Basic HTML Version
I
n March, the men’s and women’s
World Twenty20 competitions were
played simultaneously in India. The
International Cricket Council funded
all the men’s teams to fly business class,
but only paid for the women’s teams to
fly economy class. The integration of the
men’s and women’s tournaments only
highlighted the difference in treatment.
The total prize money for the men’s event
was $5.6m – 16 times the $400,000 for the
women’s tournament.
In the same month, Tennis men’s No.
1 Novak Djokovic suggested that men
deserve more money than women
because their matches generate more
ticket sales. He puts forward a simple
argument that seems to make sense from
a financial and philosophical viewpoint.
Why should female tennis players be paid
the same as their male counterparts when
fewer people want to watch them? After
all, professional sport is a business that
needs income from paying customers and
from the corporate sponsors who want a
return on their sponsorship money.
Djokovic’s words came after ex-Indian
Wells tournament director Raymond
Moore, who resigned his position after a
backlash, said: “If I was a lady player, I’d go
down every night on my knees and thank
God that Roger Federer and Rafa Nadal
were born, because they have carried this
sport.”
Tennis is one of the few sports where
prize money at the major grand-slam
tournaments is the same for men and
women, although not on the respective
tours each year.
For example, Djokovic, world No.1 in 2015,
won three of the four Slams last year. He
won 93.18% of his matches and his prize
money was US$21.65million. Contrast
that with Serena Williams, world No.1 on
the WTA Tour, also won three of the four
Slams. She won 94.64% of her matches but
her total prize money was US$10.5million.
Yet, as Serena pointed out after her final
in California last year the women’s final at
the US Open sold out well before the men.
This is also true in some other women’s
sports. Take the U.S. women’s national
soccer team. The team’s 5–2 win over
Japan in the women’s soccer World Cup
final in 2015 was watched by more than
25 million people in the USA, the largest-
ever television audience for any English-
speaking broadcast of any soccer game,
men’s or women’s.
But even as the team celebrated its win,
it was engaged in pay negotiations with
the U.S. Soccer Federation. At issue was
whether the women would receive equal
remuneration to the men. They earned
approximately a quarter less, according
to the complaint, despite significantly
outperforming the men’s national team,
and despite producing nearly $20 million
more in revenue for U.S. Soccer than the
men’s team.
So the logic that ticket sales and popularity
should result in higher pay just doesn’t
seem to hold true when the tables are
reversed.
Part of the reason for this anomaly ismedia
coverage. According to a 2015 study that
surveyed Los Angeles broadcast affiliates
and ESPN’s “SportsCenter” network in
2014 devoted just 3.2 per cent of airtime
to coverage of women’s sports. Coverage
of women’s sports was actually lower in
2014 than it was in 1999 (8.7 per cent).
This trend is echoed elsewhere around
the world. The ‘Towards a Level Playing
Field: Sport and Gender in Australian
Media’ report compiled for the Australian
Sports Commission showed that women
feature in only 7 per cent of sports
programming in Australia, representing
a backwards step compared to a decade
ago. The report put it into context by
commenting that horse racing received
more air time than women’s sport in
Australian television news. Australia’s
national women’s netball, cricket and
basketball all produced world-beating
performances — yet no one would have
known automatically where to watch the
games, if they were broadcast at all.
In many respects, women’s sports are on a
high. The gradual increase in spending on
women’s sports is now being reflected in a
product that more people want to watch.
When England Women played Germany at
football at Wembley in November 2014,
the match was a 55,000 sell-out. Dramatic
improvements in the standard of women’s
cricket led to the England team turning
professional in 2014. The quality of
play, across many sports, has improved
dramatically in the past few decades.
But professional sports are more about
money, and the money is still where it
has always been: with the men. Women’s
professional leagues have struggled.
The key of course is TV coverage which
leads to sponsorship. Of the estimated
$780 million invested in Australian sports
sponsorship, only 8 per cent is allocated
to Australian women’s sport. That
doesn’t make sense given the immense
opportunity. You only have to look at the
massive female participation base and
evidence that there are loyal fans — a
new, untapped TV audience — waiting for
sponsors and broadcast media to catch
up.
These supporters and participants
number hundreds of thousands. Which
makes sponsorship of women’s sport
commercially viable in anyone’s book.
So come on sponsors, get those cheque
books out and let’s get more women’s
sport on TV. Equal pay will follow!
By Steve Boucher
Touchline | 3
editorial