But the real thrust of the commercial is Nike making an every-chemical-in-the-cupboard approach to removing the tarnish from the LeBron James Brand.

For those of you who’ve missed out, the athletic apparel company in its full high-gloss brilliance opens on James back in his familiar school gym setting, wearing the same clothes he wore during his infamous ESPN Decision special that marks the seminal moment he went from the face of the league, to its pariah. Also in the commercial are a series of hypothetical scenarios involving the current and possible future state of his reputation (no one shows up to his Hall of Fame induction ceremony, he quits basketball and moves to television, etc.) all while the phrase “what should I do?” is repeated ad nauseum.

As a commercial, it plays just too damn cynical. As if filming a multi-million dollar mea culpa designed to ensure the company still gets paid is all the James naysayers needed to rejoin the bandwagon. And for those who never left the bandwagon? Well, they probably liked those awful Nike puppet commercials too.

As an advertising tactic, however, Nike has taken a step into a whole new realm this year. The company has made its fortune on hand-picking the best athletes in the country and illuminating each of them as being wholly special. The danger is, and always has been, what happens when these imperfect people do something imperfect enough that it can’t be ignored? Nike’s answer has become to halt the sale of apparel and to produce 60-second, million-dollar public relations pieces that play like public service announcements. If any politician in any realm of government ever got his hands on Nike’s ad department, there wouldn’t be an election he or she couldn’t win.

Earlier this year, Nike spin doctored the insanity coming from Tiger Woods‘ Thanksgiving drive into a light pole and the ensuing sewage that erupted from that incident by producing a well-received ad of Woods – alone – listening to the voice of his dead father. The piece was clearly saying, “we all make mistakes, it’s not too late to turn things around.” Added to which the only sound in the spot is of a Woods’ father, a known-philanderer, the audience is supposed to be reminded that even the monster that is Tiger Woods has a family. He’s only human.

Woods’ spot, just like James,’ is more intriguing than entertaining and only intriguing when you consider the motivation of the ad men who work for Phil Knight. Nike used to have its finger on a certain pulse of its demographic. When it produced Charles Barkley’s “I’m Not A Role Model” spot in 1993 (James winks at this spot in his current ad – another example of Nike’s self-referential cynicism) it struck a chord with audiences because Barkley was a role model despite his reputation for being tough and ornery. The difference between that commercial 17 years ago and a commercial with Barkley, say, last year after getting pulled over for drunk driving is that Barkley had never done anything that the public perceived as being bad. The Woods and James spots are apologies, not warnings. Not statements. Not even clear ownership of who these individuals are.

In the end, it all strikes me as infuriating. Nike is willing to acknowledge that their poster boys do bad things, but not that, perhaps, they shouldn’t be poster boys. This isn’t a judgment call on either athlete – or any athlete facing similar backlash – I don’t really care about James and anyone who thinks Tiger Woods hasn’t paid for his actions is out of his mind. But when a company like Nike begins airing its damage control over and over (and if you watch as much basketball as I do, over and over and over  and over), one can’t help but wonder if someone shouldn’t be producing PR ads for Nike. After all, they branded James and Woods (and, oh yeah, sexual harasser Brett Favre, accused rapist Kobe Bryant and dog-lover Michael Vick) in the first place.

LeBron James is as poor a reflection on Nike as on LeBron James and as uninterested as I am in apologies from fools and louts, I’m even less interested in pleas from multi-billion dollar corporations to continue increasing their net growth disguised as an apology.

_________________

Here’s a recap of the weirdest or most overlooked sports stories on the Interweb this week. Plus, as you’ve come to expect, the second-worst anti-drug campaign ever, behind Alex Rodriguez’s World Series title.

Monday If your lady says no to these high-heeled Jordans, well then, she’s not much of a lady is she? Basketball
Tuesday Just when you thought maybe there was a little skill involved in bowling after all, may I introduce you to the remote control ball? Bowling
Wednesday I was just thinking that I wish more polar bears were involved in the torch relay. Then – BOOM – Manitoba happened. Olympics
Thursday To be fair to Rasheed, if I had a friend with a fake leg, I’d play keep-away with it too. (1:30 mark) Basketball
Friday Can the disabled athletes become the too-abled? Or as I like to call them: robots? Track & Field
Saturday This Kansas fan hasn’t missed a home game since 1972 or a road game since 1973. That’s about the last time he was in a healthy relationship too. College Football
Sunday I’m surprised no one did cartwheels after the team actually won. I’m also surprised anyone still likes soccer. Soccer
Eighth Day This animated short about Doc Ellis’ LSD no-hitter is better than anything else you’ll do in the next five minutes. Baseball

Here’s a recap of the weirdest or most overlooked sports stories on the Interweb this week. Plus, as you’ve come to expect, Steve Nash’s wife is suddenly having second thoughts.

Monday Nice try, but everyone knows neon orange jumpsuits are not acceptable in match play. Tennis
Tuesday Adidas and Nike poised for battle in Central Florida. Totally saw this coming. College Basketball
Wednesday Ain’t it time to learn you some facts about this business of officiating? Officiating
Thursday The WTA’s No. 6-ranked Caroline Wozniacki displayed some class, and therefore has her integrity investigated. Tennis
Friday When the dust settles, perhaps Deadspin.com’s attack on ESPN was the best thing the site could have done. Sports Gossip
Saturday Ease up on the hyperbole surrounding Saturday’s Machida-Rua fight or it’ll be the worst decision you’ll ever make in your lifetime EVER. MMA
Sunday McGwire is St. Louis’ hitting coach. Who better to illustrate a proper power swing and undetectable needle marks? Baseball
Eighth Day You’ll never stop staring at Steve Nash’s face. Basketball

Let us establish first and foremost that what Michael Vick was found guilty and sentenced to two years in prison for (the organization of a dog fighting ring along with brutal torture of losing animals) was wrong, immoral and generally disgusting. It’s not funny or a matter to be taken lightly in any way. Anyone guilty of a similar crime in the future should be punished within the full extent of the law.

Got all that? Good. Now let’s talk about our treatment of Mr. Vick from here on out.

Last week, Vick’s agent claimed his client had just signed a deal with Nike. Within hours, the vitriol came full blush from the thousands of vocal detractors he’s developed in the last few years. The bile grew acidic enough that Nike was compelled to deny the agent’s claims. Nike said it only supplied the disgraced superstar with gear (read: Nike was sniffing around the idea of signing the still-popular Vick, then panicked at the backlash and decided he wasn’t worth it).

Certainly, there’d be no shortage of people who would see Vick’s lack of endorsements as all too justified. Those people will never believe the man can be punished enough. The guy tortured dogs, killed ‘em and profited from it. But you know what else he did? Time. He languished in jail as his reputation was dogged (pun!) and the millions he was promised from endorsements all went to the dogs too (pun again!).

To those people I ask what is a just punishment for Vick? And from here on, what do you suggest he do?

Let’s take the last question first. What should Vick do now? He’s been under a microscope – not only while in jail and house arrest – but ever since he returned to the NFL. And what missteps has he taken? He’s admitted publicly to his wrongdoing. Said he fully regretted his actions. He’s gone on numerous forums to speak out against animal cruelty. He hasn’t caused a stir among his teammates in Philadelphia or in the press. He’s been humble and above all else – quiet. What else can people ask of him? They could ask that he donate his money to anti-cruelty animal organizations, but he has no money. He lost millions. He’s trying to find a way to escape the debt he’s developed since his incarceration (another manner in which he’s paid for his crime). Perhaps it won’t always be this way, but for now Vick can’t afford to donate money to … anything.

“Good,” many of you will respond. “I hope that monster dies millions of dollars in debt.” And this response brings us to that first question: What would have been a just punishment for Michael Vick’s crimes? If two years in jail, sudden financial instability and a permanently crippled reputation wasn’t a meaty enough sentence, what would be?

Wait. Before you answer, let me counter-argue the point you haven’t yet made. I’m referring to the sweetness and innocence of the dogs Vick helped torture. Murder in any form is unimaginable. But can we not agree that there is a hierarchy of murder and that humans – not dogs – are at the top of it?

In the end, we’re just talking about dogs. Wait (again). Let me put on my athletic supporter before I continue this paragraph. I know how much people love dogs. But should Vick have been tried as if he was running a human-fighting ring? Had Vick been caught cockfighting or forcing birds to peck at one another, there’s no way Michel Vick would have been seen as the neanderthal beastmaster he’s seen as today. Society’s love for dogs, even beat-up pitbulls, is what has shaped the perception surrounding him. If we’re going to put dogs on the same hierarchical plain as humans, it would mean that the next time you run over your neighbor’s Labradoodle backing out of the driveway, you’ve got a manslaughter charge coming your way. Is that fair?

That eye rolling from you, dear reader, no doubt stems from my audacity at comparing the mutilation and eventual murder of pets to a hypothetical accident. And undoubtedly, most of you would stop just short of having dogs ranked on the same level as humans in court. Just as most of you would have Vick’s sentence stop just short of the death penalty for his actions. So what should it be? No money, no more football, must dedicate the remainder of his life to the care and keeping of animals? That sound about right?

Then what was his time in jail all about? Why are so many people unwilling to let him remove the scarlet letter? How can so many deride Vick for his cruelty while simultaneously refusing to keep their own cruelty in check? Either he’s paid his dues or he hasn’t. If he hasn’t, then your resentment should be leveled against the U.S. justice system, not Vick. And if you believe he’s paid his dues than that belief must necessarily be all-encompassing or it’s a lie to call it a belief in the first place. He’s done his time, paid his price and if there are teams that want to pay him a salary or corporations that want him to be the face of their brand then now, after two years, then they are his for the taking.

You don’t have to like it, but trying to convince others that it’s wrong is more of a blight against your moral compass than the society you’re living in.

Ask yourself if you believe Michael Vick – given the opportunity – would ever fight dogs again. If you believe that he wouldn’t, isn’t that result the purpose of paying a penance in the first place? Hasn’t the effect Vick’s last two years has had on him yielded the best results one could hope for?

Expecting additional restitution for a crime he’s already squared off the books speaks more to our inability to forgive than it does to Vick’s inability to reform.

Take a look at this cross-trainer. You like this cross-trainer? They’re New Balances. I’m pretty sure Bea Arthur used to wear New Balances before she passed. Maybe David Duchovny. Sting, perhaps. I’m not sure exactly. But there’s something you should know about these particular New Balances before you go out and try to get the new “Arthurs.”

The Massachusetts-based shoe company scraped each and every one of these “574 Clips” shoes off the floor of their production factory. Gray pig suede and swatches of material left over from nicer, newer shoes that cool people like David Duchovny are walking around in.

It’s like if your dentist collected all the food he picked out of your teeth during a cleaning and sold them to you for lunch today. Yeah, gross. I know. That face you’re making after reading that last sentence is exactly the face one should make at the thought of paying $75 for a shoe that belongs on the Island of Misfit Toys.

How can New Balance get away with the 574 Clips collection? Well, for starters, they’re going after the hipster / environmentalist / shoe-collector demographic (oh, that ol’ group!) by launching a website with 480 short videos, each spotlighting an individual pair of shoes in the collection. As neat and original as that sounds, let’s not stop being angry just yet. Let’s think back to the sloppy production methods that allowed these Frankenshoes to come into existence in the first place. And then to have the gall to charge $75 dollars for such a creature. Who does New Balance think they are? Nike? And don’t get me started on pig suede, which sounds as delightful as ostrich burgers, but are probably an equally poor replacement for cow meat.

Also, the shoe is called the 574. Yet there are 480 stories on their website. Where are the other 94 stories? New Balance must be a mess. First they overestimate how much material to use on their new shoes, then they underestimate the amount of scraps available for their old shoes.

“We wanted to find a way to make each shoe extra special,” said the creative directors of the company in charge of making the short videos. “We did this by creating 480 stories for 480 shoes, shooting people and places across the country. We were there for 443/480′s entrance into the world. We screamed with 298/480 throughout its first roller coaster. We held 016/480′s laces as it raced in an ambulance. We even had to chase a zebra to get 002/480 back.”

Whoa. How’d that zebra get ahold of those shoes? That’s crazy. I mean … that’s lame. Who cares about zebras?

Oh, who am I kidding? These things are awesome. I wonder if pig suede comes in cornflower blue. Are environmentalist hipsters into cornflower blue?

_______________________________________

Photo courtesy of www.newbalance.com

Remember when the color red used to signify passion? Perhaps war? Blood, if you’re into specifics? Well take some photos of all that and put ‘em in a scrapbook, because — yes, pictures of red things. No, I don’t know specifically what you should photograph. It was more of a pithy introduction to the blog than an actual suggestion. Besides, I’m the warning guy, not the idea guy. How you take pictures is your problem, but you should do it quickly because Nike is co-opting one of our most beloved colors. Any minute now, Nike’s going to change the way we think about red.

They’ve already started. You’ve already fallen victim. And it’s only going to get worse.

There aren’t too many corporations that have the power to change the public perception of an entire color and even fewer of those corporations that would have any desire to. With Nike, they’re working on a Pavlovian branding tactic. You see red, you think Nike. Not ketchup. Not Corvettes. Not Twizzlers. Not AIDS. Nike.

Serena Williams' U.S. Open 2008 Day Dress. Which, for our color blind readers, is red.

By now most people have identified Tiger Wood‘s “Sunday Red.” It used to be that if you saw Tiger wearing red (pictured above), it wasn’t long until he’d be winning something. Since Tiger has taken the last 15 months off (one way or the other) it’s become clear that Nike has started absorbing additional athletes into its crimson tide. Former tennis champ Maria Sharapova can be seen modeling any number of Nike sweatshirts (also pictured above), the most circulated of these ads featuring the Sharapova Supernova in a brilliant carmine hoodie. Then there’s Roger Federer‘s duds for the U.S. Open, which looked as if smaller, Swiss-y shirts were were made from Tiger’s used Sunday reds (I don’t mean to insult your intelligence by telling you that Federer, too, is pictured above, but I’ve got to make sure we’re covered). Roger Federer? Red. Soccer star Cristiano Ronaldo? Red. Serena Williams? Last year’s U.S. Open dress was widely publicized … red. Dwyane Wade just jumped shipped from Converse (bought by Nike) to Nike’s Jumpman 23 campaign. So, in keeping with the stylistic theme I’m going with here: Dwyane Wade of the Miami Heat? Red (sometimes). Dwyane Wade when he signs with the Bulls next season? Red. Oh, and that Jumpman 23 campaign? That’s Michael Jordan. Bulls again. That’s red. LeBron James? Wine colored. Which we can agree is in the red family, especially when everything else surrounding him is in black and white. And make no mistake, there will be some stars signed by Nike that simply won’t be able to fit red into their on-field color scheme (Lance Armstrong, Troy Polamalu, Derek Jeter, etc.), but then I’d like to direct you to every other commercial Nike has ever done: no color at all.

It’s not that Nike will control how red is used in everyday life, it’s that it’ll soon control how we think of red in everyday life. Soon ketchup will remind us all of Sharapova’s animalistic grunts (if it doesn’t already) and cherry Starbursts will make us recall how sweet it is to be Ronaldo (as should be the intended result of all candies).

You watch. Nike’s not zeroing in on red, it’s using red to zero in on us and all I’ve got is my double-knit, flat-backed mesh red workout shirt to use as a shield.

After winning Wimbledon two weeks ago, 15-time Grand Slam champ Roger Federer was given a timely spot from Nike congratulating their endorsement face of men’s tennis using other such Nike stars as John McEnroe, Pete Sampras, Serena Williams, Tiger Woods and Michael Jordan. The “Love Fifteen” campaign is also a nod to a 2007 ad that highlighted Federer’s background and early life. Both commercials are just two instruments in the symphony orchestra that has been Nike’s athletic commercials in the last 20 years. So because it’s the slowest part of the year and because I feel like it, let’s look back at Nike’s 10 best commercials.

Click the pics after the jump.

10. “Chicks Dig the Longball” (1996)

This ad solidifies Greg Maddux as the best geek-pitcher in baseball history. I’m hoping Tom Glavine at least felt a little uncomfortable asking his teammate if he’s “getting bigger” while naked in the sauna.

.

09. “Enjoy the Weather” (2001)

How did no one bring up this commercial after Lance Armstrong said Stage 7 of this year’s Giro d’Italia was way too dangerous? Woulda been ballsy.

.

.

08. “Bo Don’t Know Diddley” (1989)

Someone forgot to send the Great One the memo about not being racist in Nike ads. If Bo can hit a 95 mph fastball, uh, I’m pretty sure he can skate Wayne. Racist.

.
.

07. “Defy” (2006)

This spot best captures Nike’s ability to also illustrate moments in sports and not just the players within them. Here is a collection of athletes suspended in mid-air at different times in different sports.

.
.

06. “Leave Nothing” (2007)

Quick! Name a more intense commercial. You can’t do it. Now take a deep breath and take a guess whether Steven Jackson makes it across the goal line.

.

.
.

05. “The Spike & Mike Show” (1987)

When you think of Nike, you think of my main man, Michael Jordan. And a lot of why you think of him was because of everybody between ages six and 56 repeating the mantra: “Money, it’s gotta be the shoes!” Still the best pair of Jordans Nike ever made.

.
.

04. “Fenway’s Generations” (2004)

This spot, which was shot and edited in one day, brings a familiar idea into a timely and visually interesting ad. Alas, Nike gets docked a few points for inadequately representing how obnoxious Sawx fans have become over the last few decades.

.

.

03. “Huarache 2K4 Evolution” (2004)

I don’t remember seeing this on television, but it’s possible I just blocked it out of my memory because I hate sandals (especially when they’re from South America) and I just mistook this look at the Huarache evolution as something benign. It’s not, it’s mesmerizing, which is hard to gleam from a sandal.

.

02. “Let Your Game Speak” (2006)

Easily Nike’s most cleverly executed spot. It shows off a culmination of everything Nike has learned to do well: Promote a top athlete, subtly orchestrate a viewpoint, encapsulate small moments of sports, while simultaneously adding to the mystique of those moments … plus maximum use of slow motion.
.

01. “Trick Shot” (1999)

The beauty of this ad is that it’s all Tiger Woods. It’s not clever, it’s not moving and it’s not slick … because it doesn’t have to be any of those things. An Nike knew that, because Nike is the Tiger Woods of athletic-wear. Now do you get it? See? They belong together.

_____________________________________

All screenshots courtesy of YouTube

]]> http://blog.sportscape.tv/2009/07/18/the-10-best-nike-commercials-of-all-time/feed/ 0 http://blog.sportscape.tv/2009/07/15/why-are-womens-sports-failing/ http://blog.sportscape.tv/2009/07/15/why-are-womens-sports-failing/#comments Wed, 15 Jul 2009 16:59:15 +0000 Adam http://blog.sportscape.tv/?p=1336 This post does not suggest that women don't have a place in professional sports. It does ask what exactly that place is, especially given sports' current climate.]]>

This post does not suggest that women don’t have a place in professional sports. It does ask what exactly that place is, especially given sports’ current climate.

What is this climate I speak of? Well, the six women pictured above are considered among the best in their particular sports and most people can’t name half of them. Can you? I bet you can’t. And that’s the climate of women’s sport; a climate in which fans may have accepted female athletes, but haven’t come close to accepting the leagues and organizations in which they play.

Let’s see if we can’t figure out some of the reasons.

We’ll spend little time discussing those female athletes that have proven marketable. We all know players Gabrielle Reece, Mia Hamm and the highest earning female athlete, Serena Williams have been able to mix elements of skill, personality and physical beauty into a packaged persona that more defies each of their sports rather than defines it. It’s important to note that most of these athletes are marketed as individuals. Few female athletes on team sports have endorsement deals.

Recently NBA commissioner David Stern announced that his league failed to turn an overall profit in 2009 and that the WNBA was far more profitable. But considering Stern’s funhouse definition of “profitable” is breaking even, his claim lacks accuracy. The WNBA, in its 13 years, has gone down in yearly attendance five more times than it has gone up. Since 1997, the average attendance of a game has fallen 19.6 percent and teams like the Phoenix LifeLock Mercury and Indiana Fever are selling off pounds of their corporate flesh in order to gain sponsorship and stay afloat. The league isn’t growing. And in sports terms, if you’re standing still, you’re going backwards.

The leading mixed martial arts promotion, UFC, started as a messy $2 million business in 2001, five years after the WNBA. Doggedly fighting for recognition by the same mainstream media who also ignored the WNBA, UFC has become a $1 billion force, despite hustling in the same economic environment as lady hoops. How? Because the UFC marketed their legitimate fighting organization the only way they could: bu spotlighting the fact that they have he entertainment value of fake wrestling like WWE … except that it’s real. So when sponsors and fans alike asked, “why should I watch you when I already watch boxing and pro wrestling?” UFC was able to illustrate the niche they had carved out.

Women’s sports, including the WNBA, haven’t come close to articulating (or even identifying) their niche.

When an individual player gets singled out in ads, it’s because that athlete is special. Women’s athletic promotions have followed this same logic, but it’s backfired in many ways.  At some point, marketing whiz-bangs owe it to their clients to admit that some marketable female athletes are not as athletically talented as their male counterparts.

I know, I know. Boo on me. There’s a neon pink elephant in the room that no one was gonna mention, but I went and ruined it. Well tough, I’m tired of the room smelling like the zoo, okay? Campaigns like “They’re Better Than You Think” or Nike’s “It’s a Skills Thing” campaign are certainly pro-female athletes, but don’t address what about female athletics are failing to draw audiences and therefore serve the same ends as an anti-female athletics ad. Again, there is a differene between marketing women and marketing women’s sports. Nike is right, it is a skills thing. But that works against most female sports, because if a women’s skills allowed her to play with the men, she would. They know that. We know that. Nike knows that. Even your grandma knows that and she’s half senile. So when sports fans think about any specific women’s league, most think that it is of lesser quality than the male version of that sport. And if enough people think that for long enough, your league is doomed to go the way of Olympic softball, or the WUSA.

This isn’t like baseball’s Negro Leagues in the early 20th Century, where great players were not allowed to play against the established best. When athletes like Michelle Wie or Danica Patrick compete with the top male athletes in their profession, the media gives them an (over)abundance of positive attention. It’s unfair to say they aren’t given a chance.

In 1995, Nike launched the “Let Me Play” campaign in which pre-teen girls in non-athletic surroundings look into the camera and say things like, “If you let me play, I’ll be 60 percent less likely to get breast cancer” or “if you let me play I’ll have more self-confidence.” And this is where mixed marketing messages are ruining women’s sports. Does anyone cheer for Tom Brady so that his confidence is raised? Ben Roethlisberger maybe, but not Brady. Sports fans don’t want to be doing athletes a favor. Who’s entertaining who here? Sports are about competition; who’s better, faster, stronger. Ask yourself, why would you spend your time focusing on a collection of pretty good athletes when the best ones are elsewhere?

If the answers are out there, no advertising corporation has found them yet.

And because most of the largest female sports organizations have settled on positioning themselves as me-too sideshows, advertisers have answered the me-too, with a “no thanks.” Just last week, the president of the LPGA resigned following the association’s top players petitioning for her removal after having done such a horrendous job.

Since 2007, seven events have disappeared from the tour’s schedule, and only 10 title contracts are signed for the 2010 tour. The tour has also lost the backing of major sponsors, and the status of at least three other events for next year remains unclear.

[Carolyn] Bivens, 56, drew criticism from the players because she was unwilling to negotiate with sponsors to lower their costs of putting on tournaments. As a result, many sponsors dropped out of the tour, and players thought the economy was not solely to blame.

And the poor marketing doesn’t end with individuals or sponsors. Even penny-wise decisions are slowly revealing themselves to be pound-foolish over time. Last week, WTA’s former chairman and CEO Larry Scott, stepped down in order to become the commissioner of the NCAA’s Pac-10 conference. In his place is former WTA president, Stacey Allaster. Allaster is generally considered a strong choice based on her past accomplishments. She got the WTA a 40 percent increase in prize money since 2006 partly by expanding the group’s global television imprint. Without downplaying those achievements, or her successful quest to grant equal prize money for men and women in Wimbledon and Roland Garros, these facts don’t paint the whole picture. How did she make these things happen? She increased the amount of events that the top players would have to participate in each year, an effective change that some of those top players have complained about on more than one occasion. I’ll leave it to you to judge whether it’s positive or negative to earn more sponsorship dollars by riding your stars into the ground.

What about all the other female sports? Women’s MMA has two superstars who will fight next month. And who will the winner of that fight face next? No clue, because there are no other strong contenders with much experience. What about the newly formed Women’s Professional Soccer league? Well, hopefully attaching themselves to the MLS (similar to how the WNBA hitches its wagon to the NBA), will stave off the same fate as the $100 million now-defunct WUSA. Or not. And heck, if cheerleading isn’t the most popular high school and college activity for women, it sure is killing the highest percentage of ‘em. But if it’s not considered a sport, what are all those young ladies dying for for?

If women can compete with the best, wonderful. A lot of people will root just as hard (or harder) for those women. But where are they? The Williams sisters? Sure. Who else? Danica Patrick? Maybe eventually. Annika Sorenstam? She’s retired. Rachel Alexandra? She’s a horse, doesn’t count. In the end, every popular sport showcases what fans perceive to be “the best.” And with the exception of sex appeal, none of the major female sports has offered the average fan any reason to tune in. And none of the female leagues need to be told what happens when your fan-driven livelihood ceases to have fans.