The U.S. Women’s National Team began defense of its 2015 Women’s World Cup title Tuesday with a game against Thailand. It’s the first of three matches for the U.S. in the tournament’s opening round.

AUDIE CORNISH, HOST:

The U.S. began defense of its 2015 Women’s World Cup title today with the most lopsided victory in tournament history. The U.S. defeated Thailand 13-0 before a packed and pro-U.S.A. crowd in France. NPR’s Laurel Walmsley was in the stands for the game. She joins us now. And Laurel, people were going bonkers on social media…

(LAUGHTER)

CORNISH: …With each and every goal. So I can imagine what it was like in the stadium.

LAUREL WAMSLEY, BYLINE: Yeah, it was pretty wild. I mean, people were so excited when the U.S. first scored. And then from there, it just sort of turned to disbelief almost.

CORNISH: Talk about that disbelief ’cause their – they dominated throughout. So what stood out to you?

WAMSLEY: Well, I think – I mean, the – people were just so excited for the U.S. to score. I mean, I was amazed by how many people were there who weren’t Americans. We knew that the U.S. had sold a bunch of tickets, but the fans were full of French people and people from around Europe who wanted to see this U.S. team play.

And the U.S. just sort of came out swinging. I mean, they, you know, just pressed from the very beginning. They had possession the entire time. And it looked like they were just taking shot after shot on Thailand’s goal. And then by – starting in the ninth minute, they just started making them with three goals in the first half. And they looked great.

CORNISH: What was going on with Thailand? I mean, is this a team that struggled? Like, give us the context.

WAMSLEY: Well, they were considered one of the weaker teams coming into this tournament. Asia sent five teams, and they were considered maybe one of the weakest ones from Asia. And so they – this was not their first World Cup. They actually played in 2015 as well. But the U.S. had play them once before two years ago. And in that game, the U.S. also beat them. So there wasn’t huge expectations for this Thai team. Most of the players play in the Thai leagues.

But at the same time, you know, the U.S. ended up winning 13-0, which is a World Cup record for the largest margin of a win. So even by those expectations, this was a big lopsided win for the U.S.

CORNISH: Who were the stars that made their mark in this game?

WAMSLEY: Well, I mean, so many – seven different players scored. But it was Alex Morgan. She scored five goals, which was just amazing. And you know, I think coming into this, she wanted to have a great tournament. She was – at press conferences, she’s been saying, no, I’m not – don’t consider me one of the older players yet; this is going to be my World Cup.

And she just came out, and, you know, she scored one and then two and then three. And then – and they just kept coming. And so she just – she looked great. And now I think she is a strong contender for the Golden Boot – to score the most goals at this World Cup if things go the U.S.’s way.

CORNISH: It’s interesting. We’ve been hearing so much about the frustrations of women athletes on the team because of how – the disparities they talk about in terms of pay.

WAMSLEY: It’s true. And the U.S. team has made it that way. They have – very strategically, they are suing their employer, U.S. Soccer, right before this World Cup knowing that the world is watching. And so they both want the world’s attention. They know that they’re going to play well at the World Cup, or at least they intend to. And with that attention on them, they want to say, look how good we are.

And they kind of want to draw attention to the idea that, hey, you know, the U.S. team – the U.S. men’s team makes more money than they do even though the U.S. men’s team just this week lost to Venezuela 3-0. And they’re saying, we’re the best team in the world, and you still can’t pay us as much as you pay the men. Why is that exactly?

CORNISH: So in the half minute we have left, what’s next for the U.S.?

WAMSLEY: Well, so this is the group stage, and so they’ve got two more games. So next up is Chile on Sunday, and then they’ll play Sweden on Thursday. So they obviously hope to win the group and looks like they may well do that. But from there, it goes to the knockout stage, and then we’ll see what happens.

CORNISH: That’s NPR’s Laurel Wamsley in France, where this year’s Women’s World Cup is being played. Laurel, I hope you’re having a blast.

WAMSLEY: I am having a great time. Thanks so much, Audie.

Copyright © 2019 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.

NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by Verb8tm, Inc., an NPR contractor, and produced using a proprietary transcription process developed with NPR. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.

The NBA and NHL are in the middle of finals, while the Women’s World Cup begins. NPR’s Scott Simon talks to ESPN’s Howard Bryant.

(SOUNDBITE OF MUSIC)

SCOTT SIMON, HOST:

Revile the reptile. The Toronto Raptors are just a win away from a world championship over one of the world’s greatest franchises. And in hockey, the St. Louis Blues could also put away the Boston Bruins. In Paris, it’s le football season, eh? The Women’s World Cup kicked off yesterday. Howard Bryant of espn.com and ESPN The Magazine, which is going away later this year, but you’ll still be with us, right, Howard?

HOWARD BRYANT, BYLINE: I’m still with you, Scott. How are you?

SIMON: Fine, thank you. Good to talk to you, my friend. Listen – oh, wait, I got another one, OK?

BRYANT: No. Please. Don’t do it.

SIMON: No, no. Hey, Howard – cut his mic. Here we go. Hence forth, the North.

BRYANT: (Laughter).

SIMON: How’s that?

BRYANT: (Laughter).

SIMON: A little better?

BRYANT: We – I think we, the north, just works. And it’s been working really, really well…

SIMON: Been working well for them. OK.

BRYANT: …For the Toronto Raptors right now.

SIMON: The Raptors drubbed – drubbed the Dubs, if you please – 105-92 last night. It’s not just that they were three games – up three games to one. They’ve looked in command in almost every quarter of the series, haven’t they?

BRYANT: Well, they have. And once again, as we say all the time, is that the NBA is the best player wins the sport. And right now, Kawhi Leonard is the best player on the planet. And let’s also just not forget that the Warriors are playing very shorthanded. They didn’t have Kevon Looney for the – for Game 3. They – obviously, Kevin Durant hasn’t played in the entire series. You didn’t have Klay Thompson in Game 3.

And so on top of everything else that’s taken place with them as a team and going to the finals five straight seasons and trying to win three straight championships – to be the first team to do that, you know, in years anyway – and I think that this is a – it’s an amazing, amazing run for them. But the pressure is also very difficult for them, too.

SIMON: Yeah.

BRYANT: It’s a hard conversation to have because you wish that you would have both teams playing at full strength, but you got to deal with what’s in front of you. And the Toronto Raptors – never been in the finals – and they are playing great basketball right now.

SIMON: I got to ask. Look; a co-owner of the Warriors, an investment billionaire named Mark Stevens – and I have read he has given lots of money to many good causes – felt that his courtside seat entitled him the other night to shove and swear at Toronto’s Kyle Lowry. This is the kind of fan that gives fans a bad name.

BRYANT: Yeah, most certainly. And he’s not a fan. He’s a co-owner. So he’s not just a fan. He’s…

SIMON: Right.

BRYANT: …Somebody who’s got a financial stake in the game. It was an ugly incident. It was completely unnecessary. It would be very surprising to me if the NBA doesn’t come down on him to the point where he’s not – where he’s forced to sell his shares. I think that this is one of those examples, too, where you’re going to find out the power of the players in terms of how much they’re going to take from fans and especially co-owners because let’s not forget, this has been a theme throughout the NBA season…

SIMON: Yeah.

BRYANT: …Where fan abuse has become something that is – just, you know, where the players have decided that, hey, we’re not going to take this anymore. We’re not zoo animals, OK? You’re here to watch…

SIMON: Yup.

BRYANT: …The game, but you also have to respect us.

SIMON: NHL finals – next game is tomorrow. The St. Louis Blues up 3-2 over the Boston Bruins. Why and how?

BRYANT: Well, No. 1, because they’re a very, very tough team. And that’s the – this is funny. We talk about hockey in the 2000s, but this looks like hockey in the 1970s. I thought I was watching the…

SIMON: Yeah.

(CROSSTALK)

SIMON: Yeah, Blues and Bruins, yeah.

BRYANT: Exactly. I thought I was watching the Bruins and the Flyers from ’74. The Blues are a brutal, brutal, tough hockey team, and they are just physic – you know, they’re very physical. They’re crushing the Bruins. In terms of hits, there’s been suspensions in this playoff. But the bottom line – you know, the Bruins are complaining about the referees. But the bottom line is that the Blues have just been – they’ve outlasted everybody. They just continue to be a really tough hockey team. And they’re one game away from doing something that franchise has never done, which is win the Stanley Cup.

SIMON: Yeah. Women’s World Cup started yesterday. The U.S. plays its first match Tuesday against Thailand. Who looks good? I am told – aha – Les Bleus.

BRYANT: Well, they’re the hosts, so they always look good. But obviously, the defending champions are the United States. You’ve got a great group going on. You’ve got Japan and England in the same group. And Japan and the United States have played back-to-back finals. So I think that, obviously, the United States are the favorites. You’ve got Germany, England and Japan. Japan’s not as good as they were the last couple of World Cups. But at the same time, I’m looking at the United States. They’re the – to me, they’re the team to beat.

SIMON: French Open starts today. No names that I recognized; you would, my friend.

BRYANT: Well, the big star – or not the star – the infamous star of this entire tournament has been the weather because it has been very, very difficult to try to get these matches in. And by the end of this tournament, I think people are going to look at this tournament, and they’re going to say we’re going to remember this one for the rain instead of the players.

SIMON: Yeah.

BRYANT: Yeah.

SIMON: Howard Bryant of ESPN, thanks so much for being with us.

BRYANT: Oh, my pleasure.

Copyright © 2019 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.

NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by Verb8tm, Inc., an NPR contractor, and produced using a proprietary transcription process developed with NPR. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.

The Women’s World Cup kicks off June 7 in Paris. The U.S. is once again the favorite and looking to defend its title from four years ago — even as the team sues U.S. Soccer for gender discrimination.

ARI SHAPIRO, HOST:

The Women’s World Cup kicked off today with host country France defeating South Korea. Twenty-four teams are vying for the cup, and none is a stronger contender than the United States. The quest to defend their title is only one of the goals the U.S. team is driving toward, as NPR’s Laurel Wamsley reports from Paris.

LAUREL WAMSLEY, BYLINE: Four years ago, the U.S. won the Women’s World Cup, trouncing Japan on the strength of three goals by Carli Lloyd.

(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)

UNIDENTIFIED SPORTSCASTER: Lloyd, with Morgan streaking – she’s chipping the goalkeeper, off the post and in. Hat trick for Lloyd.

WAMSLEY: That game, broadcast on Fox drew, more than 30 million viewers, shattering TV records for soccer in the United States – men’s or women’s. Now Lloyd is back playing in her fourth World Cup, and many on the team will play in their third, including Alex Morgan and Megan Rapinoe. The U.S. team is ranked No. 1 in the world and plays its first game on Tuesday against Thailand, followed by matches against Chile and Sweden. Though Thailand isn’t a soccer power, Lloyd says in a major tournament like the World Cup, you have to focus on each game as it comes.

(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)

CARLI LLOYD: We obviously want to get to the final. We want to win the final. But a lot can happen in between that. It’s just kind of weathering the storm, winning, whether that’s pretty, ugly, just finding a way to win.

WAMSLEY: This could be the strongest U.S. team ever, with an array of fierce goal-scoring attackers. But other teams have gotten stronger and more tactical, too. Germany, England and France could each win what many believe will be the most competitive Women’s World Cup yet. Accordingly, U.S. coach Jill Ellis has tinkered with the team’s roster in the last few years, moving players around, trying new ones and changing the team’s formation. Ellis says she can considers the U.S. the team to beat.

(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)

JILL ELLIS: Have to – you know, it’s confidence. So much of it is a mindset and an approach. And there’s a lot of good teams, and we’re all aware of that. And – but we want to be the team to beat.

WAMSLEY: The U.S. team is making big moves off the field, too, demanding equal pay for equal work. In March, 28 members of the women’s team sued U.S. Soccer – their employer – arguing that the federation discriminates against them on the basis of their sex by paying them less than the men’s team. The team has also been critical of FIFA, the international governing body, which scheduled the Women’s World Cup final on the same day as the finals of two of its other major international tournaments. And the prize money that FIFA distributes to the teams in the Women’s World Cup is a fraction of what the men win for theirs.

Megan Rapinoe, the U.S. forward who is often outspoken on social issues, says FIFA has made some steps in the right direction in recent years, but that it’s been far too slow given the organization’s capacity for change.

(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)

MEGAN RAPINOE: They have essentially unlimited resources. There’s been such a lack of investment for all of these years and such a lack of care and attention that doubling or tripling or quadrupling investment, care, you know, attention to the women’s game, I think, would be appropriate.

WAMSLEY: And it’s not only the U.S. team that’s frustrated. The best player in the world right now, Norwegian striker Ada Hegerberg, won’t be playing in the tournament even though Norway qualified. She says the Norwegian Football Federation hasn’t done enough to support the women’s game, and she’s refused to play for her national team since 2017.

Meanwhile, the U.S. team arrives in France without a few of its stars from four years ago. Hope Solo has been replaced by Alyssa Naeher in goal. And Abby Wambach, the sport’s all-time leading international scorer, says she’s grateful to be watching from the stands this year, having retired in 2015.

(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)

ABBY WAMBACH: When you’re in it, you talk about what an honor it is. You talk about how exciting and fun it is to play in the biggest tournament of your life. But now that I’m away from it, I can speak honestly. It’s super stressful.

WAMSLEY: To win, Wambach says, so many things have to go right, and you need a little luck on your side, too. Laurel Wamsley, NPR News, Paris.

Copyright © 2019 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.

NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by Verb8tm, Inc., an NPR contractor, and produced using a proprietary transcription process developed with NPR. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.

NPR’s Mary Louise Kelly speaks with Sports Illustrated’s Jon Wertheim about Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal renewing their rivalry at the French Open.

MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST:

On Friday, two of tennis’ all-time greats will reignite their rivalry at the French Open semifinal; 37-year-old Roger Federer will take on 33-year-old Rafael Nadal for the 39th in their careers – keep all those 30s straight. Nadal is the current French Open champion. He has won a record 11 titles there. Federer, meanwhile, edges him out in Grand Slam titles overall, which means, whether you are team Nadal or team Federer, Friday’s match is not one you are going to want to miss. To help us prep, we have called Jon Wertheim from Sports Illustrated. He is in Paris. Hello again, Jon.

JON WERTHEIM: Nice to talk again.

KELLY: Nice to speak to you. OK, so Friday – it’s big. How big? How excited should we be here?

WERTHEIM: We should be teeming with excitement.

KELLY: (Laughter).

WERTHEIM: This is Nadal-Federer 39. A lot of us who cover this sport weren’t sure we would get this match, much less at a major event. And you mentioned team Nadal and team Federer, but really, this is a rare rivalry where it’s completely reasonable to root for both of them. So this is sort of a triumph for tennis, as well as another installment in this great rivalry.

KELLY: Oh, really? So you’re making the argument – the fact that this match is happening at all is cause for jubilation?

WERTHEIM: Roger Federer is going to be 38 years old in a few months. Nadal just turned 33 the other day. And I think 10 years ago, if you had said, look – in 2019, these guys are still going to be meeting in the latter rounds of majors, people would have, you know, chased you around with butterfly nets. So it’s really that the longevity is part of what’s extraordinary, the fact that here they are, still at the top of their sport. And this rivalry still continues to undulate to sway. I mean, Nadal leads the head-to-heads 23 to 15, but he hasn’t beaten Federer in more than half a decade. Federer has actually won the last four or five matchups they’ve played.

KELLY: Federer’s won the last four or five matches they’ve played, but has Federer ever won against Nadal in Paris, at the French Open?

WERTHEIM: He has not, and that’s sort of – that’s Nadal’s great ace in the hole. This is his personal sandbox. Nadal has won 17 majors, and 11 of them have come here. He is – so Federer has never made inroads against Nadal at the French Open, and this is sort of seen as Nadal’s great stand here against Federer. I mean, again…

KELLY: I mean – and explain why that is. What is it about Nadal’s style of play that makes him so good on clay, which is what they play in Paris?

WERTHEIM: His game is just absolutely tailored to the surface – the fact that he’s left-handed; it’s the surface he grew up playing on. I think a lot of it is sort of spiritual. It’s almost psychological as well. Nadal is this workmanlike player, and clay really rewards effort in a way that no other surface does. It’s really perfect for Nadal’s sort of offense, defense. It also has the effect of sort of blunting some of Federer’s grace and artistry.

KELLY: Huh. It sounds as though you are maybe aligning yourself with the way the betting money is going, that you think Nadal is going to be just hard to beat here?

WERTHEIM: I think Nadal is going to be hard to beat. I mean, the great subtext of this match, too, is that Novak Djokovic, who’s the No. 1 player and has won three majors in a row, isn’t even really being spoken about. And this story has kind of overwhelmed the narrative here. You wonder if, while all the attention is on Federer and Nadal and their 39th encounter, if Novak Djokovic sneaks by and plays one of them on tired legs and takes the title; that wouldn’t surprise me at all.

KELLY: Jon Wertheim of Sports Illustrated. Thanks for joining us from Paris.

WERTHEIM: Anytime. Thank you.

(SOUNDBITE OF TENNIS’ “ORIGINS”)

Copyright © 2019 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.

NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by Verb8tm, Inc., an NPR contractor, and produced using a proprietary transcription process developed with NPR. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.

An estimated 800 golf courses have closed in the last decade, freeing up vast swaths of green space and a new “golf course gold rush” for developers and loss of public courses for golfers.

ARI SHAPIRO, HOST:

There are more golf courses in the U.S. than anywhere else – about 2 million acres of green space all told. But there aren’t enough golfers to keep them all in business. Wisconsin Public Radio’s Phoebe Petrovic reports on the consequences.

PHOEBE PETROVIC, BYLINE: To understand what’s happening today, you need to understand what occurred about 30 years ago. In the late 1980s, golf was surging, and the National Golf Foundation encouraged the industry to build a course a day for 10 years.

Jeff Davis, with the firm Fairway Advisors, says that encouragement was taken to heart.

JEFF DAVIS: The genie was out of the bottle. Developers – all they heard – and the mantra became – was build a course a day. And they did it.

PETROVIC: Over a 20-year period up until the early 2000s, they built more than 4,000 new golf courses. Greg Nathan with the National Golf Foundation says many of those courses fit the same mold.

GREG NATHAN: There was a lot of expensive-to-build, expensive-to-maintain, high-greens-fee golf courses.

PETROVIC: And Jay Karen, who’s with the National Golf Course Owners Association, says it wasn’t the golf industry building the courses.

JAY KAREN: It was the homebuilding industry that really drove much of the boom. Homebuilders made new golf courses the central amenity in the communities that they built around the country.

PETROVIC: Communities like this one built in Florida in 2000.

(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)

UNIDENTIFIED ACTOR: (As character) Waterlefe Golf & River Club, a one-of-a-kind residential community…

PETROVIC: In Florida, California, Pennsylvania, developers gobbled up land and built lush, rolling courses, surrounding them with expensive homes and hotels. Tiger Woods was in his prime, and residents sometimes paid millions to live in gated communities alongside golf courses.

But Karen says exclusive, expensive courses weren’t the only ones built in the ’90s.

KAREN: A lot of municipalities were also getting this exuberance around golf and wanted to add these crown jewels to their parks and recreation divisions and portfolios.

PETROVIC: But soon, there was too much supply and too little demand. The number of golfers and rounds played began to decline in the 2000s. And across the U.S., courses began to close – 10% of them since 2006. The National Golf Foundation says that reflects the market correcting itself. And for the remaining 14,000 courses, competition for players is fierce, especially for the almost 11,000 courses that are open to the public – whether daily fee courses owned by companies or municipal courses run by cities.

Madison, Wis., has more than a dozen golf courses in the area, and the city’s four municipal courses are in crisis. They’ve lost money for the last decade – almost a million dollars last year alone.

Brad Munn grew up playing on Madison’s municipal courses and now works on them. He’s at the Monona Golf Course today driving in a cart.

BRAD MUNN: This is one of my favorite ladies.

PETROVIC: Oh, yeah?

MUNN: Yeah. OK, I got the reporter here, Nancy. We’re ready to watch.

PETROVIC: Munn and Nancy Poole have known each other for about 30 years. She’s played this course nearly every week with her women’s group.

NANCY POOLE: We feel very strongly that it’s part of the Madison parks, like bike paths and ball diamonds and everything else. We need to keep it open.

PETROVIC: City leaders say they’re considering every option for the struggling courses, including closures. That worries Madison’s parks superintendent, Eric Knepp. He says losing municipal courses could limit access for everyday golfers.

ERIC KNEPP: American golf has always had a stodgy, affluent, elite feel. Now, I know that’s not our golfers, and I don’t think it’s good or healthy to have a space where we have 750 acres that are viewed as for these other people. That’s for golfers.

PETROVIC: The municipal courses make up almost a fifth of Madison’s park land. And Knepp says the best way to try to save them is to treat them as a public commons.

For NPR News, I’m Phoebe Petrovic in Madison.

(SOUNDBITE OF KARIM SAHRAOUI’S “BEFORE THE 2ND COMING”)

Copyright © 2019 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.

NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by Verb8tm, Inc., an NPR contractor, and produced using a proprietary transcription process developed with NPR. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.

Retired race car driver Janet Guthrie was the first woman to qualify for the Indianapolis 500. NPR’s Don Gonyea speaks with Guthrie and filmmaker Jenna Ricker about the new documentary, Qualified.

DON GONYEA, HOST:

It is among the most macho of American sports – and that’s saying something – but racecar driving is dominated by the legends of men like Mario Andretti and Dale Earnhardt. But one woman, Janet Guthrie, broke down barriers in racing. She was the first woman to qualify for racing’s most famed event – the Indy 500. Her story is the subject of a new documentary on ESPN called “Qualified.” It’s part of the network’s 30 For 30 series.

I spoke with Guthrie and the film’s director, Jenna Ricker, about the difficulties women faced in racing during the 1960s and ’70s. Guthrie began by telling me about Tony Hulman, the owner of the Indianapolis Motor Speedway. He’s the guy who came up with that famous line – gentlemen, start your engines.

JANET GUTHRIE: Tony Hulman, who had rescued Indianapolis Motor Speedway from oblivion after the Second World War, said that he was going to go ahead and say, gentlemen, start your engines – because the mechanics started the engines. Well, Kay Bignotti, who was married to master mechanic George Bignotti, came to me and said, we can’t let Tony get away with this. She said, I have a USEC mechanic’s license. I’ll start your engine. So that made Tony change his tune. And what he said in the end was, in company with the first lady ever to qualify at Indianapolis, gentlemen, start your engines.

GONYEA: Jenna, that moment in the film?

JENNA RICKER: Yeah. No, that was a really nice thing. You know, it’s funny. In the journey of working on this project, I remember being annoyed the first time I heard him saying company with the first lady ever. You know, I thought, oh, come on. Why don’t you just say it? And then as the project grew and as the film was reaching completion, when it got to that part, I would always well up a little bit because I thought, yeah, damn straight in company with the first woman, you know. And so it was an interesting progression for me around that whole statement.

And you kind of laugh today thinking, God, what was the problem? But it was, it was a big deal to have to change the call of the race, to have to admit a woman on the field. I mean, only a few years prior to Janet coming to Indianapolis, I mean, women weren’t allowed in the pit area. And it was a sports writer along with a couple of other writers who sued the track to get access to do their job. So she definitely broke ground.

GONYEA: You did an interview that we see in the film with Howard Cosell. He was one of the biggest names in sports journalism at the time, maybe the biggest name. He asked a tough question of you about sponsorship. You gave him a direct answer. Let’s listen to that clip on our show.

(SOUNDBITE OF DOCUMENTARY, “QUALIFIED”)

HOWARD COSELL: Why don’t you tell us, Janet, why you’re not at Indy right now?

GUTHRIE: Well, a matter of funding, Howard. Funding has always been a problem for me and for other women.

COSELL: And you’re saying that it’s a sexist sport.

GUTHRIE: I think that would not be an unfair statement. I can win races. I proved it at the lower level of the sport in cars I built and funded myself. I can also do it at the top if I get the chance.

COSELL: You want to continue driving.

GUTHRIE: Darn right I do.

GONYEA: You can hear the edge in your voice in that interview.

GUTHRIE: Yes. I was just thinking that it had become pretty clear that I wasn’t going to get the funding to continue, and I was darned unhappy about it.

GONYEA: Jenna, tell us about that moment. We’re actually near the end of the film there, and we’ve, to this point, seeing the story of this pioneering woman racecar driver and all she’s accomplished. But we’re also getting this very real sense of resignation that the barriers aren’t really coming down.

RICKER: Yeah. It was a very powerful interview. And at that point, she, you know, without giving much away, she finishes the Indianapolis 500 – her second Indianapolis 500 – in the Top 10 with a car she’d only had a month to work with and a team that she pulled together in a month’s time. It’s insane. It’s the kind of stuff that, you know, proves her capability. And yet she’s coming up to this moment. And I just think that in that interview, there’s such an honesty in Janet and the frustration in her that, you know, is pointing out the fact that it is coming down to my gender, and if that means I’m in trouble for saying it, then so be it. But let’s not beat around the bush anymore.

GONYEA: And, Janet, your career came to an end shortly after that – officially – with your retirement.

GUTHRIE: Well, by 1983, I decided that if I continued spending every living moment looking for a sponsorship to continue at the top levels, I was going to be jumping out of a high window. So I turned my attention to writing my book, and I moved to the mountains of Colorado to do that. And the book was published in 2005 to – if I do say so myself – considerable acclaim. Sports Illustrated called it an uplifting work that is one of the best books ever written about racing.

GONYEA: If you look back, what do you see as your best moment?

GUTHRIE: Well, that’s a tough one. Putting a car in the Indianapolis 500 for the very first time, especially back in the ’70s when there’d be 80, 90 cars entered and only the fastest 33 in qualifying would start the race. When you finally do that, it’s a moment you’ll never in your life forget. But the following year, when I formed a team myself at the very last moment and ended up with a Top 10 finish, that was a very good moment also.

GONYEA: Jenna, I want to ask you the same question about Janet. What do you think her best moment has been in this life?

RICKER: From a storytelling perspective, as a storyteller, when she has to pull together her own team in 1978 at the last minute and with a month to go, all of these people get behind finding a way to help her succeed, from George Bignotti helping with the car, her crew members Jim Lindholm (ph) and Kenny Izawa (ph) and the other guys that came up from NASCAR.

When you see that there is these people that believe in what she believes and get behind it, it’s really stunning. And it’s a beautiful moment in her life that, to witness it in archive and to see her come across that finish line with a broken wrist, with everything she’s put into it, she says in the film, you know, I felt on top of the world. And I feel like that’s one of those moments where every time I feel on top of the world watching her do that.

GONYEA: Janet Guthrie is the first woman ever to qualify for the Indianapolis 500 and for the NASCAR Daytona 500. We also spoke with director of the new documentary about her, Jenna Ricker. Thanks so much to you both.

RICKER: Thank you.

GUTHRIE: Thank you.

Copyright © 2019 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.

NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by Verb8tm, Inc., an NPR contractor, and produced using a proprietary transcription process developed with NPR. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.

In recent years, technology, education and government regulation have helped make the sport of surfing and finance less risky. Both have a lot in common and teach us a lot about risk.

STEVE INSKEEP, HOST:

What does surfing have in common with finance? Stumped you, didn’t I? Well, both can bring you a reward. There’s the rush of successfully surfing a big wave and the rush of successfully investing in a stock. Both also, of course, have an element of risk.

Cardiff Garcia and Stacey Vanek Smith, co-hosts of the podcast The Indicator from NPR’s Planet Money, have more.

STACEY VANEK SMITH, BYLINE: Allison Schrager is an unexpected guide to the history of surfing. She is an economist who studies risk.

CARDIFF GARCIA, BYLINE: Have you ever surfed?

ALLISON SCHRAGER: No.

GARCIA: (Laughter) Allison writes about the history of big-wave surfing in her new book, “An Economist Walks Into A Brothel: And Other Unexpected Places To Understand Risk.” To Allison, the history of surfing is about how technologies that are designed to make the world safer and less risky can have the unexpected result of sometimes making it more dangerous, more risky.

SMITH: In the early days of big-wave surfing, surfers had to be really fantastic swimmers.

SCHRAGER: And if they wiped out, they might have to swim three or four miles in really rough surf to get back to shore. So back then, it was a very small, very elite group of people who had these superhuman swimming skills.

GARCIA: But then surfers started using a leash, which attaches their leg to the surfboard. Allison says the leash did make surfing safer, but it also made it more likely that weaker swimmers would take up surfing in the first place.

SMITH: And those weaker swimmers might take more risks because they thought the leash made them safer. Brian Keaulana is a lifelong surfer in Hawaii. He says he sees this every time a new technology makes surfing a little bit safer. He says it happened again after surfers started using jet skis as rescue vehicles.

BRIAN KEAULANA: But technology, for me, is a double-edged sword because without proper training, it also sends a false sense of safety also out in the lineup. So I also see people taking more of a risk because they see the use of the jet skis there, as well as flotation devices.

SMITH: Not only were weaker surfers now getting into big-wave surfing because of the jet ski, but strong surfers were using jet skis to get to bigger and bigger waves, like 80-foot-tall waves.

GARCIA: In other words, these strong surfers were using the jet ski, which was supposed to make surfing safer, to take bigger and bigger risks.

SMITH: And in fact, this is what reminded economist Allison Schrager of financial markets. Just like a jet ski can make it safer to ride a big wave, there are financial products that can make it safer to invest your money because they limit how much money you can lose.

And just the same way a jet ski can be used to take on bigger and bigger waves, those same financial products can also make it easier to take a bigger risk with your investments.

GARCIA: And so the question is, what can be done to make sure that people are taking the right amount of risk, either in surfing or in finance? Education is one way to help people manage risks. Another way is government regulation, which is what’s used in finance. For example, sometimes there are restrictions imposed by the government on what kinds of financial products you can invest in. Now, in surfing, there are some regulations about using jet skis to ride big waves in Hawaii. But Allison says that generally speaking, surfers are opposed to regulation.

SMITH: And Allison’s main point is that whether it is surfing or financial products, these debates are definitely going to continue – because even when people learn how to manage the risk that comes with a new technology, either through education or regulation or just from getting used to a new risk, another technology can come along that introduces new risks. Stacey Vanek Smith.

GARCIA: Cardiff Garcia, NPR News.

Copyright © 2019 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.

NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by Verb8tm, Inc., an NPR contractor, and produced using a proprietary transcription process developed with NPR. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.