Pay Disparity in Sport

[Loki]

Interesting. Didn't realise that.

The second paragraph is also interesting. Is there much of a difference right now in prize money for the early rounds of mens competitions compared to womens or is the prize money equal at every stage?

It is difficult to really compare two tournaments, as some rich tournaments will have more prize money than others anyway. The prize money in the men's game between tournaments differs significantly. The Beijing tournament was greater than that in Tokyo despite being played the same week and offer the same ATP points prizes.

So it is difficult to have a direct comparison unless the tournaments are getting played at the same time and at the same venue. The Grand Slams are not organised by the ATP or WTA, so we might only start seeing a difference next year. There is slight differences this year, but not significant ones. Serena Williams won more prize money than Andy Murray for both winning the Miami Master last season.

[HibeeJibee]

No crowds are available in Scottish womens football other than for the knockout stages of the UEFA Womens Champions League, and for last season's Scottish Womens Cup Final (where the crowd was 623).

In those WCL ties, all for Glasgow City who have dominated the domestic womens scene:

2011-12... Last 32... 738

2011-12... Last 16... 557

2012-13... Last 32... 460

2013-14... Last 32... 929

2013-14... Last 16... 1,300

2014-15... Last 32... 775

And in terms of recent Scotland womens internationals:

2009... 1,811 (friendly); 817 (friendly); +1 unpublished

2010... +2 unpublished

2011... 531 (friendly); 1,061 (qualifier); +2 unpublished

2012... 1,703 (qualifier); 1,184 (friendly); 817 (qualifier); 412 (friendly); 731 (qualifier); 4,058 (playoff); +2 unpublished

2013... 596 (friendly); 1,061 (qualifier); 1,582 (qualifier)

2014... 1,551 (qualifier); 2,150 (qualifier); 1,292 (qualifier); +2 unpublished

So clearly equal prizemoney would be farcical here.

However, a slight subsidy could exist, in much the way grassroots football is already supported.

[Loki]

I think the actual reason for not playing 5 sets is that no one wants to watch that. It would be farcical. As Bartoli said, women can't play for 5 sets over 2 weeks - they aren't physically capable of it

It could happen for finals only.

I don't think the women's game is as bad as the 90's when Richard Krajicek was famoulsy quoted saying "80% of the women's game are fat pigs and don't deserve equal pay", but I agree with you. They would never state that was the reason though. The scheduling reason is as good as any. I don't think the women would have wanted to play best of five either, was just a case of who could out bluff the other.

[H_B]

I don't think the women's game is as bad as the 90's when Richard Krajicek was famoulsy quoted saying "80% of the women's game are fat pigs and don't deserve equal pay", but I agree with you. They would never state that was the reason though. The scheduling reason is as good as any. I don't think the women would have wanted to play best of five either, was just a case of who could out bluff the other.

Yep, agreed.

On women's tennis, I liked this article for amusement purposes.

http://www.changeovertennis.com/new-battle-tennis-wta-vs-atp/

My favourite line - "Yes, Stakhovsky could presumably beat Serena Williams. He was born with physical capabilities that allow him to put more MPHs on his serve and groundstrokes. So what? Does this make him a superior tennis player? Certainly not."

Err, I think it does actually.

[Hillonearth]

But football can not say the same in the UK. Women's football continues to grow in popularity and is getting more and more TV coverage yearly, but until the economics match I can't see them ever getting equal pay. The law states that you are allowed the same money as the same gender doing the same job, so until women can compete at the highest level at football they will never get equal pay.

It’s growing in popularity to an extent, but even so it’s still at the stage where most top tier games aren’t pulling three figures spectator-wise, and most full internationals attract a couple of thousand tops at Fir Park. As regards TV coverage, it’s out there, but it tends to be the likes of internationals or Glasgow City’s European games going out on Alba, who won’t exactly be paying Sky Sports-style money to show it.

It seems to be part of Alba’s gameplan to show minority interest sport that they’ve paid buttons to televise to inflate their viewing figures in order to claim that somebody out there’s watching it – and that’s all women’s football is at least for the moment, very much a minority interest.

[HibeeJibee]

It’s growing in popularity to an extent, but even so it’s still at the stage where most top tier games aren’t pulling three figures spectator-wise, and most full internationals attract a couple of thousand tops at Fir Park. As regards TV coverage, it’s out there, but it tends to be the likes of internationals or Glasgow City’s European games going out on Alba, who won’t exactly be paying Sky Sports-style money to show it.

It seems to be part of Alba’s gameplan to show minority interest sport that they’ve paid buttons to televise to inflate their viewing figures in order to claim that somebody out there’s watching it – and that’s all women’s football is at least for the moment, very much a minority interest.

An average of the figures I posted above provides a neat summary... Last season's Scottish Womens Cup Final drew 1% the crowd of the Scottish Cup Final. Average crowds for Glasgow City in European knockout rounds was 793 which is 1.5% of the figures for Rangers & Celtic in CL or EL knockouts. Average crowds for womens internationals using the published crowds (which will be far higher than many of their unpublished friendlies) is 1,335 which is 3% of the approximate mens figure (so lets say 2%).

So in conclusion: 1%-2%.

[Newbornbairn]

There has been equal pay in Tennis for years and whilst the men play best of five in the Slams and the women play best of three the money is justified. Ticket sales, TV revenue etc is about even in Tennis. Some of the women make more money in endorsements and sponsorship than many of the men. Sharapova is second only to Federer in endorsements. A little known man in tennis called Kaarsten Braasch was ranked outside the world's top 200 and he agreed to play both Williams sisters in challenge matches in the same afternoon. He beat them both. The difference in fitness, muscular tone, body size etc will always hinder women if they compete with men. I have no doubt that the best women would improve and make in roads into the Men's game, but it would see them gather less prize money in doing so. So whilst they sell out tournaments, draw big TV contracts and get massive sponsorships, men and women's tennis should always be on a par money wise.

But football can not say the same in the UK. Women's football continues to grow in popularity and is getting more and more TV coverage yearly, but until the economics match I can't see them ever getting equal pay. The law states that you are allowed the same money as the same gender doing the same job, so until women can compete at the highest level at football they will never get equal pay.

I disagree. This year's Wimbledon Women's Final drew a BBC audience of 3.1 million against the Men's 10 million. Anecdotally I've also heard of courts at Wimbledon being full for a men's match, emptying when the women come on, then filling up again when the next men's match starts.

[Big Easy]

An average of the figures I posted above provides a neat summary... Last season's Scottish Womens Cup Final drew 1% the crowd of the Scottish Cup Final. Average crowds for Glasgow City in European knockout rounds was 793 which is 1.5% of the figures for Rangers & Celtic in CL or EL knockouts. Average crowds for womens internationals using the published crowds (which will be far higher than many of their unpublished friendlies) is 1,335 which is 3% of the approximate mens figure (so lets say 2%).

So in conclusion: 1%-2%.

Will be lucky if there was 500 at the game v Wales at Palmerston in August.

[ginge123]

You've got to think this study has been carried out just to rile up a bit of controversy because surely no one can think equal pay is a good idea, especially in football where attendances/TV viewing figures are so far apart.

Non-story.

[H_B]

I disagree. This year's Wimbledon Women's Final drew a BBC audience of 3.1 million against the Men's 10 million. Anecdotally I've also heard of courts at Wimbledon being full for a men's match, emptying when the women come on, then filling up again when the next men's match starts.

Yes, this is also true of TV ratings in general. People don't want to watch women's tennis in as large numbers.

[Tamdunk]

I used to find Womens tennis more entertaining, think it was at some point in the 90s when it was all about the power serve in the men's game. It's kinda gone the other way a bit, where the power hitters seem to be doing better in the womens game.

I'm a very casual tennis watcher tho, so cant really say if that's correct, just the way I've found it.

[ginge123]

Looking at those figures on the BBC, are they seriously suggesting that the Women's CL prize money is increased to £22 million, in line with Men's CL, or are thy suggesting thy split the difference at £11 million each, with presumably an £11 million subsidy from the Men's CL?

That would be bonkers.

[Tommy Nooka]

It should work both ways but it never does -

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2451212/Why-highest-earning-male-models-earn-just-fraction-female-counterparts-get.html

No outcry over this because men aren't moany c***s!!!

(Reading that article though I fail to see how 1.5 is anywhere near 10% of 42, must have been written by a model)

[7-2]

This was my next question. Does the equal pay in tennis almost become an example of positive discrimination?

There's no such thing as positive discrimination. It's discrimination with an adjective shoved in front of it to suit an agenda. It's just discrimination.

[JakeSAFC]

If woman's football actually reaches a decent standard then they can talk about an equal pay

[HibeeJibee]

When you look at it more closely, basically it's the BBC gunning at cricket, football and golf... It surprises me that squash hasn't got equalised prizemonies when other racket-sports do, and the figures are so small, however it's one case.

But beyond them the rest are either misleading examples (like snooker or darts: where women can enter the main tournaments as well as having their own dedicated championships with their own prizemoney). Or utterly fringe sports - if you can even call them sports at all - like cliff diving, surfing and ski-jump.

Problem is that football, cricket and golf will also be the richest sports which pay prizemonies... and the gulf is absolutely huge as the attendances, viewing figures and interest for mens tournaments absolutely dwarf those for the women. England's women cricketers seem to play in front of a few dozen people.

Unless the public change their habits, the prizemoney largely won't (and shouldn't).

[54_and_counting]

The law states that you are allowed the same money as the same gender doing the same job, so until women can compete at the highest level at football they will never get equal pay.

cant the male tennis stars say the same thing then, women tennis players do not do the same job as men given the reduction in sets in a womans match

they may sell out the tickets in grand slams, but a womans match lasting under an hour should not have the same pay as a mens match that goes on for 2 hours

if the womans tennis sells out just as well as the mens, then why not treat the fans and make the womans matches best out of 5 sets, same as the guys

(not having a go at you btw, just my take on it)

[ginge123]

I don't really think you can challenge equal pay on how long the games go on for in tennis. If you do that you could end up with the situation whereby Women's tennis becomes the format that brings in the most revenue for the sport but they get less because of how long they play for. That would lead to the question of where the rest of the money generated goes.

If people who buy tickets and those who buy the rights to these tournaments are willing to pay X amount, then they're paying for that format and all that comes with it.

If they really want to see how much the individual formats are worth then they need to start charging by match rather than by court to see where the ticket sale revenue should be going and have the WTA and it's male equivalent, the name of which escapes me at the moment, negotiate their own TV deals.

[HibeeJibee]

Just had a report on it on BBC News there, focusing on the examples of Arsenal... They got £1.8M for winning the FA Cup versus £5k for the FA Womens Cup. Similarly, the EPL titlewinner gets £24M whereas Womens Super League has no prizemoney.

However, they didn't observe that the FA Cup Final attendance was 89,345 whereas the FA Womens Cup Final got 15,098: and at a fraction of the price.

Arsenal also averaged just over 60,000 in EPL (where overall average was over 36,000) charging anything between £50 to £100 for a ticket; but Arsenal Women apparently averaged about 1,500 (with the WSL overall averaging 719) charging something like £5.

EPL gets about £1bn per season for 154 live TV games in the UK; whereas WSL gets a token sum for a dozen or so.

Ultimately, these factors explain the disparity, not any form of discrimination. And for that reason it's not really an "equality" issue.

[throbber]

If there becomes equality in this way in sport then my life as i know it will be ruined