Women don’t get much coverage in sports, and apparently lots
of people, not just women, are miffed by this. Sexism may be a factor, but it
is far from the most dominant. There are two big factors that ensure that women’s
sport has far smaller viewing figures than male sport: firstly, women are really
bad at sports compared to men, and as a consequence there is less skill on
show; secondly women are far less interested in sports than men and like to
watch women’s sport just as much as men, i.e. not at all.
Women are bad at sports in
comparison with men. This sounds damning, and it is, but not because the
sentence is constructed in an uncompromising way; no, it’s damning because it’s
true. Women are equals in terms of intelligence, ambition, artistic ability and
a million other things, but not when it comes to sport. No one feels the need
to defend the male Black Widow spider because he’s so inferior in size and
strength to the female, and it’s the same situation in humans, albeit in a less
exaggerated scale. Women’s sport is a poorer product. Wimbledon is an
excellent point of comparison. The women are athletic, talented and committed,
and their games do have drama. Yet, the men’s tournament is even more dramatic.
They play for longer; the extra length means fatigue and fitness plays a bigger
role, allowing for bigger swings in momentum. They hit harder and more
accurately, and run faster for longer. Hence, bigger viewing figures. This is the case in all sport, but is most clearly outlined in tennis, in which
men and women both receive equal billing.
This is a legitimate case for preferring
men’s sport, and there is no reason to feel guilty about it. There is no
obligation to like or to pretend to like something that we don’t, or can’t be
bothered with. There’s no expectation that we give bad films a fair shout (although,
worryingly, bad films often dominate the box office so maybe that isn’t the
best example). The under-16 age group is even more unfairly represented in the
media than women’s sport. The England U-16 boys football team would beat the
senior women’s team, and sometimes do well internationally, yet they get zero airtime. Where’s the fairness in
that? No one complains about that, even though all the arguments for the
increase in airtime for women’s sports could be copy and pasted into an
argument supporting the increase in airtime for U-16 sports.
The amount of coverage designated
to news outlets is in line with the popularity of the sport: the Premier League
has the highest viewing figures in terms of live and television audiences; Ultimate
Frisbee gets no attention because no one watches it. Television figures are the
important numbers (because they’re higher) but the popularity of a sport stems
from the size of the live audience. At Old Trafford, home of Manchester United,
the best men’s team in the country, the weekly 75 000 strong audience dictates
that football gets a lot of coverage. At Meadow Park, the 4 502-person capacity
stadium that is home of Arsenal Ladies F.C, the best women’s team in the
country that can boast Kelly Smith, the world’s best player, ‘attendances for
most home matches are in the hundreds’ (Wikipedia). The question is this: ladies, if you
want women’s sport on television, and this football example is as good as any, shouldn’t you go and watch it live, first?
If the best women’s team in the country, situated just outside the biggest city
in Europe, cannot find four and a half thousand women to watch them play, why
should T.V controllers and media outlets designate money into areas that
interest effectively nobody? They shouldn’t, so they don’t. The women’s sport
that does get strong attendances is tennis, and it is no coincidence that women’s
tennis does get attention from the media. Athletics and cycling do as well,
because loads of people watch the Olympics, and to a lesser extent the World
Championships. This is simple supply and demand.
The subtext in the lamentation that the media
don’t pay enough attention to women is sport is really that men don’t pay enough attention to women
in sport. Far more men go to watch live sport than women, and there is no
obligation for them to watch women’s sport. If women can draw in large crowds of women to watch them perform, then
sponsors would get interested and push advertising and push the media to cover
the sport more. It is not the responsibility of the sport-watching men to drag
women’s sport up from the poor table, it’s the responsibility of the women.
Someone once tried to argue with me that women and men aren't far away from each other in the 100 metres sprint, and that "women will soon break the 10 second barrier".
ReplyDeleteI dislike people. People are stupid.
Very interesting article, although as a woman it only made grow my sadness regarding the inevitability to be inferior to men in sports, but rules of natures are so. I agree with a lot of points.
ReplyDeleteEven if I tried and read this from a neutral point of view, I think that some sentences are very misogynous!!! You put the blame on women sometimes when it is not necessary I think... but I don't hate you though ;) lol
There is at least one women's sport men are interested in for some reasons ... : beach volley...