A recent column in USA Today, which argued that the demand for misogyny in American sports far exceeds its supply, has been criticized for using weak and selectively applied examples. The analysis suggests that columnist Nancy Armour focuses on isolated incidents while overlooking significant progress in women's sports.
Armour's column, published Tuesday, cited a sports-betting advertisement featuring Sydney Sweeney, a joke made by Arch Manning about an AI video, and an architectural rendering of a new arena as evidence that sports institutions are unwelcoming to women. The critique argues that these examples are insufficient to support the sweeping claim that sports "don't want women around" or treat them without "the slightest shred of decency."
Scrutiny of Cited Examples
The advertisement in question, featuring actress Sydney Sweeney for the sports prediction market Novig, was characterized by Armour as a declaration that women's "only place in sports is as a sexualized object." The analysis counters that the ad was tailored to Novig's predominantly male audience, a common practice in marketing, and that Sweeney herself was involved in the campaign's creative direction and held equity in the company. The argument posits that applying the term "misogynistic" to this ad, especially when similar marketing practices targeting specific demographics are accepted for women's products, is a mischaracterization.
Regarding Arch Manning, Armour cited his laughter at a fan-edited AI video depicting Texas coach Steve Sarkisian in an awkward post-game interaction with ESPN reporter Holly Rowe. The analysis points out that Manning was reacting to a parody of a moment that already occurred and that he apologized for his reaction. The critique questions why an athlete's honest reaction to a joke is seen as a sign of misogyny, especially when sports media often criticizes athletes for being overly guarded.
The architectural rendering of Philadelphia's future arena, which initially showed few women, was quickly updated, and the arena is slated to be home to a WNBA team. The analysis deems this an inadequate basis for a claim of systemic exclusion.
Selective Application of Criticism
A significant point of contention raised by the critique is Armour's perceived selective application of her misogyny claims. While she identifies sexism in advertisements and jokes, the analysis argues that she downplays or ignores instances where males entering women's sports spaces are seen as problematic. The critique specifically points to Armour's past criticism of ESPN host Sam Ponder for advocating for sex-based athletic competition, which Armour characterized as "bigotry." This is contrasted with Armour's condemnation of figures like Sweeney and Manning for actions perceived to be in conflict with Armour's views on gender dynamics in sports.
The analysis suggests that Armour's criticism targets women who exercise their agency in ways she does not approve of, such as Sweeney using her image in a promotional campaign or Ponder advocating for women's sports. The critique implies that Armour's stance is not consistently about protecting women but rather adhering to a specific progressive ideology.
Women's Sports Progress
Conversely, the critique highlights evidence of substantial progress in women's sports that Armour's column allegedly downplays. It points to the increasing popularity of women's sports, soaring WNBA ratings and franchise values, signature merchandise lines for athletes like Caitlin Clark and A'ja Wilson, women coaching in the NFL and NBA, and dedicated venues and merchandise for female fans. These developments, according to the analysis, indicate growing opportunities, visibility, and economic power for women in sports, contradicting the notion that sports institutions are fundamentally resistant to their participation.
The analysis concludes that Armour's argument relies on manufacturing a crisis where one may not exist, driven by a perceived need for continuous narratives of misogyny to maintain relevance. It suggests that her focus on isolated incidents and selective application of criticism undermines her broader claims about the state of women in sports.