What Happened to Sports Illustrated (for Women)?
Jun 29th, 2008 by mhueter
When I was younger, I was an avid reader of Sports Illustrated for Women. To my recent surprise, I visited the SI for Women Web site and was shocked at what I found. This message from the editor:
“It is with especially deep sadness that we tell you the bad news: The December 2002 issue will be Sports Illustrated Women’s last. These are tough times for a new magazine, and sometimes even loyal readers aren’t enough to make the numbers add up.”
This really saddens me. The magazine only lasted two years, running from March 2000-Nevember 2002. Its primary audience, according to Wikipedia, was women, 18-34 years old, with “a passion for sports.”
What’s even more interesting to me, is that in 2002, Cleary Simpson the then-publisher for SI Women claimed that the lack of readership (and eventual failure of the magazine) is largely due to the fact that, “women are more interested in sports as participants than fans, unlike men.”
Another problem, they claim, is that women’s interest is “fragmented” across a wide variety of sports (such as soccer, tennis or running), with little to bind them as a shared audience.
Personally, I would go as far as to say it’s our cultural values that prevent magazines and publications (as well as some women’s sports) to receive the type of attention they deserve. The primary problem: men aren’t interested (unless the girls are pretty).
It all has to do with advertising, which has everything to do with money, which relates back to what we, as members of a society, deem important enough to invest in.
While our culture values the aggressive, intense competition (and fighting) in sports by men, other values such as sound fundamentals, pure technique and fluid movement (present in women’s sports) are undervalued and deemed less important. In terms of fans, we as women are incredibly left behind.
Think about it: when do you see the top female athletes? Many times, it’s in advertisements, such as models for athletic apparel.
Take for instance Dara Torres, who, while incredibly performing in the Olympic Trials at the age if 41,is also known for her swimsuit modeling on the side. Why? Think: money. Torres is often singled out for her beauty, as she was the first female athlete to appear in the Sports Illustrated (for men) Swimsuit Issue.
Another example is Lisa Leslie of the LA Sparks. When was the last time you saw her perform on TV? When was the last time you saw her in a Got Milk ad, or on a billboard somewhere? Most likely you’d suggest the latter, as she is widely known as the “face” of women’s basketball as a Wilhemina model. But what about her being the most dominant player in the WNBA? Where did that news go?
Leslie (and Torres) make their bucks as a models, not as a top performers, and this (again) relates back to what we as a society value more in a woman: athleticism or beauty? At the end of the day, we’re still a society who’d rather have our girls look good than perform great on the playing field.
Yes, as I said in my post about Title IX, there are (thank God) more opportunities for women to play, and we have come along way in almost 40 years, but we’re still not there.
We can’t even get a Sports Illustrated magazine to be successful. And part of it is our fault. I mean, to be honest, we don’t really have time to sit around and be fans of our sports. Instead, we’re out there trying to make it in corporate America, or we’re spending our free time trying to look good. Some of us are trying to raise families, make dinner, and get the kids back and forth from their sports. A lot of us spend our free time working out in the gym to stay in shape. Few of us have time to be fans of our sports. And that’s another huge reason as to why we can’t get SI for Women to be successful. And my fear is we never will have that time. That is, unless, our culture starts shifting its values.
As someone who now falls into the age category of what would be the readership for SI for women, I say it’s time we call the magazine and request its reappearance, at least on the Web. (These days print magazines aren’t generating the readership revenue they had in the past, largely due to blogs such as mine.) We need more coverage of women’s sports. I mean, seriously, if a 10-year-old girl loves women’s sports, where do we tell them to go read about it? There is a lack here. We need to know what’s being accomplished, and how great our girls are doing on the playing fields of America (and the world).
Until then, girls, we’ll continue to balk at the yearly Swimsuit Issue of Sports Illustrated (for men) — that is, unless one of our stellar athletes is pretty enough to make it on the cover.
Loading ...
Crazy that I happened upon this blog entry (via heractivelife.com), as I just had this conversation with a journalist and his photographer colleagues at dinner last Sunday. My thoughts were along the same line as yours: that society plays a large role in this issue. I too was saddened when I started receiving Health magazine instead of SI for Women as a teenager. Who needs another magazine on doing crunches and losing weight? What about being strong? What about working out for better performance, not for a better body?
Ideas started swimming in my head when you said “I say it’s time we call the magazine and request its reappearance, at least on the Web”. I’m a web developer (see http://steeplechics.com), so I could help out on this. We should stay in touch and do some brainstorming.
Ann
Great! TOTALLY agree! Let’s get some other women’s sports bloggers to jump on board with this. If anyone is interested in talking more about this, please feel free to comment and I’ll contact you.
I started to take ‘Women’s Sports’ back in the eighties, just as it was becoming ‘Women’s Sports and Fitness’, and I still miss that and would love to see it back. It had been started by Billie Jean King in 1974 and was regarded as the magazine of the Women’s Sports Foundation, but it lost its way, in my opinion, and was evetually absorbed into Conde Nast’s ‘Sports for Women’ in 1998. I enjoyed it more than ‘SI for Women’ personally, but the problem of a magazine covering women’s sports, which some of us still want, remains. I wish the WSF would produce something these days but I suppose they have other priorities.
Just to make another point about the article, the first attempt at a ‘SI for Women’ was in 1997, when two issues of ‘Sports Illustrated Women’s Sport’ were published, the first of these featuring a pregant Sheryl Swoopes in her Comets uniform. Then it took 1998 off, and returned in 1999, not 2000, running until December 2002 as you said. For some reason the first two issues were never aknowledged on the ‘SI for Women’ website, although at least one article from one of them was included in a Best American Sportswriting volume for that year.
Although there have been several attempts at producing a women’s sports magazine, ‘Women’s Sports’ has to be the grandmother of them all lasting 24 years in total and effectively spanning eras. The trend is definately web rather than paper publishing though and and I can’t see any of these titles making a comeback, however much some of us may want them.