In reply to: Woods, Armstrong, Phelps, Jordan, Gretzky..probably Beckham. posted by NDMike2001
If you want to attribute the rise in interest in women's basketball across the board to CC, that's fine by me. That's point can be debated, as I think her popularity has coincided with the beginning of growth of the game, which has had an exponential impact on her interest. But I'm happy to concede it that point.
But arguing that there weren't rising tides from the other athletes is just wrong. A quick google search for example: "In the 1996 season when Woods joined late that year, the total prize money amounted to $101 million; between 1997 and 2008, the total prize money rose by an average of 9.3 percent per year, bringing the PGA Tour’s purse to $292 million by 2008."
Jordan revolutionized an entire culture and industry. His personal brand aside, the growth of NBA revenue and player salaries reflected the kind of growth during Tiger's prime.
I think Clark and Jordan are probably similar insofar as the sport's popularity was ready to embrace their next hero. But guys like Lance and Tiger undoubtedly lifted interest in sports that people just weren't watching.
That was point I was trying to make.
It might be purely anecdotal at this point, but several people I know who got into golf because of Tiger have since moved on. The same with cycling and Lance.
You are correct about Jordan and I concede that point. He might be the one athlete that we can point to as a good baseline for what Clark could be able to do for the women’s game.
Looks like the PGA tour died when Tiger quit playing regularly (his last almost full year was 2017).
And the NBA revenue has grown dramatically since Jordan left. Revenue in 2021 was ~$2.1 billion which steadily rose to ~$8.8billion before covid when it dipped. But by 2023 it was over $10billion.
30 years of growth for each (Tiger joined in 1996) seems pretty permanent, especially compared to something that has happened once.
….introduction into Asia courtesy of Yao Ming and reinforced by the insane popularity of Kobe Bryant. Had they not opened that new market, revenue would have had the exponential growth that they enjoyed.
The NFL is attempting to take a page out of that playbook by aggressively targeting Europe and South America, but the results have been mixed to say the least.
As far as the PGA Tour is concerned, purse values are one way of gauging growth. I don’t think it’s a great way to go about it, but it’s what we have. You can also look at television ratings which have regressed since the height of Tiger’s popularity.
Your post seems to suggest that the increased interest in women's basketball will be sustained. But we don't know that. Which was essentially my point. CC has a lot of pressure on her to sustain the kind of interest that those other generational talents did for long periods of time. But other than the NBA, the interest in those other sports was more about the generational talent than the sport itself, and the interest waned when the greatness did. Although golf revenue has definitely maintained its levels. But viewership and social media is definitely still improved by the mere presence of Tiger.
So the question is whether the WNBA interest will more reflect NBA type growth or women's soccer growth. The latter has been more tied to the greatness of teams/players like Mia Hamm, Carli Lloyd, etc. I haven't followed it closely, but it's my understanding that participation in girls' youth soccer in the US has been on the decline in recent years.