After Atalanta

Business Week came out with its list of the 100 most powerful athletes . Only eight women made the list (which was based on both on-field and off-field earnings). Only two (Serena and Venus Williams) made the top 50. If only off-field earnings were taken into consideration more women would have made the list--including Annika Sorenstam and Lisa Leslie. But the lack of on-field opportunities in team sports was a major factor. Lack seems to be an understatement actually: women have .037 percent the number of spots on team rosters as men. So when I hear that we don't need Title IX in college sports any more, I think about the professional realm which is not subject to gender equity regulations. And I wonder what things would look like in intercollegiate athletics without it. It would probably be better than .037 percent but how much?

I don't know how I could have missed this--could be that my eyes are just shut tight because I am so sick of the sexploitation of female athletes. Regardless, it seems seven members (the 7) of the LPGA tour--only one of whom has recorded victories on the tour--have signed with the Wilhelmina (the W) modeling agency. The writer suggests that women's sports walk a "fine line" regarding attractiveness and athleticism that affects how they are appreciated. Yeah, fine line my ass. Everyone knows what the deal is. The W7 are not walking any fine lines. They know that if they are attractive, they will get endorsements even if some of them never win--as six of them have yet to do. In fact, they know the deal so well that they have "banded together to use their decidedly feminine attributes to tap into a potential wealth of endorsement money." Sounds pretty self-serving, no? But the argument goes that the attention the W7 is getting is actually drawing people to tour...