieved those two fourth place finishes despite Bini not because of him.  If anything, France is largely made up of players from Lyon, and I would think that Bini’s spot should have gone to Lyon’s manager (according to Wikipedia, it is Patrice Lair, who placed fourth in the voting).  But that would mean paying attention to women’s club football.  Notably, the person who placed 5th in the voting was Germany’s Silvia Neid, whose team did not even qualify for the Olympics.  Le sigh.
Another person sadly overlooked was John Herdman (6th).  This was a man who took a shattered Big Red from last place at the World Cup to third at the Olympics–almost to the final round, barely losing the sport’s best ever match. Probably Herdman’s and Sinclair’s omissions had less to do with merit and more to do with the way they bitterly (and not completely unfairly) complained about the refereeing after their semifinal loss to the US.  Probably the fact that Canada is Jan Brady to the US’s Marsha had something to do with it too.
Men’s Coach of the Year
Vicente del Bosque won the award he should have gotten two years ago for the World Cup.  This year it was for the Euro, the first time a nation won two in a row, and the first time any nation ever won three major tournaments in a row.  Really though the award was for the 4-0 annihilation of Italy, as before that magical match Spain’s performance was yeoman-like at best.  No matter how you slice it, he accomplished something bigger than any other coach, certainly a bigger accomplishment than that of the two runners-up, Pep Guardiola and Jose Mourinho.  Why those two men were nominated given that neither the Champions League?  I have no idea.  Mourinho didn’t even show up to the ceremony because he knew he wasn’t going to win.  For anyone else, I could respect that decision, but the Surly One such a bad sport at everything he does, that it is hard not to call him a sore loser in this case too.  Here is the truth about Mourinho–he is incredibly insecure because he knows his wins had less to do with his coaching abilities and more to do with major financial backing of rich clubs and some very lucky breaks.  Now he is self-destructing at Real Madrid as I predicted he would.  Madrid is too big a club with too proud a tradition of winning and too many big names to put up with his insecurity-driven ego.
If I were a suspicious person, I would think that FIFA was sending a message to everyone, the English especially: “Be like Spain.”  Not only were all three coach finalists and all three Ballon d’Or finalists either Spanish or plying their trade in La Liga (or both), all 11 players of the World XI play for either Real Madrid (Iker Casillas, Sergio Ramos, Marcelo, Xabi Alonso, Cristiano Ronaldo), Barcelona, (Messi, Xavi, Andres Iniesta, Gerard Pique, Dani Alves), or Atletico Madrid (Radamel Falcao).  Whether or not those are the most deserving 11 is some matter of debate (but the answer is “no”), but FIFA has firmly jumped on the Spain bandwagon is not getting off yet.
Ballon d’Or
Five months ago, I was unsure who would win this award.  It was pretty clear that it would be either Messi (best player in the world, possibly ever, who smashed all sorts of scoring records this year), Cristiano Ronaldo (second best in the world, won La Liga), or Iniesta (hero of the Euro).  In fact, I leaned toward Iniesta, who really deserves major recognition.  As of December 2012, I knew it would be Messi.  And all because of a sort-of meaningless statistic–91 goals in a calendar year.
To be fair, Messi was probably going to win all along.  No asks who is the “next Maradona” anymore because of Messi, sub-par World Cup be damned.  The real question is about where his place in history is (the summit) rather than where he is in the hierarchy of today’s players.  Sometimes I like to imagine that Cristiano Ronaldo goes home at night and screams his own name in front of a mirror with a picture Messi taped to it.  He so desperately wants to be the best, and that will forever be a frustrated ambition despite the best efforts of Marca, AS, and certain British tabloid jingoists who cannot fathom that this generation’s great player will never have played in the Premier League.
And yet Messi’s win, while not as baffling as that of two years ago, is still somewhat confusing because it raises a fundamental question about the Ballon d’Or.  What exactly are the criteria for the winner?  Is it for the most accomplished player of the season or the best player in the world.  If the latter, then Messi should win it for the next five years or so.  If the former, then certainly Iniesta would have a better claim to it, since international play trumps club play according to FIFA.  Yet Messi won the votes of a majority of the first place votes of captains, coaches, and journalists–the three groups that vote for the Ballon d’Or.  It was his record-breaking fourth title, which means that Messi has now won more titles than the following players:  Di Stefano, Ronaldo (both), Platini, Zidane, Cruyff, and Beckenbauer (Pele and Maradona were ineligible).  Certainly there is a very solid argument that he is a better player than all of them, but it makes the next few years kind of predictable, especially if Barcelona does to Europe what it is doing to La Liga this year.
And this is why the Ballon d’Or is such a ridiculous spectacle.  I hope that next year Messi take his sartorial sensibilities to its logical conclusion and goes for full-out clown outfit complete with make-up, red horn nose, and oversize shoes.  I cannot imagine a better mascot for the FIFA Oscars.

Showing Some Love

As great as the US Women’s National Team from the 1999 World Cup was, I have always felt that they were propped up at the expense of the 1991 team, who have been largely forgotten despite (1) being the pioneers, and (2) having many of the same players as the 1999 team.  The 1991 team won the first Women’s World Cup (which at the time was not called a World Cup, and matches were only 80 minutes long), but that feels like a footnote now, especially in commemorations of the 1999 team.  Perhaps because video footage is rare or perhaps because very few media outlets covered it, the 1991 victory has largely faded.

It’s a shame too because the 1991 World Cup was where America’s greatest player was at her peak.  Michelle Akers was widely considered the best in the world at that point and was the top scorer at the tournament (although teammate Carin Jennings won the Golden Ball).  Time has not been kind to Akers’s legacy even though she was with the US Women’s National Team since the beginning, and there is a very strong case to be made that she is the greatest female player of all time.  In Jere Longman’s book The Girls of Summer, it is very clear that the US Team considered her their best player–as did the Chinese team who were somewhat intimidated by her.  There is also a story about Akers being asked to step on the bus of the German National Men’s Team (the defending world champions); when she got on their bus, they gave her a round of applause.

What Akers lacked was media exposure, which is probably why she is generally not mentioned in the debate of greatest ever, which is limited to Mia Hamm and Marta.*  By the time the women’s team came to national attention in 1996, Akers was no longer at the height of her powers both because of age and her struggle with chronic fatigue syndrome.  In the World Cup final, she played not as a striker but rather a holding midfielder, a less glamorous, but extremely important position. Akers shut down Sun Wen, China’s greatest attacking threat, and it was not until Akers left the field that China could really attack.  In the media however, she was overlooked in favor of Hamm, the world’s most prolific scorer.

In a way, Akers is a lot like Alfredo Di Stefano.  It is hard to say Di Stefano is underrated given (1) how many players consider him one of the greatest, (2) that he practically built football in Colombia, and (3) that the European Cup was successful in large part because of him.  But it is equally fair to say that the world never got to see his prime.  There is little if any available footage of his pre-European career in Argentina and Colombia.  He never played in a World Cup for a variety of reasons.  Although he led Real Madrid to five consecutive European Cup titles between 1956 and 1960, in 1958, the world found its first superstar in young Pele.  In 1962, Eusebio’s Benfica beat Di Stefano’s Madrid in the European Cup final.  The torch was passed; the new generation had taken over.

Michelle Akers’s story runs along parallel lines.  Although she was brilliant, the world never saw her in her prime.  How many people have even seen the 1991 final?  (I have.)  How much footage is there of her matches before 1996?  Hamm, like Pele, was a telegenic, prolific scorer whose image benefited tremendously from television.  Marta, like Maradona or Messi, is a wildly gifted player who does things with the ball that no one else can.  There are plenty of highlight reels and YouTube videos featuring Marta.

Michelle Akers never had that, and yet she was arguably the greatest of them all.  It is why I was very glad to see this post.  Hopefully there will be many more as people become more interested in the women’s game and its history.




* Also left out of the discussion: Sun Wen, who along with Akers was named co-Player of the Century, and Heidi Mohr, who in 1999 was named Europe’s Footballer of the Century.  Others who are left out include Birgit Prinz and Homare Sawa, the only two players besides Marta and Hamm to win a FIFA Player of the Year award.  They are just the tip of the iceberg.  Someone really needs to write a history book about women’s football on the lines of The Ball is Round.


Euro Day 15: Sacre Bleu!

In eliminating France, Spain broke its streak of consecutive 1-0 victories in knock out rounds.  Sort of.


1-0, 1-0, 1-0, 1-0, 1-0.  This is not binary code; it is the scores of Spain’s five previous knockout round matches in official tournaments (the Confederations Cup doesn’t count because it’s an exhibition with delusions of grandeur).  First came the Euro final of 2008, a 1-0 victory over Germany.  In the Round of 16 at the 2010 World Cup it was 1-0 over Portugal.  In the next round it was 1-0 over Paraguay.  Then it was 1-0 over Germany again.  And in the final round it was 1-0 over the Netherlands.

So when Spain went up 1-0 in the 19th minute of today’s Euro 2012 quarterfinal against France (a fabulous header from Xabi Alonso), it was lights out.  Spain would tiki and taka Les Bleus (who ironically wore an all white kit) to death without actually scoring another goal.  Ruthless but effective and who could blame them?  Perhaps if France were less lackluster they could have gathered themselves together to score a tying goal.  There were moments where France threatened, but in the end Spain’s possession game plan strangled them to death as it has done to so many others.  I think France managed exactly one shot on goal.

In second half stoppage time Pedro earned a penalty, which Xabi Alonso converted to make the final score  2-0.  Officially, Xabi Alonso’s penalty broke the 1-0 streak, but to anyone who watched the entire match it was effectively another 1-0 victory.  Coincidentally, this match was Xabi Alonso’s 100th cap.  Today’s goals were the only two he scored for Spain.  Ever.

Next up Portugal.


In winning today, Spain put yet another demon behind them.  Although Spain have an edge in the official head-to-head statistics, before tonight, Spain never beat France in an official tournament.  The last time they played one another officially was the 2006 World Cup, where a Raul-led Spain fell 3-1 to a Zidane-led France (happy birthday, Zizou).  At the time the match had no symbolic significance, but in hindsight it marked a turning point in the fate of both national teams.

Following the 2006 World Cup, Spanish coach Luis Aragones dropped Raul and led his team to an impressive 2008 Euro victory–the first tournament victory since the 1964 Euro (a much different tournament back then).  That was the moment Spain stopped being a jinxed team, the sick man of Europe, and became everyone’s favorite world beaters.  Unlike almost everyone else, Spain actually played with a national style.  Moreover, that style was difficult to play, distinct (and lovely) to watch, and easy to recognize–a football wonk’s dream.  The 3-0 annihilation of Russia in the Euro 2008 semifinals was particularly eye-opening.

Aragones, sick of the politics of the Spanish football association and the Spanish sports media, kept a pre-tournament vow to quit following the tournament, and he was replaced by former Real Madrid boss Vicente del Bosque.  Del Bosque had the pedigree; he had coached Real Madrid to a Champions League victory.  There was fear he might bring back Raul, who generally considered a team cancer, but del Bosque decided to make only very minor tinkers (such as famously dropping Marco Senna and bringing in more Barcelona players).

Spain won every match in its 2010 World Cup qualification campaign, and (after ironically losing its first match to Switzerland 1-0), Spain 1-0’ed its way to victory.  En route however, Spain stopped being everyone’s darling and started to be perceived as a second Germany–ruthlessly efficient and dreadfully dull.  Or at least this is the perception of the British media (and the American media which parrots the British).  If anyone else out there speaks a different language, please let me know how Spain’s dominance is perceived in your country. What the media overlooked though is that Spain “ground out” 1-0 victories because all their opponents parked the bus.  We tremble with dread when we think of Greece’s 2004 victory at the Euro, but Spain essentially faced those same Greek tactics over and over again in each round.  That Spain kept winning is truly a credit to their talent and their patience.

It makes sense that the British would come to despise the Spanish game, because Spain are the opposite of England (and to a lesser extent Scotland, but really when we talk about Britain we mean England): technical rather than physical, patient rather than daring. strategic rather than foolhardy.  Spain like the short-passes and keeping play on the ground, England prefer the long kick and run and the cross and the header.  And most importantly, Spain have completely changed its image from losers to world beaters, whereas finding excuses for losing has become a national hobby in England.

Therefore it is no surprise to hear the English gripe about boring, boring Spain.  But if the English National Team won a Euro, and World Cup and was now in the semifinals of the next Euro using tiki taka, you can bet that no one would think it was boring at all.


In contrast to Spain’s upward trajectory, France have gone from disgrace to disgrace.  The warning signs were all there in 2006; had it not been for Zidane effectively taking charge of the team and through sheer will dragging it to the finals, France would have exited in disgrace at the group stages rather than losing in the final round in penalty kicks–a loss that may have been prevented had Zidane not vicariously fulfilled the dreams of everyone else in the world by headbutting an Italian footballer.  Once Zidane was exiled to the dressing room, decisions were left solely to coach Raymond Domenech, a man who was completely unqualified to coach a high school team.  Hence the French lost on penalty kicks to a national team whose penalty kicks record ranks only slightly better than England’s.

Following the World Cup, the French football association kept Domenech on even though it was widely known that the team despised him.  (Granted, firing a coach who takes your team to second place makes no sense unless you are Brazil.)  The federation would however, have had every right to fire Domenech two years later after France’s miserable showing at Euro 2008.  Domenech was retained despite the poor showing and despite some very strange behavior that bordered on lunacy.  The federation put him on “probation” for the World Cup qualifiers.  Not to toot my own horn, but when the federation’s then-president stood by Domenech, I told anyone who would listen that this was a horrific mistake that would eventually cause said president to resign after the World Cup.  I was right, but I had no idea about how right I was.

By now everyone knows the story.  France did not win their World Cup qualification group, and only qualified for South Africa because of a Hand of Thierry goal against Ireland in the play-offs.  Almost everyone knows about the strike in South Africa, but if not, the story of the French team’s behavior is told briefly and succinctly here.  It was horrifying and hilarious at the same time.  Again, France failed to make it out of the group stage (they finished dead last and were quite possibly the worst team at the tournament with only North Korea for competition), but the team behavior overshadowed the miserable performance.  It cause un scandale at home.  The president resigned, Domenech was (finally) sacked, and the players were disciplined to varying degrees.  Nicolas Anelka was effectively banned for life.  Sarkozy  himself threatened to get involved, but recanted when FIFA threatened sanctions.

Bordeaux manager Laurent Blanc replaced Domenech and it looked like he finally started to get the team in order.  They went on a 23 match unbeaten streak and began to look like contenders (although Blanc had his doubters, and the early days of his reign were, to say the least, not smooth).  At the this year’s Euro, France was drawn into a fairly easy group, with only England as potential competition.  Despite a draw with England, France seemed on pace to win Group D and avoid Spain in the quarterfinals.  Then France lost badly to Sweden who lost its previous two matches, and again all hell broke loose.  The details are sketchy, but there was some sort of problem or problems in the French dressing room following the Sweden loss.  Given that and Blanc’s generally defeatist attitude about the match against Spain, it is a wonder that the score was only 2-0.

Since 2006, one could say that France have effectively turned into the Dutch in that their internal squabbles derail their ambitions.  On the hand, the Oranje have never humiliated themselves quite to the extent that Les Bleus have.  (The Dutch tendency to fight comes from a tradition of independent thinking inherent in the Dutch culture at large.  France do not that excuse.  Rather it appears without a strong leader like Platini or Zidane, the French team’s natural inclination is to hate each other.)  Given that both France and the Netherlands have had disastrous showings at this Euro, both on and off the pitch, one can say there is very little difference between the team of Holland and the team of Hollande.

It is probably fair to say that the dream of 1998 is effectively dead, killed by poor stewardship and team disharmony.  Perhaps France can turn their fortunes around for 2014 in Brazil, but I wouldn’t hold my breath.  Blanc’s tenure looks far less secure, but they did keep on Raymond Demenech….


On a completely unrelated note, following today’s match, ESPN aired a special about Title IX and its impact on American women’s sports, particularly football, and with particularly emphasis on the 1999 Women’s World Cup (recycling much footage from the years-old documentary about that World Cup).

To my mind, this half hour encapsulates everything that is wrong with women’s football in America–as the world moves forward, Americans keep reflecting on a moment that has long since passed.  Last year the American women’s team repeated over and over again that they were sick of living in the shadow of the 1999 team, and who can blame them?  The 1999 victory has become so legendary that it will forever overshadow any future accomplishment of any other American women’s football team.  The fact that ESPN and the American football establishment continue to worship 1999 covers up some major problems: (1) the rest of the world has caught up to the US, but any serious conversation is swept aside for nostalgia; (2) the US is in danger of creative emptiness, and that needs to be corrected; and (3) the 1999 success cannot disguise the fact that now two women’s professional football leagues in this country have failed.  A successful tournament is one thing, sustained growth is something completely different.

And for all the good Title IX has done, the question must be asked: is the collegiate system really the best way going forward to sustain a successful national program?  It is not in the men’s game, and I suspect that one day it will be the same in the women’s game.  Perhaps it is time to move beyond Title IX as the fountainhead of all women’s football and to start thinking about alternatives.  Nostalgia has its place, but not at the cost of the future.

I have no objections to remembering and celebrating the good times, but I am really tired of the 1999 fetish, particularly the focus on Mia, Brandi, Kristine, and Julie (especially Mia).  The truth is that the greatest American football hero, woman or man, is consistently and completely overlooked: Michelle Akers.  She is our national legend, our Pele.  Perhaps it is time for ESPN to show her a little love rather than just retread the well-worn ground of the 1999 World Cup.

Women’s All Time XI (Take Two)

Now that I am getting more views on this blog (thank you all so much for reading; I cannot tell you how much I appreciate it), I want to ask a question that did not receive any responses the last time I asked it.  Who you would put on a greatest ever women’s team?

One of the most enjoyable things about following sports is those endless pub debates about who is the greatest ever.  It’s completely meaningless, but so much fun.  On, Jonathan Wilson just published the last part of his Greatest Ever Team Tournament (Ajax ’72 over Barcelona ’11 3-2 in the finals–probably a fair result), and although I have expressed some reservations about it, I think these kinds of debate that Wilson has engaged in is a fundamental cornerstone of a successful fan culture. Sometimes the arguments can be very persuasive and other times less so.  Even when the results are less convincing, the effort reveals a passion and energy that is admirable.  Even in sports I don’t normally follow (cricket, Australian rules football, hurling), I try to find out who the greatest ever is when those sports cross my path–even if I don’t know or care about such basic things as the rules.

That is why I am a bit surprised that I have not been able to find this kind of debate among followers of women’s football.  I think it will make the fan culture a richer experience.  So for the sake of the growth of the women’s game, I am hoping to start a trend.  Please leave your own selections below in the comments section, and tell your friends too.

Now a caveat: I am no expert on women’s football.  There are experts, lots of them, but I am not one of them.  My knowledge is particularly woeful outside of the USWNT.  I so adamantly state my non-expertise is because I need to explain why my list has only a few non-Americans.  In fact, this list is probably closer to being an All-Time American Women’s XI with some foreign influence.  Not only is it mostly American women, but specifically American women who played on the 1999 World Cup winning side.

I have no excuses for this other than it is what I know.  There are not many books on the modern history of women’s football, and YouTube can only take you so far.  News on foreign women’s leagues and tournaments is hard to come by, and I am holding out judgment on the current crop of American women.  So take this with a grain of salt, and please join in if you can.

My Starting XI: 





Now this is probably an awful list, but having said that let me explain why I made the selections I made.

Goalkeeper:  Hope Solo is currently the best goalkeeper in the world.  Is she the best ever, I don’t know, but I suspect yes.  This was not an easy choice.  Briana Scurry was a great goalkeeper for the US, with the 1999 penalty shootout as the highlight of her career.  But she also had a few lows: the 2007 semifinals, of course, but she also fell out of form after 1999, lost her starting place, and had to get back into shape.    The other goalkeeper I considered was Nadine Angerer because it is very hard to side against the only keeper ever to go an entire World Cup without letting in a goal.  Still, I believe that Solo is the best bar none; aside from her talent, she has that insanity that great keepers have.

Defenders:  Of all the choices, these are the ones I am most uneasy about, first because all four are Americans (granted, multiple title-winning Americans), and second because all of them were on the 1999 team.  Three of them were on the 1991 team, although Brandi Chastain was not a starter.  All of these four defenders were at the top of the women’s game for around a decade and a half.  (Plus Chastain gave women’s football its single most iconic moment.  What is often overlooked is that although Chastain took the final winning kick, Overbeck and Fawcett converted the first two kicks.)  Markgraf, although only on one World Cup winning squad, won two Olympic gold medals.  I am confident that they are four of the best defenders ever even if not the absolute four best.

Midfielders:  I am on shaky ground with the midfield because Michelle Akers and Sun Wen were really forwards.  I could have used more orthodox midfielders such as Kelly Smith of England (who also played at forward), Shannon Boxx or Julie Foudy of the US, or Sissi of Brazil, but if that were the case, I would have to leave out players who I believe to be better.

Kristine Lilly is a legend of the game.  She is the most capped player, male or female, in history and probably will remain so.  She won two World Cup titles, two Olympic titles in her long, long career.  She was one of the best midfielders in the game bar none.  Michelle Akers is one of the greatest players of all time; only Marta can also lay claim to that title.  Akers was always the strongest, fastest, most monomaniacal player on the field the commentator during the 1991 final gave her what he believed to be the ultimate compliment, “she plays like a man.”)  She was heads and shoulders above her peers, and when her team underperformed she put them on her back and carried them to victory.  No wonder that FIFA named her Player of the Century.  Akers was not the only player named Player of Century.  Akers was honored by FIFA’s technical committee, but Sun Wen of China won the honor by an Internet vote.  What Akers was for the US, Sun was for China.  She was their best player, and one the greats.  She won the 1999 Golden Ball and co-won the 1999 Golden Boot.  China has never been able to replace her, and the Chinese women’s program has sank into mediocrity.

Forwards:  I debated excluding Mia Hamm.  Hamm was one of the all time great, and the sport’s first superstar, but she was also not of the strongest fortitude and tended to vanish in big moments.  Nevertheless, any list that did not have international football’s most prolific scorer (again man or woman) would be worth even less than nothing.  Before her problems this World Cup, Birgit Prinz was an icon.  All she did was score goal after goal for club and country.  Prinz was a feared name in the 00’s and led every team she was on to success, including two consecutive World Cup wins for Germany in 2003 and 2007.  It is a shame what happened at the 2011 World Cup, but that should not diminish her legacy.  Finally the last person on the list has to be Marta, arguably the greatest individual player of all time.  Now tied for Prinz as the record World Cup scorer (and a ridiculous record of 14 goals in 14 matches), Marta has a simply unmatched technique and she can do thing other women simply cannot.  She has been compared to Pele and Messi although comparisons to Garrincha and Maradona would not be that far off either.  Marta is something of a tragic figure.  Opponents cannot stop her, but her own national federation, though its disdain and apathy for the women’s game, has all but ensured that Marta, when she retires, will do so without a world title.

So am I completely off?  Am I right on target?  Who would you put on your starting XI?

World Cup 2011: You’ve Come a Long Way, Baby…?

I. Fears For the Future

I fear for the future of women’s football (soccer for Americans.  I will use the two names interchangeably in this post.)  The Women’s World Cup starts in Germany this June, and I wonder who will watch it.  This is a shame because it is a good product.  Unlike the WNBA, Women’s Professional Soccer is not overshadowed by the glitz and glamour of its male counterpart.  (Also, for me women’s football is more enjoyable to watch than women’s basketball, or men’s basketball for that matter.)  But I wonder if the WPS will be able to sustain itself.  The signs are not great; last year its most prominent side, the LA Sol folded after its first season–a successful season by athletic standards.  FC Gold Pride (the current league champion) folded last month.  St. Louis Athletica actually folded during the last season.  Attendances have not been stellar.  The WPS is not the only women’s league in the world, but it is the league that, on the whole, attracts the world’s most talented players.  Given that the predecessor to WPS, the WUSA, folded after only a few years, this is a very worrying sign.

Girls who partake in athletics are, on the whole, better adjusted, than those who do not.  They are more likely to succeed in school and life and less likely to get pregnant as teenagers.  Although I cannot prove it, I suspect that young female athletes are also less likely to accept unequal treatment when they grow up.  There are far fewer female role models in sports than males.  Just as boys (and girls) look up to male athletes, girls (and boys) should be able to watch female athletes and admire them first and foremost for their exceptional abilities.

Young girls can and should be able to grow up thinking “I want to do that.”  In the United States, the law is on their side thanks to Title IX, but after college, there is a dearth of visible female athletes.  Women’s tennis carries most of the water and has for a long time.  Every two years, the Olympics comes around and for a brief period of time, the United States cares deeply about women’s athletics–particularly women’s figure skating and gymnastics, the unquestionable marquee events of the Winter and Summer Olympics.  Yet as popular as tennis is (in some circles) and gymnastics and figure skating are periodically, they are all, for the most part, individual sports.  Women’s teams sports have yet to enter that rarified air.

I cannot say what will happen in the future to the WPS or the WNBA or even the WTA (women’s tennis is going through a very bad patch right now, although it is by any means not dire.)   The problems that women’s sports are having right now however, underscore my growing doubts that there will ever be a female athlete who can transfix the American imagination and popularize her sport the way that a Michael Jordan or a Wayne Gretzky were able to do.

II.  The Beginning

I claim no expertise as a historian, but I argue that the birth of modern women’s sport dates to 1884 in a London suburb called Wimbledon.  Wimbledon was, and is, the home of a tennis tournament that the British call “The Championships” but the rest of us simply refer to as Wimbledon.  The tournament started in 1877, but it was open only to men.  In 1884 the competition included, for the first time, a women’s tournament.  In the final Maud Watson defeated her older sister Lillian in three sets.  This marked the first  time that sisters contested the Wimbledon finals and the last time until 2002 when Serena Williams beat her older sister Venus (two women who could not be more different than the Watsons.)  The Wimbledon of 1884 was not the same tournament as the Wimbledon of 2002; it was an amateur tournament with 13 entrants opened only to a select few.  Back then, this new game of lawn tennis was a country club sport.  Maud Watson’s victory was no blow for women’s rights (although it was a stern rejoinder to those who vociferously argued that women were not suited to physical activity.)  In fact, outside of the All England Club Lawn Tennis and Croquet Club, there was probably no one who knew or cared about the women’s tournament.  Maud and Lillian Watson’s names were largely forgotten until the rise of the Williams sisters.

Given the relative unimportance of this event, it is fair to ask why have I used that as a starting point of modern women’s sports?  Women played competitive sports, including baseball and golf, much earlier than 1884.  My starting point is indeed somewhat arbitrary.  Nevertheless, I will defend it.  Although the Wimbledon of 1884 and 2010 are completely different, there is an unbroken lineage of competition that extends from now to then.  No other competition can make that claim.  As I will explain below, the major advancements that led to the women’s leagues we have today came out of women’s tennis.

In the years after 1884, women’s sports began in earnest (not because of Wimbledon, but because the time were changing.)  I would recommend this timeline if you are interested in learning about more of the history of women’s sports.  For the purposes of this history however, there are only a few events that I am going to mention.  The United States and French national tennis championships emulated Wimbledon and started women’s tournaments in 1887 and 1897 respectively.  In 1900 the Olympics held competitions for women in tennis and golf.  In 1902, a British woman named Madge Syers competed in the figure skating world championships, which, until then, was an all-male competition.  Syers placed second.  This led to the creation of a women’s world championship, which Syers won.  She also won the figuring skating gold medal at the 1908 Summer Olympics.

III.  The Goddess

In 1919, the first female sports star emerged at Wimbledon like a bolt from the blue.  Her name was Suzanne Lenglen, and she was unlike anything that the genteel British tennis-going public had ever seen before.  The British were awed and scandalized (it should go without saying that she was French); they were scandalized by her, and they kept going to watch her play.  She wore a bandana and flowing dresses that daringly revealed her forearms and calves (her competitors wore corsets), she drank brandy between sets, and she danced around the court with a ballerina’s grace.  She also dominated women’s tennis in a way not seen before or since.  During her post-World War I career, which lasted from 1919 to 1926, she lost only one match that she began (she withdrew from after one set because of whooping cough.)  She was the first female tennis star to turn professional, and she never lost a professional match.  She was tennis’s first artist: her placement and her form were near perfect.  Years later, very few women and almost no men are described as artists–it is one of the many reasons that makes Roger Federer so rare.

Lenglen was sport’s first diva.*  She was not beautiful yet the public could not get enough of her.  Wimbledon had to expand just to accommodate all the people who wanted to see her play.  Her greatest moment probably came in 1924 in a small tournament in Cannes.  There she defeated her American competitor Helen Wills, the eventual heir to her dominance.  The meeting between the two players was hyped around the world and for was simply referred to as “The Match.”  It was the only time these two legends of tennis met on court.

Suzanne Lenglen, like a true diva, died before she could be forgotten.  Despite her athletic prowess, she was actually sickly throughout her life.  In 1938, at age 39, she died of pernicious anemia.  The masses mourned for her–France’s greatest sports legend, the woman who humiliated the British and Americans at their own game.  Lenglen was the forerunner of the modern sports star.  She was supremely talented, she was vain, she knew her worth, and she demanded full and complete attention.  As a personality, I am not sure women’s sport has ever had a successor to Lenglen, although Sonia Henie and Serena Williams probably come closest.  That there are no more personalities like Lenglen’s is truly a shame because such a large personality would attract the media spotlight and subsequently the public.

III.  The Reformer

In the decades immediately following Lenglen’s career, the popularity of women’s sports expanded rapidly.  Other female athletes soon came into prominence.  Perhaps the most famous were track and field/golf/basketball star Babe Didrikson Zaharias and Sonia Henie the Norwegian figure skater.  The former was arguably the first female athlete to break the stereotypes of female athletic ability and femininity.  She even competed against the men (in golf).  Many consider Babe Didrikson Zaharias the finest female athlete ever.  Henie was a more controversial figure.  Like Lenglen, Henie was a star, and she knew it.  For a decade, Henie dominated figure skating, winning 3 Olympic gold medals and 10 world championships.  She then transformed her sports celebrity into Hollywood stardom.  Henie was controversial though because of her ties to Hitler.  Many of her former countrymen (she became a naturalized American) and Americans of Norwegian descent saw her as a Nazi collaborator–she never condemned the Nazis and did not support the Norwegian resistance.  Both Didrikson Zaharias and Henie died young, the former at age 45 and the latter at age 57.

There were some attempts to form women’s leagues in team sports, although success was mixed.  During the World War II era, there was the All-American Girls Professional Baseball League (1943-54).  The league was largely forgotten until Penny Marshall’s (fictional) movie “A League of Their Own” brought it back to a cultural consciousness.

But even though there were other well-known female athletes, it was in women’s tennis that pioneered.  In 1950, the color barrier broke as Althea Gibson became the first black tennis player to play at the US Championship, and in 1951 became the first black player to play at Wimbledon.  In 1956 she became the first black player to win a major title at the French Championships.  The next year she became the first black player to win Wimbledon and the US Championships.  In 1953 Maureen “Little Mo” Connolly became the first woman to win the Grand Slam: the Australian, French, Wimbledon, and US Championships all in a calendar year–tennis’s Mount Everest.  And then there was Billie Jean King.

If women’s professional sports can be said to have a mother, it would be Billie Jean King.  It is undeniable that she is the most important figure in women’s sports.  However, I would say that she is the most significant figure in sports history bar none.  Only Jackie Robinson could legitimately claim to have the same importance.  She is justifiably remembered for her tennis and her many titles, but she is more famous for her leadership in the crusade for equality and the founding of a separate women’s tour as a result.  She is also remembered for her victory in the overhyped, but symbolically important Battle of the Sexes.

In September 1970, nine professional female tennis players, upset about the gender inequality in prize money distribution at tennis tournaments, formed their own tour.  These nine women–Billie Jean King, Rosie Casals, Nancy Richey, Kerry Melville Reid, Julie Heldman, Valerie Ziegenfuss, Peaches Bartkowicz, Kristy Pigeon, and Judy Tegart Dalton–not only formed and competed in the league, they did all the hard work of selling it to the public, a tough task given that some of the sport’s most recognizable players (Court, Evert, Goolagong) stayed away.  The battle they fought extended long beyond their playing careers (to wit: Wimbledon only recently starting paying the men’s and women’s champions equal prize money.)  The tennis establishment first tried to ban the breakaway player, but found it could not.  The Virginia Slims Circuit became a success.  Out of this victory arose the Women’s Tennis Association.  Billie Jean King was the WTA’s first president.

King was also a champion of Title IX, to which the continued success of women’s collegiate sports owes its existence.  Without Title IX who knows if there would be a women’s basketball or women’s soccer or women’s field hockey, etc. on college campuses, especially in lean times.  Title IX ensures their existence.  King lobbied for the bill and testified before Congress.  Without Title IX there would be no UNC women’s soccer or no UConn or Tennessee women’s basketball; most of the top women’s athletics programs would never have gotten off the ground.

Despite her success on the court, despite her truly revolutionary off-the-court leadership, what King is most famous for is The Battle of the Sexes, a curious amalgam of King’s tennis and activism.  Bobby Riggs, a top tennis player in the 1930’s and 40’s, and self-professed chauvinist pig, challenged Billie Jean King, the top-ranked woman, to a match to prove that not even the top woman could beat a man regardless of his age and physical shape.  Rigg’s challenge was a tremendous insult to women’s tennis and female tennis player.  It is beyond doubt that the top male player will always (easily) beat the top female player.  The top female player probably lose to the top 300 male players ten times out of ten.  She may even have trouble beating top male collegiate players.  She would also have trouble beating the top senior players.  Bobby Riggs was none of those.  He was an old, out of shape huckster** trying to get into the limelight one last time.  King would have gained nothing for a win; if she lost, she (and women’s tennis) would be disgraced.  Naturally King said no.

Unfortunately, Margaret Court, arguably the greatest player of that generation, said yes.  Her price was $10,000.  Court was the anti-King; she was the reactionary to King’s revolutionary.  Court had no interest in equality and disdain for feminism.***  Court, was known to be a head case who cracked under pressure.  On May 13, 1973, completely unprepared for the media attention and Riggs’s trick game, Court lost so badly, the match was derisively referred to as “The Mother’s Day Massacre.”  In order to rescue the reputation of women’s tennis, King had to challenge Bobby Riggs.  On September 20, 1973 King faced Riggs in the Astrodome in Houston for a $100,000 pot, winner-take-all.  The match was a more media circus than tennis match.  No tennis match ever had as much national attention, and I do not think there has been another since.  Under this intense pressure, King demolished Riggs in straight sets.

What the match lacked in actual merit, it more than made up for in symbolic value.  Despite the fact that King beat a man completely past his prime, to a national audience, the match legitimized female athletes.  Saint Billie Jean became the unquestionable icon of women’s sports.

IV. The Next Step

Throughout the 70’s and 80’s the most visible female athletes was still limited largely to individual disciplines.  There were figure skaters (Hamil, Witt), speed skaters (Blair), gymnasts (Retton), track and field stars (Flo Jo, Jackie Joyner-Kersee), swimmer (Evans), golfers (Lopez), and of course tennis players (Navratilova Evert, Graf).  However, despite all that, there was never a break-out star in a woman’s team sport.  There were certainly great athletes, but no one who captured attention.  Even great collegiate players like Cheryl Miller basketball never got the acclaim they deserved.  Women who wanted to play professional team sports either had to go abroad or toil in obscurity–or both.  (Women’s college basketball would not get visibility until the mid-1990’s when the UConn Huskies went undefeated en route to the NCAA title, begat a powerhouse dynasty, and created a famous and compelling rivalry with the other juggernaut of collegiate women’s basketball, the Tennessee Lady Vols.)

In 1991 the United States National Women’s Soccer Team went to China to compete in the first Women’s World Cup.  Led by Michelle Akers, the greatest female football player of all time, the United States won the tournament, beating arch-rivals Norway in the final.  Sit with that for a moment.  The United States won a World Cup.  Before 1994.  In football.  The game that the rest of the world loves, but Americans largely ignored for decades. When the women returned from China they received… nothing.  No hero’s welcome.  No media attention.  No one knew.  In fairness, most of the world ignores women’s football, but their teams did not win.

Ironically, the reason why the United States was so successful in the 90’s is the reason why the men failed for so long.  The rest of the world simply has done a better job of preparing young boys to become skilled soccer players.  The top American men go through the collegiate system, which, in comparison to the rest of the world, produces second-rate players.  College soccer is no equal to the Ajax Academy or La Masia.  Most of the rest of the world does not have any footballing structure for girls–in some places (like Brazil) girls are actively discouraged from playing football, sometimes with beatings.  In the United States however, the opposite is true; girls are encouraged to play football in leagues and in school.  It is probably the most popular girl’s sport.  Many parents see an athletic scholarship as a means to defray the cost of college, and Title IX safeguards women’s football programs.  Therefore, while college is a poor substitute for developing the men’s game in this country, it gave the American women a tremendous advantage.

Although the 1991 World Cup win did absolutely nothing for the popularity of women’s football to Americans, the team’s moment came at the 1996 Olympics, the first time women’s football would be an Olympic sport.  Because the Olympics that year were hosted by Atlanta, and it was of the utmost important to the USOC that the American team do well (i.e. win the most medals.)  As a result women’s sports, where Americans had a huge advantage over the rest of the world, were pushed like never before.  It paid off tremendously, especially in team sports.  The Magnificent 7 won the first ever American gold in the gymnastics team competition, the Women’s National Basketball Team won the gold, the Women’s National Softball Team won gold (another sport that debuted in Atlanta), and the Women’s National Soccer Team won gold.  The victories were such spectacular successes that softball, women’s basketball, and women’s football all started to plan their own leagues.  Basketball got two competing ones: the ABL and the WNBA.   Although the ABL was the better league in terms of quality, the WNBA had the money and the marketing.  The WNBA continues to drag along, despite being a money pit.  The softball league (National Pro Fastpitch) folded, was resurrected, and now plays with only four teams.  I wish both leagues luck.

After 1996, there a lot of talk about a women’s football league, but nothing came of it until 1999.  In 1999, the United States hosted the Women’s World Cup.  It was a chance for the US women to (1) build upon their Olympic success; (2) regain the World Cup title they lost in 1995; and (3) bring football to the hearts and minds of Americans, especially American girls.  Like the WTA pioneers, the US women’s team had take part in a heavy publicity blitz to fill the stadiums, afraid of what failure would mean.  Furthermore, they were up against the jingoistic (“soccer sucks!”), sexist (“who wants to see women play?”), idiotic blabber of the sports media, particularly the established guard who were very protective of so-called American sports.  The tournament was a smashing success.  The stadia were sold-out.  In a filled to capacity Rose Bowl, the US beat China on penalty kicks.

The end of the match gave women’s soccer its one truly iconic moment.  Brandi Chastain, who kicked the winning penalty, ripping off her jersey to reveal her sports bra.  The fact that this moment is so famous, is evidence of a huge double standard.  If a man had done that, no one would have blinked.  In fact, so many men did it, that it is now a punishable offense in men’s football (after Andres Iniesta scored the winning goal at the end of the 2010 World Cup final, he took of his jersey to reveal an undershirt that had a touching message about Daniel Jarque, a former Spanish player who died tragically young.  Iniesta was carded.)  In Chastain’s case, there was undercurrent of accusation: she was trying to sell women’s football by using her sexuality.  The puritanical and salacious media could not get enough of Chastain’s sports bra.  Sports Illustrated, which later named the entire team as Sportswomen of the Year, published its next issue with a picture of a shirtless Chastain on her knees in celebration.  What is most depressing about this whole incident is the resulting belief that women’s football needed to push sex to sell itself.  That match produced high drama, despite–or because of–the 0-0 scoreline.  Additionally, many of the world’s best players were on the field for that match.  The sexist reaction to Chastain’s celebration was a kick in the teeth to the sport, and Chastain was unfairly blamed.

Following the success of the Women’s World Cup, the Women’s United Soccer Association finally came into existence.  The WUSA attracted the best players from around the world.  The women’s national team did as much as they could to push the league, but they ran into the same problem that MLS faces: while Americans care about the national team (which plays sporadically), they are far less inclined to support a national league with a regular schedule.  For MLS, this is frustrating, but not completely unexpected; MLS does not attract the same quality as the top European leagues, and the clubs do not have the same history, which is one of the attractions.  For the women though, low attendance was incredibly disheartening.  Fans could see the best quality league in the world, but they stayed away because they did not want to watch women play.  WUSA suspended operations in 2003, just before the Women’s World Cup began–again in the United States because of the SARS outbreak in China.  The hope was that a successful tournament could restart the WUSA, but the United States lost in the semifinals to Germany and placed 3rd.  The publicity for the tournament was not nearly as comprehensive in 1999 because of the short notice for hosting the tournament, and because since the WUSA season had only recently ended so the National Team could not drum up the same level of grassroots support.  The United States had lost its Olympic title to the hated Norwegians in 2000.  Americans no longer knew how to cheer for the United States squad.  They no longer the dominating winners, but they were also too strong to be underdogs–the two paradigms that Americans love to root for.  For the US Women, the tournament was a failure.

In 2004, United States women’s football regained and lost its footing at the same time.  At the Athens Olympics, the United States again won the gold medal, this time over Brazil (more on them later), thereby regaining the title in one of the two important international competitions.  The victory was bittersweet; the 2004 Olympics was the last tournament for four of the five members of the United States squad’s golden generation who had been with the team since the 1991 World Cup: Mia Hamm, Julie Foudy, Joy Fawcett, and Brandi Chastain.  Only Kristine Lilly played on.   (Brandi Chastain intended to but was forcibly retired by incoming coach Greg Ryan for her role in an insurrection against the previous coach April Heinrichs.  In hindsight, Ryan may have made a mistake.)  Although their retirements were expected, their departures, and especially the loss of Mia Hamm, were painful.  Since 1996, Hamm had been the face of United States Women’s Soccer, both the team and sport.  Ask the average person on the street to name an American squad member, and most likely that person would say Mia Hamm (ask them for a second name, and you might get a blank stare.)

In some ways Hamm was the perfect representative: she was beautiful, modest, and–most importantly in a sports that values goals–she was (and still is) the top international goal scorer, male or female.  In other ways however, Hamm was a horrible choice–she was painfully shy and averse to the limelight.  She adapted as best as she could, and she was a good ambassador for the sport, but it was always somewhat awkward.  This is not a knock against her; Mia Hamm was a football player.  She wanted to be known for her abilities not her celebrity.  That she was (and still is) successfully able to be the face of United States women’s football’s face despite her natural reticence speaks volumes about her character.  A far more serious problem with Hamm though was that, unlike Michelle Akers, she was not a big match player.  The farther the team got in a given tournament (and the more the spotlight shone on her) the more Hamm disappeared and disappointed.  in 1999 she begged the team manager not to make her take a penalty kick in the shootout (she did and she converted it.)  For such a prolific scorer, this is not acceptable.  I do not blame Hamm for the failures of the US Women’s Team and WUSA, but in the long run she may not have been the star that US Soccer wanted.

Following the 2004 Olympics, the United States again dominated all opposition, including new world champion Germany.  But the United States team turned out to be a paper tiger.  While the team’s traditional rivals, Norway and China, faded, new threats emerged– particularly Germany and Brazil.  The latter is a strange case.  With the important exception of China, the most prominent women’s national teams in the world tended to be Northern European and North American.  This is unsurprising as these two regions tend to have a less macho and more egalitarian approach to sports–far more so than say, for example, Latin America or the Middle East.  An added bonus for the United States, Norway, and China is that their women’s teams bring a glory than the far less successful men’s sides have yet to replicate.

Germany and Brazil did not appear overnight.  Both advanced to the latter stages of the World Cup and the Olympics prior to 2003, but they never could make that next step.  For Germany, it was simply a matter of time before they won the World Cup.  Brazil, on the other hand, was something of a surprise.  The Brazilians, for all intents and purposes, do not have a national women’s squad; they have a group of extremely talented players who come together for major tournaments and then go their separate ways.   Everything Brazil achieves is based on pure player talent.  They succeed despite, not because of unit cohesion.  Brazil’s talented squad reached final round of the last World Cup and last two Olympics.  However, their failings as a team prevents them from winning.  This is not the fault of the players, but rather by the design the unthinking, uncaring, and corrupt Brazilian Football Confederation (headed by the infamous Ricardo Teixeira.)

Brazil has produced Marta, unquestionably the world’s top female player and probable future greatest of all time.  Until Marta, female football players, even the best ones, were proficient, but not stylish–there was no female Pele, Maradona, or Cruyff.  Marta was different; she showed that women could also play the beautiful game.  Marta led the Brazil Women’s National Team’s to a 4-0 destruction of the United States in the semifinals of the 2007 World Cup–the worst loss ever inflicted on the Americans.  At 3-0, Marta scored probably the greatest goal in women’s football history.  One of her teammates kicked the ball to Marta.  Marta, facing the touchline, trapped the ball and then volleyed it over her left shoulder and around defender Tina Ellertson.  Marta then ran to her right, around Ellertson, dribbled the ball past defender Cat Whitehill (wrong-footing Whitehill and causing her to stumble), and then rocketed the ball for the goal.  Goalkeeper Briana Scurry caught the ball, but there was too much force on it, and the ball bounced out of her hands and into the goal.  Maradona himself could not have done a better job, and it was a reminder to the purist why he (or she) loves watching football.  The result devastated the United States team; their ugly post-loss infighting became public, and their coach was fired.

I was very torn about this match.  In 2007, the WUSA had already folded, and the WPS was not yet a reality.  As an American I wanted the US to reclaim the World Cup.  However, as a feminist (and a lover of beautiful football), I also rooted for Brazil because of their style.  Moreover, the Brazilians believed that a World Cup win was the only way to promote women’s football in their country–perhaps too optimistic a hope.  Alas, Germany successfully contained Marta and beat Brazil 2-0.  The next year, the Brazilians were frustrated again; they humiliated Germany in the semifinals only to lose the gold to the United States in overtime.

Despite the failings of Brazil, the 2007 World Cup and 2008 Olympics made a star out of Marta.  Arguably, she is now the star of woman’s football.  When the WPS began, the promoters did whatever it took to first bring Marta from her Swedish side Umeå IK, and then use her to promote the league (a la Pele and the NASL.)  Marta was the central player of the LA Sol, and WPS made no secret of making the Sol the flagship side.  Although the Sol dominated the regular season, it lost the play-off championship match to Sky Blue FC.  When the Sol folded, Marta moved to Santa Clara, California and FC Gold Pride.  Again Marta’s team dominated the league and this time won the championship over the Philadelphia Independence (much to the delight of WPS.)  In November 2010, Gold Pride folded.  Now WPS is left with 7 teams, none west of Chicago, and a dismal economic climate.

Regardless of the fate of the WPS, Marta will still have a career.  She has won almost everything there is save for the World Cup and the Olympics.  Marta is beautiful, Brazilian, and multilingual.  She has won a record 4 FIFA World Player of the Year Awards (and maybe a 5th next month.)  Although I cannot say for certain, she seems media-savvy.  Marta may just be the right person in the right place at the wrong time.

V. Conclusion

If the WPS folds, I cannot imagine that there will be a third league–at least not in my lifetime.  That is a shame.  Football is a universal language, and in the women’s game, America is able to offer a distinct voice.  That voice may already be losing volume; the United State team barely qualified for the 2011 World Cup.

Women’s professional sport is at a crossroads.  Although the opportunities have never been better, the public stays away.  The WNBA loses franchise after franchise and many top female basketball players have to play abroad in the off-season.  Softball was unjustly eliminated from the Olympics.  I think there may be a professional women’s hockey league, but who knows?  Even the WTA, the flagship of women’s professional sports, has faltered in the face of mounting injuries to players and a lack of recognizable players not named Williams.

Women’s professional sports have a long way to go.  As women in the workplace know all too well, professional female athletes also have to work harder for less.  Unlike in the workplace, there is no law to prevent gender bias in sustaining sports leagues.  Title IX has done wonders for women’s sport, but Title IX has its limits.  Is it inevitable that all women’s leagues will eventually fold because of lack of interest?  It would be tragic if that turned out to be true, but I fear that the inevitable answer is yes.


* I want to define the term diva, because it is sorely misused in today’s society.  Today any female singer, or, far worse, any female (or gay male) celebrity with an attitude is a diva.  Diva means goddess, and it was originally applied to star operatic sopranos because they (1) played goddesses and heroic figures on stage; (2) had a tremendous amount of talent, polished by years of training that could inspire great emotions in those around them; (3) demanded complete and utter adoration from a cadre of devotees; (4) displayed larger-than-life emotion based around their own egos; and (5) had to fight their way to the top therefore proving, in an almost Darwinian manner, that they were the best of the best.  Although Suzanne Lenglen was not a singer, she fit the diva mold pioneered by the sopranos.

** True story: In 1939, Riggs bet that he would win the singles, doubles, and mixed doubles at Wimbledon.  He did and won over $100,000, which he left in a bank vault in England.  Then Britain declared war on Germany, and Riggs had to wait until the end of the war before he could return for his winnings.

*** Court had disdain for a lot of things, including homosexuality and openly gay players like Martina Navratilova.  She made her bigoted views public after she retired and became a minister.  Court was one of tennis’s top players ever, but that is the only nice thing I will ever say about Court.

Music I listened to: Helen Reddy “I Am Woman”; Odetta “Nobody Knows You When You’re Down and Out”; The Beatles “I’ll Cry Instead”; The Supremes “Save Me a Star”; Josquin des Prez “Motets à la Vierge: Secunda pars”; Peggy Lee “I Enjoy Being a Girl’: Alice Deejay “The Lonely One”; Bob Dylan “I Want You”; Miles Davis “John McLaughlin”; Carole King “Out in the Cold”; Otis Redding “That’s How Strong My Love Is”; Ofra Haza “Giving”; The Carpenters “Johnny Angel”; Louis Armstrong “Way Down Yonder in New Orleans”; Johan Sebastian Bach “Keyboard Partita #3 In A Minor, BWV 827” Gigue; The Beatles “We Can Work it Out”; Ludwig van Beethoven “String Quartet #3 in D Op 18, No 3” Presto; Ella Fitzgerald “You Do Something To Me”; Heart “All I Wanna Do Is Make Love To You”; Jim Croce “New York’s Not My Home”; Sarah Vaughan “That Old Black Magic”; Carole King “Believe in Humanity”; Dmitri Shostakovich “String Quartet #8 In C Minor, Op. 110” Allegretto; Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart “Symphony No. 41 in C Major, K. 551, ‘Jupiter'” Allegro vivace; John Lennon “Woman”; The Carpenters “Only Yesterday”; Johannes Brahms “Waltz in A” Moderato; Giuseppe Verdi “Rigoletto” La donna e mobile; Belle and Sebastian “Waiting for the Moon to Rise”;