1) The US was hosting in 1999, which was a big boost (the same thing happened in the men’s game, where 1994 got boosted ratings because we were hosting it; it planted a seed that grew steadily, but I don’t think any WC actually out-rated 1994 until 2010). A lot of what fed the late round ratings was word spreading about the surprising attendance in the tournament. (Shouldn’t have been that surprising, women’s soccer drew very well in the Atlanta Olympics in 1996).

2) It was treated in 1999 as if its purpose was just to prove some sociological point. 2011 came much closer to being presented as an orthodox sporting event. And where the US had been prohibitive favorites in 1999, in 2011 a lot of people were putting us at even-money to even less to be there on the final day.

And of course, this time there was another major tournament a year later. . . and it’s significant that basically no one said “women’s soccer. . . again? Didn’t we just do that?”

How that translates into a league is another matter. Getting people interested week-after-week in a team that only represents their town, in a league that might fold yet again, is, as udub pointed out, an awfully big hill to climb.

I will say though, that the only real certainty about predicting the future is that, eventually, one some issue that was assumed to be permanent, the people who say “the future must be like the past and the present” are going to be wrong. Attitudes are ‘permanent’. . . until they’re not.

You are neither insensitive or “PC”, you are just a negative person by nature. If the WNBA is still around with whatever “success” they have, why can’t women have their own league? Noone is saying the next women’s league will be better than any other sport.

In the end, when it comes to soccer, some people can’t stand the fact the sport is growing one way or another.