Almost a year since her heroic effort, Olympic gold medallist Sally Pearson is still struggling to gain lucrative sponsorship deals.
Could it be, that I dare say perhaps, just perhaps, in this shallow day and age Pearson is simply not “good-looking” enough?
Before you scream “I can’t believe she went there”, let me first state I have always been an avid Pearson supporter.
During the London games last year I pointed out that all Australian media should be ashamed about the copious amount of attention swimmer Stephanie Rice endured by being friends with USA basketballer Kobe Bryant.
It was a slap in the face to Pearson’s endeavor.
Oh yeah, that gold medal you won? That’s great but excuse me while I scroll through the latest gallery of Steph and Kobe.
After Pearson’s courageous effort there was talk she could be in the vicinity of earning up to $2 million in sponsorship deals. A year on, we can see this was nothing more than an excited exaggeration.
Again I was outraged when sporting store giant Rebel Sport chose the ever so un-athletic cricket WAG Kyly Boldy.
I wrote how Rebel Sport’s managing director Erica Berchtold proclaimed “It’s about time we had a female ambassador associated with sport”.
The frontrunner for the most idiotic comment of the year?
Amongst comments to my then article back in February, I stumbled across this beauty by a reader:
“Men like to watch attractive women, We don’t care about their attributes. Why make that simple fact more complicated than it is”.
Charming. I sure hope this gem of a man one day has a daughter who comes home crying from school because a boy told her she’s ugly, see how you respond then pal.
Amongst last months hoo-hah of Roxy’s latest TV commercial showcasing surfer Stephanie Gilmore lying around in her knickers, the deemed sexual objectification of Gilmore only boosted the exposure of the five time ASP World Champions err, “qualities”.
Speaking of, what man doesn’t crush on fellow surfer Sally Fitzgibbon? Let’s be honest guys, do you really care about surfing? Or follow football/cricket darling Elyse Perry’s efforts on the field?
The majority of you I’m sure would say no.
In contrast I’m sure you have heard of Pearson’s fellow Aussie hurdler Michelle Jenneke. Jenneke’s best effort was winning the silver medal for the 100 m hurdles at the 2010 Summer Youth Olympics.
Yet google her name or any of the others I’ve mentioned and you will find the adjectives “glamour” and “sexy” alongside alluring images.
Pretty sad reflection of women in sport today huh? I’m well aware we are not the only nation that feels the need to sex up out female athletes, hence why I don’t see this issue going away.
Before you begin to think this is a sexist bash it’s not, I’m well too aware there are obviously lots of sporting codes chasing big money across the country.
Still, does Pearson need to pose in next to nothing to gain more male attention thus attracting more sponsorship dollars?
Or perhaps she needs to take a leaf out of compatriot Jenneke and gyrate before every hurdle race?
Or do you as an Australian merely find athletics tedious due to the lack of coverage?
Regardless of any opinion the fact is Pearson will just have continue to train her heart out while living a modest lifestyle.
Bottom line? The greatest reward of all unfortunately is priceless.
fiddlesticks
Guest
he is relevant because its a good comparison. he has the role because of his pretty boy looks, when they are better commentators and more accomplished ex players around
Andy_Roo
Roar Guru
Perhaps you, and liquor Box above should note that her name is actually Meares, not Mears.
Ando
Guest
Astro, Rudds hair has been the main story all week.
Lee
Guest
While we're at it, there is nothing about Ian Thorpe that could be called good looking. Nothing. Sponsorship? Gazillions. Sucks.
liquor box
Guest
classic example is a comparison of sponsorship of Michael Clark and Shane Watson v Steve Smith and Doug Bollinger. Sex sells for both sexes, Pearson is hot anyway so I don't understand why she is chosen. Jessica Shipper has missed out based on looks and I think this is also the reason for Anna Mears, who trumps all other female athletes for courage and skill on the international stage, she came back from a broken neck!
liquor box
Guest
I am sure any google search of Tony Abbott and budgie smugglers would have about a million hits
DaniE
Guest
:D
Titus
Guest
Shirvo had balls.
Steve
Guest
Zidane/ Beckham is actually a really good comparison.
Damien
Roar Guru
Yes, just like Petria Thomas. Though I'm not sure why Rice or anyone other female athlete should take flak as punishment for Thomas not getting more sponsors..
Johnno
Guest
Steve, Shirvo when he was younger 1998-2006, was a bit, had that sex symbol a bit not much but a bit. He was glorified a bit. He endorsed sun-glasses, and a bit fo other things. he used to get invited to nightclubs, he was seen as a boy next door kinda guy, Micheal Clarke kinda boy from middle class suburbs of sydney. Shirvo is a northern beeches man. I once saw him at Bondi Beach with a few of his mates, in summer of 2000, at the peak of his popularity a few months after Sydney 2000. He defiantly had a fit body. way fitter and in better shapes than your average middle class joe. So it's not just the sex symbol stuff, it's also the image or just a clean cut image. No acne, fit fiigure, a tan a reasonable height, whatever, I don't know what the marketers look for. Beckham had the skill, but he got way more endorsement deals than his ability. Guys like Ronaldo and Zidane got some, but nothing like Beckham.
Johnno
Guest
Jocelyn, Mark Philippoussis had a lot of talent, but he was once of the faces of Pepsi and never won a grand slam, old Scud.
Jocelyn McLennan
Roar Guru
In a word..Yes if they want to secure sponsorship...the sad truth of the sex sells society...Maria Sharapova the top female earner...Ivanovic has not won a cracker in the last 3 years...but still in the top ten earners...I wonder why?...it is the same for the men...the good lookers get the endorsements and the not so lookers have to rely on talent!.....Remember the sponsor owns the product so he/she are free to chose anyone they like to be a paid employee to sell their product...are they going to chose an ugly one?would you?
Steve
Guest
Correct, and another point that should be mentioned is that Tennis opens far more doors for publicity and sponsorship than swimming. Is it sexist that you see Beckham's face on more billboards than Michael Phelps?
Steve
Guest
Matt Shirvington who was never spoken of or objectified in a sexual context, you mean? The main double standard I can see is that male athlete's attractiveness is every bit as essential to sponsorship deals and celebrity. David Beckham, anyone?
Johnno
Guest
Steve, I think it's a double-edge sword with Kournikova. Some points on this debate. -No one is doubting Kournikova's ability to play on the WTA tour and in fact be a top 10 player, I follow tennis and knew she was top 10. -She suffered a lot of injuries which ended her career, and injuries at key times. She was a decent player no question. -Doubles record was excellent. -And I checked Kournikova stats, never won a WTA singles title. Zero. Made a few finals and lost them all. -Even if she had no injuries, and was fit, I am not sure she would be all time great, or great, or one of best ever. -Forget Capriati,Hingis,Sharapova,Kim Clijsters types. -Im not sure she was ever as talented as Sanchez-Vicario, Davenport ,types, or even Sabatini types. The point is, her endorsement deals, far exceeded her "perceived natural ability or record". Hennin for example one of all time greats, never got the endorsement deals Kournikova got.
dasilva
Guest
I personally think that relationship between male and women is based on the idea that every woman matters because they have a womb and they are the limiting factor in reproduction but guys have to prove themselve to be valuable to society and absorb the pressure of society so that woman don't have to. A species that doesn't protect women is a species doomed to extinction (hence woman and children first mentality). In fact the disparity in physical strength between male and woman and consequently division of labour has actually been hypothesise as an evolutionary advantage that humans has over certain primate species (some primates such as bonobo have male and female have similar physical strength and women are expected to do similar amount of work) becuase we don't send the limiting factor of reproduction to dangerous situation such as hunting and let the more disposable males to do those jobs. THe consequences are that guys are far more likely to be judge on functionality, the ability to provide, social status as they proven themselves to be valuable to society and be useful to woman and their potential chidlren. In fact the physical attractiveness of guys are often linked to functionality (6 pack, muscles = strength to do work etc). Woman, well functionality beyond reproduction is of less important hence they are judge on well on how sexually attractive they are (actually what guys find attractive is generally linked to reproduction, wider hips (assist incarry baby), breast (breast feeding the child)). Due to these instinct, I think guys will always be treated more on functionality than women will be and women will always be treated more on looks. Is it fair? probably not but those instinct helped us in the hunter-gatherer stages of society but now we lived in a developed civilization where there really is no need to worry about extinction and survival of the human race and perhaps those instincts are out of date. However it's going to take generations in this developed society for "equality" on the way people treat male and female.
Steve
Guest
I get annoyed that Anna Kournikova, always gets dragged into these arguments about looks over talent. I hear people always say she never one anything, she never won any grand slams. They would in fact be wrong. Anna Kournikova actually won 16 Career doubles titles, including 2 Gran Slam Doubles titles, 2 year ending WTA Championships, and was ranked number 1 doubles player in the world. Alongside her career high singles ranking of Number 8 in the world. As a singles player she made many WTA SF and Finals tournament appearances, although not winning any WTA Singles Titles. Which when appearing against Monica Seles, Martina Hingis, Lindsay Davenport and Jennifer Capriati at their career peaks its kind of understandable. Was Anna Kournikova a beautiful girl? Of course she was. Did she look good on a tennis court? Of course she did. Did she earn millions of dollars in endorsements? Of course she did yes and good on her. Is her talent as a tennis player underestimated? Well that happens to be a big yes also. She was also well educated, smart and articulate in her interviews and had a very good business sense. Is she the dumb, beautiful and talentless tennis player that most people see her as? Well that's an emphatic no!!!!
dasilva
Guest
THe issue is not about endorsement. When it goes to media roles and advertisement, looks count for both genders The issue is the amount of money you can make from the game where the only thing that matters is how good you are on the field . That's where the disparity is I'll have to say that disparity will always remain as long as majority of people who watch sports are men. If women watch woman sports as much as men watch male sports, then the issue would generally be solve. However since that is not the case. Well women sports has to sell itself to a predominant male audience and that's what happens as a result in terms of having to be good looking for attention.
nickoldschool
Roar Guru
+1