Prize money

[Gbspurs]

So there an article on bbc sport about the lack of parity in prize money between mens and womens sports, with football being mentioned as one of the worst offenders.

http://m.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/29744400

This gist of it is that they want to close the gap and they talk about 70% of sports offering equal money which is what they are aspiring to.

I know Tennis is one of the most high profile sports where an equal prize fund is given, and although this has caused a bit of contention over the years because of the fact women play less tennis for the same money, on the whole people seem happy.

Obviously the gap between mens and womens football prize funds is huge but then of course so is the money generated by each game I would assume.

I always thought that prize funds were dictated by sponsors and linked to turnover etc so assuming football starting paying equal money, who foots the bill? Shouldn't popularity/competitiveness of the sport dictate earnings?

Be interested in gaining the opinion of some of the female members too @spursgirls @spurs_girl_tasha @CosmicHotspur @Hot-Spur (and any others it's not exclusive!) do you watch women's sports specifically? Do you find it as enjoyable? Etc.

My opinion is let the people decide. If the football is as entertaining then the viewing levels will be comparable and the sponsors will be more interested so prize funds should increase but I know it's a bit chicken/egg that if the money isn't there the standard will always be lacking.

 

[robbiedee]

I was watching the FA Cup round 1 (proper) draw on BBC2 last night (thank god the beeb have got the FA Cup back!)

Anyway - they were saying that the Womens match against Germany at Wembley (next month?) has sold 40,000 tickets already where as the England v Norway (mens) was around the 35,000 mark, so the profile is definitely on the rise, and the more exposure the sport gets the more popular it will get.

As you said a bit of chicken and egg situation going on but BBC sport are doing a pretty good job...would be nice to see BT sport, Sky and ITV support it more (even if it menas more Andy Townsend commentary)

 

[HotspurFC1950]

It's ridiculous that women's tennis commands the same prize money as the men's. No comparison in terms of action, number of sets. Women's is like watching paint dry.

 

[CosmicHotspur]

I do watch women in sport but admit not as often as I do the male competitors.

I've always felt that if women tennis players played five sets they should get the same money and why not but not if they continue to play only three? They are certainly fit and strong enough nowadays.

A lot of men think women footballers are not that good but my other half has watched women's football with me and has been surprised at some of the skills. Not as powerful but certainly some of them are excellent ball players with a lot of talent. Perhaps they should be paid on the strength of gate money and advertisers should consider more female sporting personalities in their campaigns - they would benefit from the sponsorship money which would balance things out a little more. It would be great to see top male and female footballers and cricketers in the same commercials.

For sports where spectatorship and the level of performance is equal for male and female it seems fair they should be paid the same.

 

[spursgirls]

I think where a sport is more popular when it is men taking part, it will naturally attract more money to it. Women can't be paid the same amount if the money isn't coming in. I think they are up against it though as in some sports, such as football, women have a long way to go to get to the same level of skill and athleticism. Female goalkeepers are pretty awful! I don't mind watching women's football, and certainly there is skill there (and it is improving all the time), but at the moment, it's not as exciting as watching men playing (generally speaking). It will possibly catch up in time as it is much more popular in schools now, but at the moment, it would be unfair to pay women the same amount for their World cup, FA cup etc when they aren't attracting the viewers in the same numbers as the men's competition. @robbiedee's post seems to suggest that is changing now though.

As for tennis, I don't like watching women's tennis. It is slow and too many of the women grunt! lol. Men's tennis is more entertaining imho. There is the argument that because women aren't as powerful as men, their matches are better value for money as they have longer rallies, but I find it boring. I also believe that if they want equal prize money, they should play 5 sets. (Though then they would probably complain that their rallies and therefore matches are longer than the men's so they should be paid more!)

Equal prize money should definitely be the norm for sports where the competition is equal, such as athletics, swimming, sailing, judo, boxing, gymnastics etc though. I believe viewing figures are similar for men and women in these?

This also now raises the question though as to whether disabled athletes should be paid the same........!
(I don't think so btw)

 

[Gbspurs]

I bet most of us have tried to watch women's football and ultimately given up. I think they need to pump some serious money into it really to make the quality better. There isn't really any reason it can't be an enjoyable game as women could focus more on their technical ability to make up for lack of strength and it could be fine.

I'm not sure I buy "boobs" as the reason keepers are crap either but not having my own I can't really judge!

 

[Geyzer Soze]

It's natural that the prize money is more for sports which attact larger audiences, it's that simple.

Women's tennis attracts large audiences, the prize money is big. Bigger, I'm sure, than Men's water polo.

 

[Kendall]

Their prize money appears to be growing relative to their sport. Should they get the same wages as Prem players too? Of course not. It's a different product altogether. With the Tennis, it's not a different product per se, the coverage is fairly equal, they play at the same grand slams and in some cases even play together.

 

[Geyzer Soze]

Their prize money appears to be growing relative to their sport. Should they get the same wages as Prem players too? Of course not. It's a different product altogether.

Tbf prem players shouldn't get the money prem players get

 

[Kendall]

Tbf prem players shouldn't get the money prem players get

Says who?

 

[Geyzer Soze]

Says who?

Me. I said that.

You don't think pl players are overpaid?

 

[Kendall]

Me. I said that.

You don't think pl players are overpaid?

Meh, it's shareholders' cash, they can do with it as they please. If they weren't happy spending their money that way, they'd soon let the board know.

 

[Gbspurs]

Me. I said that.

You don't think pl players are overpaid?

In the private sector your pay is usually a direct reflection of your importance to the business. Who is more important at a football club that their star players?

So if Man Utd turnover say £400m then paying their most marketable player (Rooney) £15m is good business no?

 

[spurs_girl_tasha]

I think Prize money should be linked obviously with how popular the sport is, if womens football one day became as popular as men and it bought in the same revenues I don't see why the prize money should be different.

I don't really watch much women's sport other than tennis or stuff that on in the olympics/athletics or netball. Depending on the women playing tennis it can be as exciting as the men, I'm quite a fan of the Williams sisters and I'll be gutted once Serena finishes tennis.

 

[Kendall]

instead of harping on about gaps in prize money, we should be focusing more heavily on shit like this:

http://m.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/29810908

we need to weed out these fucking fossils from our game. It's bullshit that he gets to keep his position with archaic views like that.

 

[Coyboy]

Bloody backward northerners.

 

[nailsy]

instead of harping on about gaps in prize money, we should be focusing more heavily on shit like this:

http://m.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/29810908

we need to weed out these fucking fossils from our game. It's bullshit that he gets to keep his position with archaic views like that.

The comments by David Ellery

 

[AW?]

It's surely related to how much TV revenue it creates like anything in sport. Women's Tennis is a lot more watchable than a lot of other female sports. That probably relates to the fact more women play the game world wide so the standard would obviously be higher and the fact Tennis is just very popular as a spectator sport.

 

[cliff jones]

It's ridiculous that women's tennis commands the same prize money as the men's. No comparison in terms of action, number of sets. Women's is like watching paint dry.

Unless we can watch Serena blast the shit out of someone, and watch her tits bouncing up and down in the process.

 

[tommo84]

I was watching the FA Cup round 1 (proper) draw on BBC2 last night (thank god the beeb have got the FA Cup back!)

Anyway - they were saying that the Womens match against Germany at Wembley (next month?) has sold 40,000 tickets already where as the England v Norway (mens) was around the 35,000 mark, so the profile is definitely on the rise, and the more exposure the sport gets the more popular it will get.

As you said a bit of chicken and egg situation going on but BBC sport are doing a pretty good job...would be nice to see BT sport, Sky and ITV support it more (even if it menas more Andy Townsend commentary)

BT Sports are arguably doing more than any of the other channels to promote women's football. They certainly televise more of it than the rest and often have women footballers as guests on their many (often excellent) sports chat/discussion shows.

As the OP mentions its essentially all market driven. The prize finds for the EPL, for example, come from the huge sponsorship deals and broadcasting contracts. The women's game therefore needs to become more marketable in order to raise its revenue streams which will then fund any prize money.

What is infuriating is that the way in which the issue has been raised has, once again, been done with an air of "men in suits with archaic attitudes to women are responsible for this disparity", but that simply isn't the case here. The prizes for mens competitions do not come from a huge pot of money which is there to be distributed by the governing body however they deem fit. They are privately funded by contracts which relate to a specific competition.

With all that being said, the question which should have been thrown back at the study and the policitican who brought this back into the spotlight is, "Where is this additional prize money supposed to come from?". If there was an answer to that question then the disparity would probably already have been addressed (to some extent).