I Spent Four Days Arguing About the USWNT Nike Commercial. Here’s Why That’s Problematic.
The 2019 FIFA Women’s World Cup may be over, but resistance to female athletes remains.
For those of you who missed it, moments after the USWNT won the World Cup, Nike aired a commercial with the following voiceover:
“I…I believe…I believe that…I believe that we…I believe that we will be four-time champions and keep winning until we not only become the best female soccer team, but the best soccer team in the world. And that a whole generation of girls and boys will go out and play and say things like, ‘I want to be like Megan Rapinoe when I grow up,’ and that they’ll be inspired to talk and win and stand up for themselves. And I believe that we will make our voices heard and TV shows will be talking about us every single day and not just once every four years and that women will conquer more than just the soccer field like breaking every single glass ceiling and having their faces carved on Mount Rushmore and they will keep fighting not just to make history but to change it, forever.”
As a former collegiate female soccer player and a current soccer coach I was in a particularly celebratory mood when this commercial played. The USWNT had just won their fourth World Cup title and support for women’s soccer seemed to be at an all-time high. I felt goosebumps on my arms as the voiceover and corresponding soundtrack beat faster and faster ending as these words flashed on the screen: “This team wins. Everyone wins.”
I looked over to a group of friends for emotional validation when one of them burst out laughing and said: “The best soccer team in the world? They can’t even beat a U15 boys’ team. Women will never be better athletes than men. It’s just plain biology.”
Cue four days of angry arguments starting…Now.
In deeper conversations I found out that my friend’s anger stemmed from the fact that the Nike commercial was (in his words): “sending an unfair message to girls and encouraging them to strive for unattainable goals.” He also felt that by making a point to say “the best in the world,” the commercial was intentionally setting up a comparison between men and women meant specifically to antagonize men.
The recent airing of the FIFA Women’s World Cup has renewed an age-old debate about the merits of male versus female athletes. A quick search on Google yields websites like this one which highlights gender differences in order to undermine the USWNT’s cry for equal pay. Overtly defensive online forums like this reddit make a point to both ridicule women’s demand for equal pay while also demeaning female athletic ability by derisively comparing them to younger male athletes. These types of comments are an example of the sexism that still surrounds women’s sports, particularly at the professional level. At the base of this sexism is an assumption regarding biological physical superiority that claims female athletes will never be better than male athletes and therefore are never going to be as fun to watch; and therefore will never garner as many fans; and therefore are not deserving of financial investment; and therefore…you get the point. This basic assumption is at the root of resistance facing professional women’s sports across the board. Sexist commentary on women’s soccer and other female sports in the U.S. (while muffled more than ever before) is just plain incorrect and also misses a much larger point.
Why the argument about biological superiority needs to go away right now:
In 1962 American philosopher Thomas Kuhn published The Structure of Scientific Revolutions which argued that scientific revolutions occurred during periodic paradigm shifts based on acceptance by the scientific community. Kuhn claimed that scientific “findings” were never entirely objective because they required acceptance by subjective human perspectives. Given the data that is available today regarding the physical capabilities of both males and females, I think it’s time for another paradigm shift. So let’s examine what this debate about male biological superiority is all about anyway.
The argument about biological superiority posits that, because men on average are faster and stronger than women, they must be better athletes, and therefore demonstrate inherent biological superiority when compared to women. This long-standing belief, however, is an oversimplification of a much larger body of evidence which actually demonstrates that men and women simply have different physical abilities when it comes to athletic endeavors, some of which give men the edge, and some of which give women the edge. In Playing with the Boys (2008), authors Eileen McDonagh and Laura Pappano provide evidence that demonstrates how higher amounts of estrogen and higher percentages of body fat in females is an advantageous asset in many physical activities. For example, additional body fat on women is a huge advantage for long-distance swimming and cold-weather sports (McDonagh and Pappano 59). Women’s greater percentage of body fat provides better insulation from external temperatures meaning women “lose less water than men and better compensate for exterior temperature effects” (McDonagh and Pappano 53). Higher amounts of estrogen in women result in smaller body temperature changes than men. Women have less functional sweat glands which means they lose less water than men. McDonagh and Pappano explain how these biological differences provide women an edge in endurance sports. In full marathons, for example, women can perform identically to, or outperform, men — and in Boston’s 2003 Marathon the mean running time for the top 207 runners showed women’s times to be nearly five minutes faster than men’s, a mean time of 2:36:55 versus a mean time of 2:41:33 (McDonagh and Pappano 15). McDonagh and Pappano also argue that in ultra-endurance races of fifty-five miles or more, men on average have a harder time keeping up with women (56). This endurance also translates to frequently outperforming men in long-distance swimming events and extreme distance running and cycling events (Schultz 70). In sports such as mountain climbing, fencing, and bowling, there is no measurable difference between the male and female performance, while women’s smaller size and weight actually give them the edge in certain events like “horse racing, equestrian sports, car racing, airplane competition, sailing, and…gymnastics” (McDonagh and Pappano 60). In terms of muscle strength, while male bodies provide opportunities for more muscle, male muscles are not stronger than female muscles. Studies have shown that “measures, including strength relative to cross-sectional area of muscle, reveal that ‘the strength of men and women is nearly equal,’” (McDonagh and Pappano 54) and that “[r]esearch shows women have the same ability as men to increase strength with training” (McDonagh and Pappano 65). McDonagh and Pappano also suggest that a lower center of gravity and added flexibility are additional advantages of female athletes that are oftentimes overlooked (62). The evidence that these authors provide suggests that the female body is uniquely structured to have the athletic edge over men in different ways.
The current structure of major sporting games, however, was designed to capitalize on men’s physiological advantages. As Michael A. Messner notes in Out of Play, we need to “critically [analyze] the fundamental structure and values of men’s sports, rather than uncritically taking it as a standard within which women should strive for equal opportunities” (7). Since most modern sporting events were designed for and by men, it is important to acknowledge how the structure of popular sporting games plays into the perception of male v. female ability. Consider for a moment how different the outcome of a male v. female soccer game would be if it was played in a cold environment and designed to last 8 hours instead of 1.5?
When we think about biology, we must also avoid oversimplification by considering the multiple factors contributing to the definition of this term. As McDonagh and Pappano remind us, “[t]here is no such thing as a pure biological effect, just as there is no such thing as a null environment…The ‘biology’ of any given individual therefore includes genetic, physiological, and hormonal effects as well as environmental, behavioral, and societal influences that shape that individual” (67).
Why the argument about biological inferiority is missing a much larger point:
Scholarly studies (Messner 2007, McDonagh and Pappano 2008, Schultz 2018) dating back to the 1980’s continue to argue that upholding the male body as athletically superior has wide-reaching negative social impacts. As discussed previously, not only does this biological myth fail to adequately capture the nuances of the human body’s physical abilities, it also perpetuates a toxic form of masculinity that is dependent on an inferior “other” to thrive and has been used for centuries to justify the overall subjugation of women.
Challenges to public arenas of male identity, privilege, and power in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s saw men increasingly turning to “physicality and toughness” (Messner 35) to compensate and redefine masculinity, thereby constructing athletics into a “primary masculinity-validating experience” (Messner 35). As sports became a confirmation of male identity, female athletes naturally complicated this gender construction and faced widespread pushback. Messner notes that “female athleticism was viewed as conflicting with the conventional ethos of femininity, thus leading to virulent opposition to women’s growing athleticism” (35). Consider the following quote by Pierre de Coubertin (founder of the modern Olympics) first held in 1896 which demonstrates the historical mindset and foundation of most modern sporting events: “The Olympic Games must be reserved for men…We must continue to try to achieve the following definition: the solemn and periodic exaltation of male athleticism, with internationalism as a base, loyalty as a means, art for its setting, and female applause as its reward.”
Authors such as Messner (2007), Walters (1999), West and Zimmerman (1987), Lorber (1994), and Risman (1998) argue that gender is socially learned and performed rather than naturally inherent. In analyzing the differing athletic performance of boys and girls, research demonstrates a widespread social construction of gender, where girls are affirmed as lesser by parents whose behavior toward their children perpetuate this myth (Messner 16). The sad truth is that most women (myself included) buy into these false narratives and live up to the assumption of limited potential in a negative feedback loop that feeds into, and therefore reinforces, the social model of male physical superiority. This social model, however, has been used for decades to reaffirm women’s inferiority to men and continues to reverberate outside of athletics to dictate widespread social inequality. As McDonagh and Pappano point out: “[a]thletics shape and perpetuate stereotypical gender roles that limit women’s social, economic, and political opportunities, thereby maintaining women’s inequality in American society compared to men” (4).
Examining how biological differences dictate beliefs about physical ability also demonstrates a systematic failure to acknowledge and account for the myriad ways women have been disadvantaged in the realm of sports, athletics, training, and physical development. In the U.S., Title IX was not passed until 1972- a mere 47 years ago- mandating that women get equal opportunity to become involved in athletic programs. Prior and subsequent advances in women’s athletics faced pushback from society in the form of various beliefs regarding women’s capabilities, physical abilities, and place in the male realm of sports. For example, Jaime Schultz writes in Women’s Sports that myths regarding women’s presumed frailty, delicate nature, and childbearing destiny led to widespread belief that playing sports would loosen the uterus and cause women to become sterile (17). Schultz also notes a general concern in the first half of the twentieth century that playing sports would reshape women’s physiques and make them unattractive to men (19). While these beliefs may sound outdated, they are part of the historical foundation upon which a larger social system continues to subjugate women to the status of lesser athlete: less talented, less valued, less deserving of investment. Even today, we fall far short of equal opportunity. In Out of Play Messner acknowledges that “we have not yet achieved anything close to equality in sport. Girls have an expanding array of opportunities to play sports, but sometimes the coaching they receive is substandard…[i]n middle schools and high schools, girls still too often have substandard athletic facilities…funding for recruitment, scholarships, and ongoing support of women’s athletic teams lags far behind that of men’s teams…only about 6% of…sports news time is devoted to coverage of women’s sports…only about 2% of ESPN’s popular sports highlights…is devoted to coverage of women’s sports…the dominant cultural imagery…in the mass media…is still men’s sports” (Messner 2–3). In addition, female athletes continue to face overt sexualization of their sporting performances. This type of sexualization occurs at all levels of sports coverage from camera angles, to uniform requirements, to photos, commentary, and media articles, and both demeans and diminishes women’s skills and abilities as athletes. Costa et al. points out in Women and Sport that “[t]elevised sports consistently present women as a form of “sexualized comic relief,” and that “[o]ften the photos and their accompanying text convey mixed messages about women athletes, once again undercutting women’s athletic ability with references to their appearance” (351).
Unlike the current world of male sports, which has been cultivated by social and political power structures since the early 1900’s, female athletes can’t just immediately step into an existing structure that is already designed to foster and encourage their growth on a national or international level. Women are tasked with building and developing that infrastructure while shouldering the typical demands of a professional athlete. Women players face an uphill battle in the form of sexism and misogyny worldwide, lower pay, lesser facilities, and lesser investment in promotion, advertising, and air time. Current professional women’s sporting leagues in the U.S. are so recently founded it’s almost shocking. The current professional women’s basketball league (WNBA) was founded in 1996, while the current professional women’s soccer league (NWSL) was established in 2012. Even more recently, the National Women’s Hockey League (NWHL) was established in 2015. All these leagues have failed precursor leagues; all these leagues have voiced extreme dissatisfaction regarding the lack of marketing, organizational support, media coverage, training facilities, and funding they receive.
In providing this data I am not saying that we should rewrite the sporting playbook, or that men’s athletic accomplishments should be diminished. I am saying, however, that physical differences between men and women are not indicative of athletic superiority or inferiority. I am saying it would be beneficial as a society to recognize that the myth of male biological superiority is a belief that has resulted in widespread social damage. I am saying that, given the lack of opportunities and support women have faced overall in organized sports, a comparison to men just doesn’t seem that helpful. I am saying that our opinions of physical achievement shouldn’t be tethered to men as the pinnacle of how we define “best.”
Why the world is ready for a new paradigm shift:
General social pushback to female sports rides on the assumption that women will never be as good as men. But this reductive gender comparison should not be the basis from which we decide what is enjoyable for spectators and what games have athletic merit. Are women as fast or as strong as men? The truth, it seems, depends on the circumstances in which strength and speed are measured. But let’s also consider other attributes of great athletes. How do we measure skill, talent, agility, finesse, endurance, focus, or confidence? How do we quantify these terms in regards to male athleticism versus female athleticism? More importantly, why should we? When men’s identity is linked to a defining “other” it creates a social construct that is damaging to both genders. Men do not need women to be weak so that they feel strong. Men do not need women to be slow so that they feel fast. Men do not women to be athletically inferior so that they feel superior. Let women aspire to greatness without making their aspirations about a comparison to men. Let women have goals regardless of and insular from the achievements of men. A woman saying she wants to be the greatest is not a slight toward men, it’s an indication of the progress all genders have made toward a more egalitarian society.
The ideological construct of “biological superiority” is an antiquated, outdated, and unnecessary belief structure that perpetuates harmful social limitations for women and men. Far from demeaning men, the Nike commercial offers a refreshing approach to an archaic and unproductive belief system; the type of correctional paradigm shift that America needs to take in order to produce new power structures born from supportive beliefs in the athletic capabilities of all genders.
Works Cited
Costa, D. Margaret, et. al. Women and Sport : Interdisciplinary Perspectives. Champaign: Human Kinetics Publishers, 1994. Print.
Kuhn, Thomas S. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962. Print.
Lorber, Judith. Paradoxes of Gender. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1994. Print.
McDonagh, Eileen, and Pappano, Laura. Playing With The Boys: Why Separate Is Not Equal In Sports. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008. Print.
“MensRights — It sad how true this is.” Reddit, n.d., www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/cc0bv5/it_sad_how_true_this_is/.
Messner, Michael A. Out of Play: Critical Essays on Gender and Sport. Albany: State University of New York Press, 2007. Print.
Risman, Barbara. Gender Vertigo: American Families in Transition. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1998. Print.
Schultz, Jaime. Women’s Sports: What Everyone Needs to Know. New York: Oxford University Press, 2018. Print.
Walters, Suzanna Danuta. “Sex, Text, and Context: In Between Feminism and Cultural Studies.” Revisioning Gender. Eds. M. Marx Ferree, J. Lorder, and B.B. Hess. Thousand Oaks: Sage, 1999. 222–257. Print.
West, Candace, and Zimmerman, Don H. “Doing Gender.” Gender and Society 1.2 (1987): 125–151. Web.
“While US women’s soccer team demands equal pay, loss to under-15 boys team and total revenue revealed.” ThePeoplesLedger, 8 July 2019. www.thepeoplesledger.com/while-us-womens-soccer-team-demands-equal-pay-loss-to-under-15-boys-team-and-total-revenue-revealed/.
