Lately, there has been a lot of chat about pay inequality when it comes to gender in sports.
The discussion kicked off when reports surfaced that the New Zealand men’s cricket team had flown business class to the T20 World Cup, while their female counterparts where situated back in cattle-class.
As a result, many kicked up a huge furore with columnists putting pen to paper with cries of ‘’unfair sexism in sport’’ and that the women where being treated as “second class citizens.”
Don’t get me wrong; I’m a huge fan of women’s sports, with beach volleyball being a personal favourite, but I’d argue that inequality when it comes to gender and pay is due to disparity in revenue generated and not a case of “unfair sexism.”
Men’s sport is generally more popular, drawing larger crowds because of the fact that the athletes involved are usually faster and stronger than their female counterparts, which in most cases, makes for more entertaining events. That’s not a chauvinistic opinion but a biological fact.
Take for example Serena and Venus Williams (two of tennis’ greatest players), who in 1998 brashly claimed that they could beat any man ranked 200 or worse in the world. One former tennis player Karsten Braasch decided to take the sisters up on the offer and after a leisurely morning spent strolling the golf course, downing a few beers and sucking through a packet of cigarettes (could explain why he’s never won a five-set match) he beat the sisters comfortably, 6-1 and 6-2 respectively.
When it comes down to it, men usually have the upper hand in the sporting arena, and as a result tend to pull in greater crowds and the revenue that comes with that.
There are plenty of fields in which women earn comparatively more than men. I’m yet to see anyone complaining about the absurd gender pay gap between male and female models. Gisele Bundchen, the highest paid female last year netted herself $44 million, 2933 percent more than the highest paid male Sean O’Pry who took home $1.5 million. But when the market for women’s shopping is considerably larger than the market for men, it’s understandable that more money is invested into female models rather than males. If your going off the basis that both genders should be paid equally then shouldn’t some of the revenue that Bundchen generates be used to increase the pay of male models?
Perhaps media coverage of women’s sport could be to blame? I’ve heard the argument that perhaps if women’s sport had greater media coverage, attendances would rise and they would be able to achieve parity in pay with the males. Maybe that’s true? But when male athletes can, on average, hit a ball further, jump higher or run faster I think it has an effect on the popularity of the event and the advertising that surrounds that.
Take for example the cricket, which sparked this whole discussion. Men’s cricket isn’t more popular just because its played by men, or because those who attend the game are chauvinistic males who don’t believe in female sports. It’s more popular because the athletes who play it can hit the ball further and bowl the ball faster than their female counterparts. It’s simply more exciting in many people’s eyes.
To prompt people attending more women’s sport, funding needs to be poured into the grassroots level to foster and encourage enthusiasm and participation around sport. Who knows, perhaps in years to come we could see a sold out Forsyth Barr to watch a Black Fern’s match.
Hugh Baird
Critic Editor