And the ESPY goes to....

I think Ion and Cindy have a point. Swimming does get less media coverage than you would expect based on the number of participants. You can argue that swimming simply does not interest many Americans, but that argument does not withstand closer examination. First, there is the claim that fewer people swim than play baseball/basketball, etc. OK, then explain why there are so many fans of these sports who HAVE HARDLY EVER PLAYED THE GAME IN THEIR LIVES! (Or like me, one week each of little league and jr. high football each before I decided these sports were not for me.) I know that there are a lot of golfers out there, many more than swimmers, but enough to justify 3 pro tours (PGA, LPGA and Seniors ) on the TV every single weekend?! And, there is no way you can convince me that any but a handful of people actually do any of those absurd "World's Stongest Man" competitions that fill up all the dead air time on ESPN2. The membership in USA Swimming and USMS (plus maybe some of the kids swimming for their high school, colleges or in YMCA/Summer Rec Leagues) amount to a fairly significant number of people. If it was purely numbers, you would expect an occaisional meet on one of the sports oriented channels. Then there is the fall back argument that the team sports are simply more interesting for a casual fan. There is some truth to that. I'd love to watch all 16 minutes or so of a world class 1500m free, but that is because I have swam the event, and have some notion of the pacing and guts that event takes, same thing to a lesser extent for track events. I don't expect my family, or even my teammates to find that sort of thing interesting. However, why is track & field, which has the same problem as swimming in the U.S., so much more popular in Europe? Why is swimming so popular in Australia? I can buy the idea that more Australians swim, but you can't convince me that those vodka quaffing, Galois smoking Europeans have more people involved in track and field than the U.S. And to finally dismiss this argument, someone explain why water polo is not more popular here. It suffers from an even more profound lack of attention than swimming in the U.S. In terms of being a watchable sport, however, it is much better than soccer: (1) people actually score (!!) a reasonable number of goals, (2) the ball moves from the defensive to the offensive side of play more quickly, although not quite as fast as hockey or basketball (two other similar sports), & (3) it does not suffer from soccer's infuriating offsides rule whose sole purpose seems to be to choke-off any reasonable scoring chance. I neither liked nor appreciated basketball or hockey until after I played some organized water polo. So why can't you EVER catch a water polo game on TV? I think the answer to all these questions is that the sporting, broadcasting, and advertising industries decide what is marketable, and then package it for our consumption. I'm not saying this is a vast conspiracy; I'm just observing it is a big, self-reinforcing loop. Because people have historically watched the "big 4" sports in the U.S. and Canada (which includes college footbal and basketball, but not hockey or baseball; explain that as anything other than a historic circumstance), the networks will show their games, which will interest the advertisers as a way to sell their products, which will generate ad revenue, which will cause the advertisers to demand more of the same because it is a "proven" medium, and the cycle reinforces itself. In France they watch the Tour de France; in Brazil it's soccer; in Australia it's swimming; and in the U.S. it's the "big 4." We see what we see because a cadre of professional sports writers and network producers have a consensus of opinion that football matters 24/7, but swimming only for one week every 4 years. Now having said that, should we swimmers launch a crusade to get our sport more media coverage? I think the answer to that is mostly no we shouldn't. Would some more media coverage help us increase our membership which would allow us to have bigger and better events, and incidentally offer to more people a wonderful form or exercise for any age? Sure! But, that is well short of turning into the next NBA, or even the next WNBA (which became what it is because the NBA put its reputation, contacts, advertisers, and financial reserves behind it, not because women's professional basketball became more worthy as a sport or more watchable than it has been already for the last several decades). Does swimming get slighted by the sports media? Sure does. However, that is a different question than whether we can do something about it, and if we can would that necessarily be a good thing. Let's use media attention as a tool, not an end, and let's be realistic about why the media pays attention to certain sports. Matt

I think Ion and Cindy have a point. Swimming does get less media coverage than you would expect based on the number of participants. You can argue that swimming simply does not interest many Americans, but that argument does not withstand closer examination. First, there is the claim that fewer people swim than play baseball/basketball, etc. OK, then explain why there are so many fans of these sports who HAVE HARDLY EVER PLAYED THE GAME IN THEIR LIVES! (Or like me, one week each of little league and jr. high football each before I decided these sports were not for me.) I know that there are a lot of golfers out there, many more than swimmers, but enough to justify 3 pro tours (PGA, LPGA and Seniors ) on the TV every single weekend?! And, there is no way you can convince me that any but a handful of people actually do any of those absurd "World's Stongest Man" competitions that fill up all the dead air time on ESPN2. The membership in USA Swimming and USMS (plus maybe some of the kids swimming for their high school, colleges or in YMCA/Summer Rec Leagues) amount to a fairly significant number of people. If it was purely numbers, you would expect an occaisional meet on one of the sports oriented channels. Then there is the fall back argument that the team sports are simply more interesting for a casual fan. There is some truth to that. I'd love to watch all 16 minutes or so of a world class 1500m free, but that is because I have swam the event, and have some notion of the pacing and guts that event takes, same thing to a lesser extent for track events. I don't expect my family, or even my teammates to find that sort of thing interesting. However, why is track & field, which has the same problem as swimming in the U.S., so much more popular in Europe? Why is swimming so popular in Australia? I can buy the idea that more Australians swim, but you can't convince me that those vodka quaffing, Galois smoking Europeans have more people involved in track and field than the U.S. And to finally dismiss this argument, someone explain why water polo is not more popular here. It suffers from an even more profound lack of attention than swimming in the U.S. In terms of being a watchable sport, however, it is much better than soccer: (1) people actually score (!!) a reasonable number of goals, (2) the ball moves from the defensive to the offensive side of play more quickly, although not quite as fast as hockey or basketball (two other similar sports), & (3) it does not suffer from soccer's infuriating offsides rule whose sole purpose seems to be to choke-off any reasonable scoring chance. I neither liked nor appreciated basketball or hockey until after I played some organized water polo. So why can't you EVER catch a water polo game on TV? I think the answer to all these questions is that the sporting, broadcasting, and advertising industries decide what is marketable, and then package it for our consumption. I'm not saying this is a vast conspiracy; I'm just observing it is a big, self-reinforcing loop. Because people have historically watched the "big 4" sports in the U.S. and Canada (which includes college footbal and basketball, but not hockey or baseball; explain that as anything other than a historic circumstance), the networks will show their games, which will interest the advertisers as a way to sell their products, which will generate ad revenue, which will cause the advertisers to demand more of the same because it is a "proven" medium, and the cycle reinforces itself. In France they watch the Tour de France; in Brazil it's soccer; in Australia it's swimming; and in the U.S. it's the "big 4." We see what we see because a cadre of professional sports writers and network producers have a consensus of opinion that football matters 24/7, but swimming only for one week every 4 years. Now having said that, should we swimmers launch a crusade to get our sport more media coverage? I think the answer to that is mostly no we shouldn't. Would some more media coverage help us increase our membership which would allow us to have bigger and better events, and incidentally offer to more people a wonderful form or exercise for any age? Sure! But, that is well short of turning into the next NBA, or even the next WNBA (which became what it is because the NBA put its reputation, contacts, advertisers, and financial reserves behind it, not because women's professional basketball became more worthy as a sport or more watchable than it has been already for the last several decades). Does swimming get slighted by the sports media? Sure does. However, that is a different question than whether we can do something about it, and if we can would that necessarily be a good thing. Let's use media attention as a tool, not an end, and let's be realistic about why the media pays attention to certain sports. Matt