USA! USA! Title IX! Title IX!: Culture vs. Institutions in Women’s Soccer

Continuing on with my sports theme from yesterday, I share the following commentary from frequent Monkey Cage contributor and Georgetown University professor James Vreeland. One way to look at yesterday’s stunning US victory over Brazil in the Women’s World Cup is as everything that is wonderful (or horrible, I guess, if you are reading this in Brazil) about sports: drama, the struggle to overcome adversity (a red card? two tries to convert one penalty shot?), feats of physical prowess, redemtion, and, as Yogi Berra once said, “it ain’t over until its over”. But Vreeland sees other larger forces at work here as well:

Brazil and the United States battled today in soccer. Brazil: a nation of 200 million dedicated exclusively to soccer – perhaps the #1 soccer-nation in the world. VERSUS The United States: a nation that devotes most of its vast resources – its time, money, and best athletes – to… baseball, football, and basketball. Let’s face it, we don’t even call soccer by its proper name.

But this was also a battle of culture versus institutions. Of markets versus states. And when it comes to supporting sports, markets have a bias towards testosterone. Without government intervention, men have many more incentives than women to devote their lives to sports. And Brazil doesn’t intervene on behalf of women. The United States does.

Yes, I’m talking about the 2011 Women’s World Cup Tournament.

To understand today’s match, we need a little history of US institutions. In 1972, the United States passed a law called “Title IX,” which requires educational institutions to devote equal resources to male and female athletics (or any education program/activity receiving Federal financial assistance).

American universities were spending a lot of money on their men’s American football teams, and they wanted to continue to do so. But how can you maintain football expenditures and also find money to spend on women’s sports teams? Well, first, you cut expenditures on other men’s sports… like men’s soccer. (This helps to explain why we lag behind the rest of the world in men’s soccer. Title IX implicitly encourages our best male-athletes to play something else.) You also, obviously, increase the money that you spend on women’s sports – on any women’s sport you can find.

Title IX thus produces incentives for millions of little girls to play various sports. Think about the incentives for parents to support their daughters. Take my cousin, for example. He was coaching his amazing son to be a bowler. (They’re both really good, having both bowled perfect 300 games on pro-shot lanes.) His younger daughter was tagging along at the lanes, bowling for fun. Somebody in the bowling alley noticed that she was pretty good, so he mentioned something to my cousin. “Ever heard of Title IX?”

This question set in motion a bowling career for Jennifer Vreeland. She wasn’t so keen on joining the school bowling team at first. Frankly speaking, it wouldn’t have happened without the motivation of her father, who, in turn, was motivated to get her a scholarship because of Title IX. Yet, Jenn grew to love the bowling team. By her senior year in high school, she was team captain and enjoyed self-esteem, camaraderie, and good health thanks to Title IX. Today she is an NCAA bowler on scholarship at St. Francis College. In her first season, she set a new team record, scoring 288 in an important match.

This is a personal anecdote, and there are literally millions more like it across America. Mothers and fathers recognize that by encouraging their daughters to play sports, they give them a better chance of getting into college – and getting scholarship money.

And that brings us back to today’s AMAZING victory of the United States over Brazil. Yes, you guessed it. Today, institutions triumphed over culture. And it’s not the first time. US women’s soccer is a dominant force in international sports. If you haven’t heard what happened in today’s game… well, find out. This game is one for the movies. I can’t do it justice here. Seriously, if you had pitched today’s story to Hollywood, they wouldn’t have taken it because they would have thought it unbelievable. And the victory is due, in part, to Title IX.

The case I’m making here is not meant to diminish the powerful influence that culture can have. Brazil has a smaller population and a smaller economy than the United States. Still, they have an incredible team, including, arguably, the best player in the world. But Brazil doesn’t invest in women’s sports the way that the United States does. (Interestingly, the American broadcasters on ESPN questioned just how great Brazilian women’s soccer might be if only their country actually invested in it.)

The bottom line is that there are a number of factors that determine how well a country’s national team does. The obvious are population size, income, and culture. But one factor that should not be overlooked is government action, especially when it comes to women’s sports.

With this in mind, I believe that the United States has one of the greatest soccer programs in the world. Our nation may not yet have won a men’s world cup trophy, but we don’t really need national teams to inspire boys to play sports. Millions of fans tune in to watch high-testosterone professional league games. Ultimately, sports should promote self-esteem, camaraderie, and good health for the whole population. If you rely exclusively on markets, you only provide incentives for half of your population to play. You should thus judge a nation by the policies it puts in place to incentivize the other half of its population.

Congratulations to the US women’s soccer team. Score another victory for Title IX. And God bless the United States of America.

[This post originally appeared on The Vreelander.]

9 Responses to USA! USA! Title IX! Title IX!: Culture vs. Institutions in Women’s Soccer

  1. Andrew Gelman July 11, 2011 at 9:44 am #

    Government policy can lead to wins in international sports competitions . . . that’s been well known, at least since the time of East Germany’s history of success in the Olympics! Whether it’s a good idea to have government policies that divert resources away from what people would’ve done in the absence of such policies . . . that’s another story.

    Is a national win in the World Cup a good reason for U.S. colleges to offer bowling scholarships?

  2. dth July 11, 2011 at 10:37 am #

    The cutting of men’s college soccer has little to do with the relative underperformance of the men’s team–most U.S. soccer fans will tell you that college soccer is a bad thing, if all that you’re interested in is producing a really good soccer player. You could also argue similarly about women’s soccer.

    (I suppose you could argue for second-order effects–i.e. that cutting college soccer causes fewer people to take up the sport in the first place, which means when they get to the go pro/go to college junction they’re just not present, but of course the U.S. has more players than everyone else anyway. There are more male soccer players in the U.S. than there are young males in the Netherlands, yet it’s the Netherlands who are soccer superpowers.)

  3. techy3 July 11, 2011 at 10:42 am #

    Ms. Vreeland is reasoning from a faulty premise. She tells us that Brazil is, ” A nation of 200 million dedicated exclusively to soccer.” This is simply false. Brazil is one of the countries in which Formula One racing, Tennis, Volleyball, Basketball, Surfing, Skateboarding and mixed martial arts are widely played, shown on television and have professional leagues. Brazil is very very far from being a sporting monoculture. Actually, most other South American countries are much much more exclusive in their passion for football than Brazil is. In Columbia, Chile and Central America there is literally no other professional sport.

    • soccer fan July 11, 2011 at 1:35 pm #

      To techy3,
      “Ms. Vreeland” is not, in fact, a she. The point of view of the piece was so clearly imbued with the female that in your view the writer must also be female? James Vreeland is in fact male. And so it is you who is reasoning from a faulty premise, and your point about the multiplicity of Brazil’s sporting interests takes nothing away from MR. Vreeland’s argument.

    • Adam Villani July 12, 2011 at 3:06 pm #

      There are professional Major League Baseball players hailing from Colombia, Nicaragua, and Panama (not to mention the many Venezuelans).

  4. andrew July 11, 2011 at 11:33 am #

    The question of what conditions lead to success in sports in general (and international sports in particular) is one I’ve been pondering lately to – what with the sharp contrast between USA women’s FIFA success and USA men’s general mediocrity.

  5. Huh July 11, 2011 at 12:13 pm #

    “(This helps to explain why we lag behind the rest of the world in men’s soccer. Title IX implicitly encourages our best male-athletes to play something else….”

    Hm. I think this logic only applies to those who play sports in order to win college scholarships, which is a low number of people. It also assumes that depth in the college ranks will produce better players, which is questionable.

  6. Jason Bourne July 17, 2011 at 10:58 pm #

    “(This helps to explain why we lag behind the rest of the world in men’s soccer. Title IX implicitly encourages our best male-athletes to play something else….”

    Our best male athletes already have incentives to ‘play something else’ from a far younger age than when they are considering college scholarships. Soccer is simply not high on the radar for US males. Most guys choose football, baseball, or basketball growing up. Ice hockey comes next, but is itself a niche sport. A tier below hockey is lacrosse, rugby, soccer. For most boys growing up in the US, soccer is not a first or even second choice. A lot of the guys who do end up in soccer are frequently the less athletic kids or the less agressive kids who lose out on playing time in the more popular sports. As a result, the rare athletic or aggressive male child who plays soccer growing up in the US is constantly playing against sub-par competition. This is bad preparation for competing on a world stage.

    My point is, while I’m sure Title IX has done a fair bit to encourage women’s participation in soccer, I think it’s done relatively little to stunt men’s participation in soccer – there are other endemic factors that are much more heavily weighted. (Similarly, however, I do think that because of soccer’s ‘first choice’ sport status among US girls, that now, even without Title IX, US women’s soccer would continue to be very good relative to the rest of the world.)

  7. Th January 15, 2012 at 7:36 pm #

    Jason is completely wrong

    womens soccer is not a notch above w basketball Or volleyball

    And mens soccer is the most played sport. NBA players are mostly giants and NFL players are either 300 lbs or built like wrestlers. Baseball players are fat and don’t have the stamina for soccer.

    These sports aren’t really stealing soccer bodies. hockey and lacrosse are more similar. Soccer still has the deepest pool to pick from in numbers and body types that can play the game.

    And another problem is that the players are too aggressive and physical rather than

    Hatred gonna hate