High-profile women’s sporting events can match major men’s events in attendance with comparable investment

What's this about?

People disagree about whether big women’s sports events can draw crowds like big men’s events.

The key question is whether equal money and promotion usually lead to equal crowds.

What supporters say

• Being seen more often and getting better ads may help women’s sports draw bigger crowds.
• Big women’s events have shown that they can draw crowds as large as major men’s events.

What critics say

• Other things, like team fame, star players, sport type, and match time, may also shape crowd size.
• A few record crowds do not prove that most women’s events can match most men’s events.

How to read this

The number of points on each side does not show who is right; check how strong the proof is behind each point.

The bottom line

The proof shows that some major women’s events can match big men’s events.

But we are not sure yet that equal money alone will usually create equal crowds.

The claim is that high-profile women’s sporting events can attract crowds comparable to major men’s events when they receive similar promotion and investment in venues. The evidence supports that possibility for selected showcase events, but does not show that equal investment alone usually produces equal attendance.

The case for

Women’s sport has already shown that it can draw audiences on the scale of major sporting occasions. UEFA reported record crowds at the 2022 Women’s European Championship, while FIFA reported strong overall and match attendance at the 2023 Women’s World Cup. These tournaments demonstrate that large-scale demand is possible when women’s events receive major visibility and competitive importance. 1 (see Figure 1) (see Figure 2)

Attendance has also grown in domestic competitions. The Football Association, the NWSL and the WNBA have reported record crowds or rising attendance alongside greater exposure, investment, prominent players and better-promoted fixtures. Those examples suggest that audiences can respond to how an event is presented, not only to the sport itself.

Research provides a plausible explanation. Studies of women’s-sport attendance and media coverage identify marketing, event management and the visibility of competitions as factors that can affect crowds. Other reviews point to continuing gaps in funding, facilities and infrastructure, while media research has found that women’s sport generally receives less exposure. Underinvestment may therefore hold down realized demand rather than reveal a fixed limit on public interest. 2

But these findings show a capacity to attract large crowds, not that comparable investment will routinely produce parity with the biggest men’s events. The evidence is strongest for a narrower claim: selected, high-profile women’s events can match major men’s events under favorable conditions.

The case against

The main problem is that record crowds are not a controlled test of equal investment. Reports from UEFA, FIFA, leagues and teams show successful events, but they do not generally compare a women’s fixture with an equivalent men’s fixture while holding promotion, venue quality, ticket prices, scheduling and competitive importance constant. Several headline figures are also reported by organizations with an interest in highlighting successful events.

Attendance depends on far more than marketing and facilities. Research identifies winning teams, close competition, rivalry, star players, prices, venue quality, scheduling and promotion as important influences. Analyses of women’s football also link crowd size to national-team success, star appeal, the importance of the competition and local engagement (see Figure 3). A record final or World Cup match may therefore reflect the combined effect of rivalry, star power, national interest and favorable scheduling—not simply the effect of better advertising or a larger stadium. 4

There is also a difference between interest and attendance. People may say they are interested in women’s sport without buying tickets, especially when access, ticketing, travel, timing or venue capacity create obstacles. More visibility can increase awareness without filling seats at the level of a major men’s event. 3 That makes it difficult to treat promotion and venue investment as sufficient conditions for equal crowds.

The bottom line

The evidence moderately supports the claim as a conditional statement: high-profile women’s events can draw crowds comparable to major men’s events when visibility, event quality and competitive significance are all high. The attendance records and wider demand research provide meaningful support for the idea that women’s sport has substantial audience capacity.

However, the evidence is weaker for the broader claim that comparable promotion and venue investment generally produces attendance parity. No strong matched comparison isolates those factors from rivalry, team performance, star players, pricing, scheduling, access and ticketing. The available evidence therefore shows that major audiences are achievable, but not how often equal investment would create equal attendance or whether that parity would continue beyond exceptional showcase events.