There is a pay disparity related strictly on gender within society. There is no way to sugarcoat it, deny it or justify it. There are many examples of women who do the exact same work, hold the exact same positions with the same responsibilities who make less than male counterparts. This is not a sport issue but a societal issue. However, when it comes to sport the gap would seem to be even bigger.
Ask individuals involved in sport ( in this case read men) and they will pull out a list of what they feel are viable explanations as to why investing in women's sport, being it for salaries or sport in general is justifiable. Gender inequality in football is more entrenched than in than many other areas such as business, politics, or various other professions according to salary surveys that compared the employment status and pay of thousands of male and female footballers worldwide. Among some of the shocking facts revealed was that the combined pay of those playing in the top seven women’s football leagues equals that of a single male footballer, the Brazilian forward Neymar, who plays for the French club Paris St-Germain. His salary is almost exactly the same as 1,693 female players in France, Germany, England, the US, Sweden, Australia and Mexico combined. Over the last year or so, we have seen more and more women's national teams in soccer predominantly but USA hockey also being a case on point, standing up and demanding equitable pay for their service to the national programs under the threat of boycott. The Danish national women's team actually skipped a world cup qualifying game vs Sweden in protest and while it may cost them a spot at the 2019 World Cup, they felt the short term pain was worth the risk over the longer term and in the name of equitable pay. There are some signs of change in attempts to address the gender pay gap. The Norway Football Association forged an agreement earlier this year between its male and female internationals to bring about parity. The agreement started when the men's team gave away a significant amount of their finances for commercial activities to their female counterparts. In essence, this contribution to the women's budget, basically doubled the funds available to them. So why is this important, why does it have such a significant impact for the country's national team? In countries like Norway, often, there might be really one club that can offer a fully professional environment. Other teams don’t or can't pay as much. So it’s hard for female players to be able to fully commit to soccer as a career because they either work to earn a decent living wage or might be students, trying to earn a degree that will get them that job. In Britain, one club, Lewes FC announced a similar initiative and now pays its women’s team the same as its men’s team, as well as dedicating similar resources to both. But these are relatively isolated cases, with the chasm in remuneration for male and female elite athletes widening every year.Some women do make a good living from sport but it is nothing compared to the salaries and compensation from endorsements available to the men who make it to the top of their profession. Lyon, the best paid women’s sports team in the world, pays average salaries to its players which is in the area of 15 to 20 times less than players at the majority of top clubs in the various domestic leagues. So imagine what players are making at other teams and leagues. The gender pay gap is often explained away by those who argue that men’s sport is so much more commercially successful than women’s sport. This is a flawed logic. In terms of compensation for players with their respective national teams, there are those who will use as justification that that people with higher base earnings will demand more money for their time than people with lower base earnings. That the pay isn't based on the skills or abilities of the athlete, nor a judgement on the level of the women's game but rather on providing an incentive for the men's players to want to represent their countries. So if we apply the logic to soccer, it would mean that top players who are playing for “club and country.” need a reason to play for their national teams. Club refers to their regular jobs, for teams in Major League Soccer, the English Premier League or the other leagues around the world where they are making great salaries and since the goal of a national team is to have the most talented also play for country, it has to be worth their time Since most earnings come from club salaries, with national teams paying less money, for fewer games, some of the men might not bother to show up for paltry pay, but the women are likely to be less particular—because their regular jobs pay so little. So in essence, since women can't make a living wage as professionals in their sport, it's ok to play them less since it's still "pretty good !" Seems a little flawed. Women's sport has significant commercial value and in my opinion a huge untapped market. Good sport is good sport, if it is marketed, if it appeals to people they will watch it. I had previously posted about the benefits of investing in women's sport. see link investing-in-womens-sports-a-smart-move.html If the investment if women's sport is increased and there continues to be a growth in women's sport, it becomes more mainstream, then the resources available will only increase and then, the gender pay gap will hopefully start to close. However, might it be a situation of chicken or the egg? In order to make women's sport more mainstream , more competitive, more interesting to watch, does this mean it would require for dedicated full time athletes for whom their sport is their career and more importantly their source of income? Ah, so many questions! Hopefully the trend we have seen in the last little while will continue.....
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorAfter many years of coaching at various levels and with different teams, I thought I would share some of my experiences and thoughts about coaching. Archives
January 2023
Categories
All
|