Women's World Cup 2011: TV Ratings Are Huge Disappointment in United States
Women's World Cup 2011 TV Ratings Have Been Extremely Low in the United States
The 2011 Women's World Cup has been a hit in nearly every country in the world except for the United States.
According to a story by Georgina Turner of Sports Illustrated, every game has been sold out in Germany and the TV ratings have been incredible throughout the world.
Turner points out that ratings have been high in country's where their team has been either eliminated or was not even involved such as Canada and China.
Any match that doesn't involve the United States has only received a 0.4 rating, while games that feature the women's team have received a bump to anywhere between 0.9 to 1.2, which is not as high as it should be.
The 2010 Men's World Cup was huge in the United States, especially games that involved the United States team. Turner indicates that four million homes tuned into the USA vs. Slovenia match.
It is quite sad that the United States' ratings are so much lower than China and Canada as soccer was supposed to be on the rise in the U.S.
While the men's game has drawn a lot of interest, it is surprising that the No. 1 team in the world has not garnered much interest in their own country.
The United States are a legitimate threat to win the Women's World Cup every four years, so it is both surprising and disappointing to see the lack of interest from Americans.
Ratings are expected to be a bit higher for the United States vs. Brazil quarterfinal, but they likely won't match ratings from the 1999 World Cup. Maybe it is the lack of star power on the US side this year, as the '99 team featured Mia Hamm, who was one of the most popular athletes in the country.
Either way, it must be a bit disappointing for both the team and for fans around the country who have an intense passion for the sport they love.
For coverage of the United States vs. Brazil match, tune to Bleacher Report's Live Blog.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?