Since the beginning of organised sport, women have scratched, clawed and fought their way to be able to compete at the highest level in their chosen pursuits.
From the origins of Olympic sport which not only barred women from competing but did not allow them to even attend the Games at all. Not until the 1900 Paris Games were female competitors ‘invited to compete’, much at the behest of Pierre de Coubertin, the instigator of the modern Olympiad.
In those Games 22 women out of a total of 997 athletes competed in just five sports: tennis, sailing, croquet, equestrian and golf. But only golf and tennis had events for women only.
It has without question been an uphill battle for women to receive not only recognition and funding to even half the level of their male counterparts, But in some cases they are actively discouraged from participating in sport at all – as a recent UN report into sport equality confirmed.
So it is unquestionable in the majority of cases the proverbial deck was stacked high and the struggle of those brave women to get equality within the sporting landscape was hard and well fought battle.
However that was then. This is now.
The recent success of the Matildas’ World Cup campaign was rightly lauded across the Australian media. Plenty of fans jumped on to support the ‘Girls in Gold’. However, almost like clockwork, the old adage of equal pay rears its head in conjunction with the ‘backslapping’ from the media.
The members of the ‘Matildas’ World Cup Squad were paid a match fee of $500 per game, Compared to the Socceroos $7,500 per game. Now come the well intentioned media outlets and breakfast TV hosts lamenting the fact that the girls don’t earn enough as their male counterparts.
Now I see two issues here. Firstly, doesn’t everyone find it a touch derogatory to constantly bring up these points during a run of success? Shouldn’t we be rejoicing in the fact no matter who has been competing they have performed well?
Would we hear the howls of the equal pay brigade coming out of the woodwork if they had been bundled out in the group stage with back-to-back losses?
Secondly lets look at the all important numbers. The FIFA Women’s World Cup in 2015 was hosted in Canada. The total attendance figures for that tournament were 1,353,506 with an average of 26,029. Television ratings for the final was 25.4 million. Let’s compare this to the Men’s World Cup in Brazil.Total attendance figures were 3,429,873 (53,592 per match), and the TV figures for the final were reputed to be over 1 billion.
I think the numbers speak for themselves.
This reality gets lost in the debate far too often. The fact is if the same finances were being generated across women’s sport they should undoubtedly receive the same remuneration. However they don’t.
In tennis, where equality in pay is a reality, men and women pull in much more equal viewership and finances worthy of the pay both receive in major tournaments.
However away from the majors where men and women play separately, we see a very different story. The women’s tour has 31 tournaments for a total prize pool of $24.6 million and an average $794,000. Contrast this to the men’s tour which has 51 tournaments with a total prize of $65 million for an average of $1.29 million.
Let’s draw a line in the sand and say of course we want women in sport and of course the deserve equal pay. However the duly noted and overused arguments every time a disparity in pay is noticed must stop.
We would do better to not belittle the achievements of our proud female athletes with debates on equal pay and instead focus on the achievements on the pitch. This is the only way to ensure a fair playing field for all.
John Gorrie
Roar Rookie
Agreed! As was the point of my article
Bornslippy
Guest
Yeah nah, how does talking about equal pay belittle the achievements of sportswomen? There is no level playing field in terms of financial support for women's sport, that's the whole point and the reason the issue continues to be raised over and over again.
Daniel Old Dad
Guest
Excellent and well balanced story. Let's take Ronda Rousey for example, an awesome athlete with many predicting her next fights will set UFC pay per view records and she will become the highest paid UFC athlete which is fair enough and well deserved.... Attendance and money talks!
NaBUru38
Guest
I agree with the author thay economic equality must be sustained through actual income. My complaint is that sports federations and promoters don't try too hard to reach equality by properly promoting women's sports. Why is is nearly impossible to watch women's football except at the World Cup? In Latin America it was nearly imposdible. That's because Fifa and friends dont care much.
John Gorrie
Roar Rookie
Hi Megan, Cheers for your reply. I appreciate you taking the time to give me your thoughts.. And as it appears you have not quite understood the purpose of my article I will attempt to tackle your points raised. It would be Mawkish of me to suggest I am the first one to ever consider this prospect and I have never claimed that to be the case. I have of course heard this argument regularly and as I'm sure you would appreciate felt compelled to add my opinion on the matter. As you seem to ''predictably'' suggest that I have a Male superiority complex involved in my thoughts on the matter I will attempt to clarify. I went out of my way in this article to research on why women's sport has been considered inferior, As you correctly pointed out. ''Women’s sport has historically been designated as second class'' So it would seem we agree and thank you for pointing out one of my arguments raised. I personally would love to see more women's sport at a higher level and this was the intended nature of my piece. The obvious question is why is this the case? I chose to look into the financial realities of this issue which is merely a statement of fact. this was not intended to prove the superiority of male sports. Other points raised about the how and why was the purpose of this. Stir up debate on why this is the case and look at this from a different angle. Having a slanging match about whether or not I am Misogynistic (as has been suggested very thinly by yourself) I believe strengthens my final point of moving past the duly noted arguments and obvious notions that they are paid less. This does not fix the how or why. It merely mires the debate into farcical tit for tat name calling. And this is priceley what I mean when this is only brought up when they are doing well and not more often which should be the case. As the title suggests they deserve equal pay.. but something cannot be forced through on a political angle. as I stated let the sport speak for itself and the crowds will come much like UFC Champion Ronda Rousey There was no debate about her gender, There was no debate about her pay. she quite simply fought her way to the top. However by telling people you must enjoy this because its 'mysoginistic say otherwise or muse about the real intention of someone writing an article on the matter is simply now as far as Im concerned a dead argument that is beneath you. cheers!
The artist formerly known as Punter
Guest
Kaks, I think you need to do your sums again!!!!! Based on the fact that every 2nd person watched the game in India, Pakistan, England, Australia, NZ SA, Sri Lanka & even throw in US, you still come up short. But then again it's a pretty wild assumption that every 2nd person in those countries watched the game.
Tim Reynolds
Roar Pro
You can bemoan the relative lack of coverage for women's sport till your black in the face, but to turn it around you will have to change thousands of years of conditioning. Read the Bible or any other holy book and see what they say about the different roles. Unfortunately, in the one area of major sport where women have got pay equality, they are getting the same pay for less. Serena Williams will be winning 6/1, 6/3 even in the quarter finals, and she'll never be pushed into a five setter. By the quarter finals, even Federer has probably been forced into one or two five setters. Why can't women play five setters? They now run the marathon, box, and do judo. Probably because of male TV schedulers!
Megan Maurice
Expert
John, you seem to labour under the illusion that you are the first person to come up with such brilliance on this topic. Do you honestly think no one has ever had this thought before? Do you think it isn't brought up by millions of men every time the topic is raised, as if the suggestion is that the money for the female athletes is to come out of their own pockets? You are only scratching the surface of this issue and don't appear to have asked the question "Why is this the case?" with regards to viewer numbers. If you are as predictable as you seem, you will earnestly tell me that men's sport is of a higher quality and that people don't want to watch "inferior" sport. However, as has been discussed many times before, if this was the case, no one would watch the A-League, or a clash between two lower placed teams in the AFL for example. Women's sport has historically been designated as second class and it will take some bravery at the top to change that. Women's sports are resourced poorly due to lack of funds, which becomes a vicious cycle where teams operating on low budgets with low paid staff are unable to compete with the well-funded men's sports. Yes, the money has to come from somewhere and that is why we are fighting for things to change, so the money does come. We bring it up to raise awareness of the fact that this happens, so more people will be be aware that the sport even exists and tune in. Which in turn will attract better broadcasting deals, which in turn will attract more sponsorship dollars. And no, it is not derogatory to bring up the fact that women earn far less than their male counterparts. What is derogatory is "rejoicing in the fact no matter who has been competing they have performed well" as you suggest. We need to strive for better, not accept what we have. Things are slowly changing, but they won't unless we keep talking about it and refuse to let this issue be pushed into the background. The more professional women's sport becomes, the more talent we will uncover and the better quality it will be. Think about how many women who couldn't afford to take time off from working have been deterred from following the path of elite sport and imagine how much better it could be if everyone who had the talent to make it to the top level had the means to as well.
fiddlesticks
Guest
you have in one strip of comments become the biggest waste of space on the roar, congratulations
fiddlesticks
Guest
and you can take your acronyms with you? you contribute nothing to the roar, good bye
Kaks
Roar Guru
LOL what are you on about
John Gorrie
Roar Rookie
Cheers Brendon, Apologies mate have you read my piece? Im not sure what you are arguing about? You simply keep reiterating my points? I asked you earlier to point out where I was being misogynistic? So far I am yet to hear a conclusive reply I look forward to your no doubt calm and measured response.
Brendon
Guest
As I said the ITF is a private organisation. Why do you care what they pay women in THEIR tournaments? You didn't answer that question. Its their money. Dont like it? Dont watch any of the slams. If you object to tennis in Australia receiving government money, like Aussie Rules, football, league, union, cricket etc, and dont want the organisers of the Australian Open to pay equal money for men and women then create a movement and protest and lobby to have the Australian Open moved to another country or that the organisers lower the prize money for women. That is your right but good luck with that. I'm sure China would love to get a grand slam and be happy to pay women and men the same amount of money. I'm sure you'll make a lot of people happy with your demands that the Australian Open pay women less or that another country get our grand slam event. You can also lobby the sponsors of the grand slams to encourage them to stop sponsoring the 4 slams unless the ITF and the organisers stop paying women equal prize money. But I doubt you will. I'm guessing you and your type with your passive aggressive misogyny will just stick to crying and complaining on the internet. Oh, wait, this isn't anti-women at all! Sure ... and the American civil war was about "state's rights" and not about slavery. Spare me your weasel words. Heard them all before. Three of the four WTA Premier Mandatory are part of the same tournament as 3 of the 9 ATP Masters 1000 tournaments. The exception is the China Open which is only a 500 tournament for men. In two of those 3 tournaments men and women get the same prizemoney and at Indian Wells women actually get more than the men. The 4th WTA Premier Mandatory is a mens 500 tournament, not a 1000 tournament, in China and the womens prize money is double that of the men. Many of the WTA Premier 5 share a tournament with ATP Master 1000 tournament and obviously they earn less. Interestingly enough the Masters 1000 ATP events that share the tournament with the 3 WTA Premier Mandatory events also have more prize money (for men) than men only Masters 1000 tournaments. Also, the WTA Tour Finals has total prize money of US$6,500,000 which is the exact same at the mens ATP World Tour Finals yet they are held separately. I'll let that sink in ... equal prize money BUT played separately. But overall the WTA has less big tournaments and therefore less money but Serena Willliams still has an estimated net worth by Forbes of US$130,000,000. Equal pay at slams or not that is a lot of money.
Dave
Guest
OK Brendon - thanks for your feedback. You seem to have it all worked out so I'll just leave you to it =)
Kaks
Roar Guru
Pakistan Population - 182.1 million India Population - 1.252 billion not to mention strong Indian and Pakistani populations in England, Australia and USA. Then we have the rest of the world watching like England, Australia, NZ, SA, Sri Lanka etc. Not hard to imagine at all.
Brendon
Guest
What assumptions? I just proved it was impossible for 1 billion people to watch the India vs Pakistan match. That would require 50% of all people in all the 14 countries of the cricket world cup to watch the game. Impossible. You claim I provide no stats yet you can't even provide one link or statistic except for some reference to a right wing rag in the UK. I gave you the actual link that clearly states 135 million people in India watched a world final in their own timezone, not South Australia's timezone. Ok, lets say 4 years of development in India has increased TV coverage. Lets say 200 million people watched a group match game played in a foreign timezone, where is the other 800 million coming from? Even the NFL super bowl in the USA barely draws in 1/3 of all Americans. Even if 1/3 of India and Pakistan watched the group match thats not even 500 million. And your reply is nothing but ad hominem attacks. You didn't refute anything I said. "In fact, some of the stuff you’re saying in this thread Brendon makes me think you’ve been planted here by the original author to simply stir up a bit of controversy, promote Reddit and incite all of these comments ; )" If I wrote what I thought of you and your intelligence I wouldn't get this comment posted.
Dave
Guest
So you're attempting to de-bunk all of these statistics based on a whole range of assumptions, but you're quite happy to use similar statistics regarding the Women's World Cup to support your own points? You're not providing any real substance in your counter-arguments. Whether or not *you* think rugby is popular in any particular country isn't a viable counter-argument, and the fact that you would claim the RWC wouldn't even get 100milion worldwide shows how awfully disconnected you are from the reality. In fact, some of the stuff you're saying in this thread Brendon makes me think you've been planted here by the original author to simply stir up a bit of controversy, promote Reddit and incite all of these comments ; )
Kaks
Roar Guru
I'm guessing this reply was to someone else, however you seem to have a chip on your shoulder so im going to feed you with more real information to set you over the edge. It's entertaining to see people like you go crazy :) "Australian sports like rugby league and aussie rules that get wads of cash from state and federal governments. But wait, the AFL and NRL “earn” their incomes" AFL and NRL make their money from TV deals. Tennis is the closest in terms of popularity with the women's and men's game, and yet the men's game generates more sponsors, more viewers and more people turn up to watch the men play. On top of that, men play more sets. Is that equal? http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2015/07/wimbledon-ratings-espn-serena-womens-final-up-djokovic-federer-rematch-flat/ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/tennis/wimbledon/11725805/Wimbledon-2015-Fans-left-fuming-at-empty-centre-court-seats.html http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2015/07/wimbledon-ratings-espn-serena-womens-final-up-djokovic-federer-rematch-flat/
John Gorrie
Roar Rookie
Thanks Nick, I would happily include this for you however there is only so much time in the day. If you type into google yourself you will find that they too underrated as a comparison to the Men's events.
Brendon
Guest
Why do you care what the ITF pays its players? The ITF is a private organisation that doesn't receive government money unlike Australian sports like rugby league and aussie rules that get wads of cash from state and federal governments. But wait, the AFL and NRL "earn" their incomes. (yes, I'm making fun of you) Anyway, in WTA events women earn a LOT less than ATP events. So you're crying about 4 grand slam events?