Poor media coverage of women's sports

MrCreosote

Interesting article in the Irish Times today

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/weekend/2012/0526/1224316720712.html

The bit at the end is one of my big bugbears- referring to all successful women in sport by their first name. A mark of respect to an accessible sports star, or a "Sure, aren't you a great little girl for doing the running" patronising attitude? Definitely the latter.

One thing I've noticed in triathlon is that women are always referred to by their surnames, probably represents better gender equality in it. Compared with elite athletics or boxing, which are still very sexist in general.

Pisco Sour

With the big sports yes, women get bugger all coverage. But for sports like athletics, tennis, swimming etc, they get as much coverage as the men get.

I find that bit about the names nonsense though, and just looking for extra problems. Loads of people referred to Coghlan as Eamonn, I always refer to Harrington as Padraig as do plenty others. Doherty was always "Ken" to many. O'Rourke is Derval, O'Sullivan is Sonia. What's the problem? It just means the public has warmed to them and like their personality as much as their talent.

Article is a bit of a moan fest to be honest. Way too long and not well written. I lost interest after 4 or 5 paragraphs.

MrCreosote

You're dreaming if you think women's tennis or athletics get as much coverage as men's. Take tennis- still 3-set games in the women's slam events, men's final is always the last event, only recently got prizemoney parity in Wimbledon. Female tennis players might appear in the papers, but it rarely for their sporting prowess.

The problem I have with the name thing is that it's a symptom of the whole patronising attitude to women's sports. It's a little thing, but representative of the whole problem. I've never heard of Padraig Harrington being called by his first name- it's always either "Harrington" or "Padraig Harrington".

Listening to the coverage of Katie Taylor last week, it was all Katie-this, Katie-that. Call her by her proper name ffs, and give her the respect she's due.

Pisco Sour

MrCreosote wrote: »

You're dreaming if you think women's tennis or athletics get as much coverage as men's. Take tennis- still 3-set games in the women's slam events, men's final is always the last event, only recently got prizemoney parity in Wimbledon. Female tennis players might appear in the papers, but it rarely for their sporting prowess.

The problem I have with the name thing is that it's a symptom of the whole patronising attitude to women's sports. It's a little thing, but representative of the whole problem. I've never heard of Padraig Harrington being called by his first name- it's always either "Harrington" or "Padraig Harrington".

Listening to the coverage of Katie Taylor last week, it was all Katie-this, Katie-that. Call her by her proper name ffs, and give her the respect she's due.

The name argument is silly. I've already mentioned how many male sports stars are called my their first name or a nickname even. It's an Irish thing. It's about people wanting to identify with sporting heros. Roy Keane was referred to as "Roy" or "Keano", Paul Hession, as "The Hesh", David Gillick as "Gilly", Padraig Harrington as Padraig (I've heard this often). If anything I think it is a compliment. You have to be a real great to be called by your first name. It shows that the person is liked. It's a sort of affection from the public towards the person. Sonia, Katie, Derval, Roy. Sure didnt Man United Fans refer to Eric Cantona as "Eric" quite a lot. This is a silly clutching at straws argument which weakens the writers whole point IMO.

I do agree that women should be playing more than 3 sets though. If women can run marathons like men, then they can play 5 sets. It's a joke that Victoria Azerenko gets as much money for winning in 75 minutes as Djokavic gets for 6 hours work. If anything the men are being screwed over here, not the women.

And the constant screeching does the women's game no favours at all. I had to mute that Aussie Open final.

shels4ever

MrCreosote wrote: »

You're dreaming if you think women's tennis or athletics get as much coverage as men's. Take tennis- still 3-set games in the women's slam events, men's final is always the last event, only recently got prizemoney parity in Wimbledon. Female tennis players might appear in the papers, but it rarely for their sporting prowess.

The problem I have with the name thing is that it's a symptom of the whole patronising attitude to women's sports. It's a little thing, but representative of the whole problem. I've never heard of Padraig Harrington being called by his first name- it's always either "Harrington" or "Padraig Harrington".

Listening to the coverage of Katie Taylor last week, it was all Katie-this, Katie-that. Call her by her proper name ffs, and give her the respect she's due.

Women don't even support womens sport! You can't make people support something.... and Katie has been called that for years even when she was playing football so not sure i see your point there.

ultrapercy

MrCreosote wrote: »

You're dreaming if you think women's tennis or athletics get as much coverage as men's. Take tennis- still 3-set games in the women's slam events, men's final is always the last event, only recently got prizemoney parity in Wimbledon. Female tennis players might appear in the papers, but it rarely for their sporting prowess.

The problem I have with the name thing is that it's a symptom of the whole patronising attitude to women's sports. It's a little thing, but representative of the whole problem. I've never heard of Padraig Harrington being called by his first name- it's always either "Harrington" or "Padraig Harrington".

Listening to the coverage of Katie Taylor last week, it was all Katie-this, Katie-that. Call her by her proper name ffs, and give her the respect she's due.

Why do women sports people deserve parity of pay when they are so far behind the standards of mens sport ? Dont think that would happen in any other profession. Im a fan of womens sport in general but this equality arguement is actualy patronising towards women.

T runner

04072511 wrote: »

With the big sports yes, women get bugger all coverage. But for sports like athletics, tennis, swimming etc, they get as much coverage as the men get.

I find that bit about the names nonsense though, and just looking for extra problems. Loads of people referred to Coghlan as Eamonn, I always refer to Harrington as Padraig as do plenty others. Doherty was always "Ken" to many. O'Rourke is Derval, O'Sullivan is Sonia. What's the problem? It just means the public has warmed to them and like their personality as much as their talent.

Article is a bit of a moan fest to be honest. Way too long and not well written. I lost interest after 4 or 5 paragraphs.

Most people would refer to Padraig Harrington as "Harrington" and most people will refer to Sonia O'Sullivan as Sonia. Your point that some people refer to Doherty as "Ken" etc hardly rubbishes this argument in the article.

There is almost certainly an element of "the girl did well" when describing prominent female sports people. The point is this is a symptom of how the media perceives them. That this is a mirror of the attitude of the ordinary decent skin as Malacky Clerkin maintains seems clear.

His reason for the media adopting this attitude i.e. empathising with the masses, is dubious and a poor excuse in my opinion.

T runner

ultrapercy wrote: »

Why do women sports people deserve parity of pay when they are so far behind the standards of mens sport ? Dont think that would happen in any other profession. Im a fan of womens sport in general but this equality arguement is actualy patronising towards women.

Sorry? Are you saying the womens Olympic marathon champion should get less pay than the mens marathon champion because her time is slower. Elaborate please and clarify who should "judge" these standards.

Your argument does not cover the fact that Katie Taylor would get a lot less money than technically inferior and less successful male boxers. Surely this illustrates that women are paid less than men unfairly? Or have you another reason why she as a woman should get less?

Also please clarify how an "equality" argument regarding respect should be patronising to women?

T runner

shels4ever wrote: »

Women don't even support womens sport! You can't make people support something.... and Katie has been called that for years even when she was playing football so not sure i see your point there.

Women and Men ususally follow whatever sport that society follows. This is dictated by attitudes and by the media reflecting those attitudes or actually having those attitudes themselves. Men or women in a society wouldnt in general differ in these attitudes to eachother. So while the attendance at a camogie match will be predominately female, the overall attendance would reflect societies attitude to that sport relative to the male counterpart.


So the "not even women follow womens sport" is irrelevant.

The unfortunate fact is that in Ireland, like in many countries, we are grown up to believe that sport in general is more or less the domain of males and elite sport is exclusively the domain of males. Our media seem to believe this also unfortunately. So coverage is minimal and is more or less a box ticking exercise. Thats just wrong.

shels4ever

T runner wrote: »

Women and Men ususally follow whatever sport that society follows. This is dictated by attitudes and by the media reflecting those attitudes or actually having those attitudes themselves. Men or women in a society wouldnt in general differ in these attitudes to eachother. So while the attendance at a camogie match will be predominately female, the overall attendance would reflect societies attitude to that sport relative to the male counterpart.


So the "not even women follow womens sport" is irrelevant.

The unfortunate fact is that in Ireland, like in many countries, we are grown up to believe that sport in general is more or less the domain of males and elite sport is exclusively the domain of males. Thats just wrong.

Yep i'd agree 100% there, trying to get a couple of kinds to do any sport at the moment parents don't seem to see the need for girls to be involved.

ultrapercy

T runner wrote: »

Sorry? Are you saying the womens Olympic marathon champion should get less pay than the mens marathon champion because her time is slower. Elaborate please and clarify who should "judge" these standards.

Your argument does not cover the fact that Katie Taylor would get a lot less money than technically inferior and less successful male boxers. Surely this illustrates that women are paid less than men unfairly? Or have you another reason why she as a woman should get less?

Also please clarify how an "equality" argument regarding respect should be patronising to women?

Patting someone on the head and telling them they are better than they are instead of giving them the appropriate respect is the definition of patronising. The market determins and controls elite sport, the sports with the big support are the sports with the most money. The viewrship for the womens FA cup final yesterday was a tiny fraction of the mens equalivent so they command lower wages.

T runner

ultrapercy wrote: »

Patting someone on the head and telling them they are better than they are instead of giving them the appropriate respect is the definition of patronising. The market determins and controls elite sport, the sports with the big support are the sports with the most money. The viewrship for the womens FA cup final yesterday was a tiny fraction of the mens equalivent so they command lower wages.

Your argument is unclear you seem to be on the one hand saying that women deserve less money because they are not as good as men. You are also saying that they deserve less money because their sport has less market share.

So Katie Taylor might more money becuase she is technically better than her male counterparts but at the same time deserves less because she holds less market share?

Just to clarify and ill ask again: Do you belive the olympic female marathon champion deserves less than her male equivalent?

We know that the male earns more. We are talking about deserving.

The article was about what influences market share, culture, media etc.

Using "the market" as the vindication for this ill is missing the point to a large degree.

Edit|:

Just so you understand. Our attitudes to women in sport have remained largely unchanged since organised sport was invented for the elite claesses in the 19th century. This has been passed down largely unquestioned for 200 years.

So "the market" has been largely conditioned to behave as it does by an aspect of culture that should have been dead a long time. What "the market" thinks is no vindication for the complete underrepresentation of coverage (and payment) of women sport in our "modern" culture.

Also, As already pointed out female athletes are more often than not singled out for media exposure due to their sexual appeal. Anna Kornikova being an obvious example. Could you imagine living in a society where the male tennis player getting the greatest media exposure (literally) was the one the (female oriented) "market" thought the most shaggeable? Pretty pathetic and disgusting wouldnt it be? Disrespectful would be an understatemnet im sure? Well thats the reality TODAY for one of our two genders.

ultrapercy

T runner wrote: »

Your argument is unclear you seem to be on the one hand saying that women deserve less money because they are not as good as men. You are also saying that they deserve less money because their sport has less market share.

So Katie Taylor might more money becuase she is technically better than her male counterparts but at the same time deserves less because she holds less market share?

Just to clarify and ill ask again: Do you belive the olympic female marathon champion deserves less than her male equivalent?

We know that the male earns more. We are talking about deserving.

The article was about what influences market share, culture, media etc.

Using "the market" as the vindication for this ill is missing the point to a large degree.

Edit|:

Just so you understand. Our attitudes to women in sport have remained largely unchanged since organised sport was invented for the elite claesses in the 19th century. This has been passed down largely unquestioned for 200 years.

So "the market" has been largely conditioned to behave as it does by an aspect of culture that should have been dead a long time. What "the market" thinks is no vindication for the complete underrepresentation of coverage (and payment) of women sport in our "modern" culture.

Why are you so eager for me to answer your specific question in the context of a general conversation? I think it is because, once again you wish to manipulate the arguement your way. Its a very political tatic used everyday in the media to pedal lies and mistruths. Sports people are paid by the fans, the fans watch and attend the events they deem worthy or at least more worthy.Simples. You know quite well that to the average armchair viewer 2 people running look much the same regardless of gender. The same can not be said for most sports. Try not to" bully" argue its pathetic. My answer by the way is yes.

menoscemo

T runner wrote: »

Your argument does not cover the fact that Katie Taylor would get a lot less money than technically inferior and less successful male boxers. Surely this illustrates that women are paid less than men unfairly? Or have you another reason why she as a woman should get less?

Fact? where are you getting your facts from?

First off, Taylor is an amateur (by choice) so technically she doesn't earn any money from boxing.
Secondly, who are you comparing her earnings to? I am pretty certain that she earns much more in endorsements and sponsorship than any other Irish Amateur boxer, male or female.

T runner

menoscemo wrote: »

Fact? where are you getting your facts from?

First off, Taylor is an amateur (by choice) so technically she doesn't earn any money from boxing.
Secondly, who are you comparing her earnings to? I am pretty certain that she earns much more in endorsements and sponsorship than any other Irish Amateur boxer, male or female.

Read what i said before jumping in. "fact that Katie Taylor would"

I didnt think i needed to fill in the actual condition but there you go.

Fact is that a professional male boxing 4 times world champion would earn significantly more than his female equivalent. Do your disagree?
Comparing Katie Taylor to other Irish boxers is irelevant and misleading. She is the outstanding female boxer in the world. They are far from that.
Regardless of her outstanding ability: she would get less

---

she is female.

menoscemo

T runner wrote: »

Fact is that a professional male boxing 4 times world champion would earn significantly more than his female equivalent. Do your disagree?
Comparing Katie Taylor to other Irish boxers is irelevant and misleading. She is the outstanding female boxer in the world. They are far from that.
Regardless of her outstanding ability: she would get less

---

she is female.

If you are comparing her to the likes of Floyd Mayweather or Manny Pacquiao, then yes she would likely earn less than them, but there would be plenty of low key World Champions that would likely earn the same or less than her.

Boxing is about fights, not about a fixed salary- fights earn money. If there was an equally good and high profile opponent out there for Taylor in the professional ranks, then I dare say that fight would earn a lot of money. The problem is that in womens professional boxing there is not the depth of talent that there is in the mens game which is why Taylor will likely stay amateur after the olympics.

titan18

T runner wrote: »

Read what i said before jumping in. "fact that Katie Taylor would"

I didnt think i needed to fill in the actual condition but there you go.

Fact is that a professional male boxing 4 times world champion would earn significantly more than his female equivalent. Do your disagree?
Comparing Katie Taylor to other Irish boxers is irelevant and misleading. She is the outstanding female boxer in the world. They are far from that.
Regardless of her outstanding ability: she would get less

---

she is female.

What's wrong with that? More people watch male boxing. Even in the sports where women get equalish coverage e.g athletics, tennis, at least for me and I'd imagine a lot of others, the male standard is far higher

I'd much rather watch Nadal, Djokovic, Federer than Azarenka and Sharapova or someone

T runner

ultrapercy wrote: »

Why are you so eager for me to answer your specific question in the context of a general conversation? I think it is because, once again you wish to manipulate the arguement your way.

I know for a fact that female marathoners train as hard as male marathoners. As this is an Athletics forum I thought it would be a fair an apt example to test your "males deserve more" theory. Completely transparent. A straight question. If ive chosen an exception that proves your rule you can easily point this out and substantiate your argument. You cant.

Its a very political tatic used everyday in the media to pedal lies and mistruths.

??????

Sports people are paid by the fans, the fans watch and attend the events they deem worthy or at least more worthy.Simples.

OK. You could also argue that in Turkey the market (electorate) only deems 4% of the female population worthy to represent them in parliamenet. Thats a fact, but are Turkish females deserving of this? (dont answer)

Similarly, are the media and market being fair to deem the female events so completely unworthy?

To make it easy for you: The market/media deem that female competition is insignificant and coverage and payment reflect this? Simples

Are the media/market being fair to deem it so? Not so simples

You know quite well that to the average armchair viewer 2 people running look much the same regardless of gender.

WHAT???????????

My answer by the way is yes.

I asked you a straight question and finally a straight answer.

You believe that even though female marathoners train just as hard as males and suffer equally in races of the same distance---even though their times are not soft when mapped to males----you still believe that they deserve to be paid less?


I disagree. They perform and suffer equally they deserve equality.

T runner

titan18 wrote: »

What's wrong with that? More people watch male boxing.

Read the article please and the thread. This point has already been addressed.

titan18

T runner wrote: »

Read the article please and the thread. This point has already been addressed.

I've read that article(its ****e) and I've read the thread.

Male sports dominate the coverage. They're better than the female equivalent. The only sport you can argue that females are better is stuff like gymnastics.

In regards to your Marathon question, who cares about training, you pay the one that brings more money in. Marathon is a bit odd though since it probably has low viewings figures and isn't exactly spectator friendly in comparison to other sports, but whichever, and I presume it's the mens, brings in more money, more money goes out to them. It's that simple. They'll both be shown at the Olympics.

MrCreosote

A few points

1: one of the big problems is that the patronising attitude continues after women reach the top of their sport

2:As regards viewing figures and interest in a sport, this is generated to a huge degree by the media coverage offered. TV and newspaper sports journalism is a massively male-dominated area, strongly misogynistic. It's a self-fulfilling prophesy- we'll only cover sports people are interested in, so joe public only ever sees male sports, so he believes male sports are the only interesting ones

3:Even in sports where the skill/speed argument doesn't apply- tactical sports like road cycling for example- the coverage still isn't on a par. Anyone who believes women's road cycling isn't of interest I'd refer onto the Beijing road race in 2008 which was a fantastic event, easily the equal of the men's. And yet it's nearly impossible to get ANY women's cycling on TV, let alone near the papers.

4:There are some exceptions. I'd use the ITU triathlon circuit as an example. The last 2 years the women's races have been generally more interesting and exciting than the men's. Men's race= swim, cycle and a Brownlee runs away with it. In the women's there's a more level playing field. The marketing hype is equal for men's and women's. The vary the programmes- men's race on Sat/Women's on Sun, and vice versa. Interestingly their coverage has been mostly online via their own website until this year when they've been selling it onto BBC and SKY. By avoiding the mainstream sexist media they've been able to grow both sides of the sport in a healthy fashion

walshb

titan18 wrote: »

I've read that article(its ****e) and I've read the thread.

Male sports dominate the coverage. They're better than the female equivalent. The only sport you can argue that females are better is stuff like gymnastics.

In regards to your Marathon question, who cares about training, you pay the one that brings more money in. Marathon is a bit odd though since it probably has low viewings figures and isn't exactly spectator friendly in comparison to other sports, but whichever, and I presume it's the mens, brings in more money, more money goes out to them. It's that simple. They'll both be shown at the Olympics.

I agree with this. Apart from some rare exceptions I think male sport is so much better to watch. Males are simply made to be able to perform physically that bit better. Gymnastics is the one sport where I think the level is equal as regards aesthetics and technique and skill. But still, the men can do a wee bit more.

T runner

menoscemo wrote: »

If you are comparing her to the likes of Floyd Mayweather or Manny Pacquiao

She is the best female boxer in the world. She is a 4 time world champion. Compare her to the male equivalent.

Boxing is about fights, not about a fixed salary- fights earn money. If there was an equally good and high profile opponent out there for Taylor in the professional ranks, then I dare say that fight would earn a lot of money.

There are a few exceptional female boxers. They just are not high profile because they dont get the media coverage.

The problem is that in womens professional boxing there is not the depth of talent that there is in the mens game which is why Taylor will likely stay amateur after the olympics.

And why would there be any depth in talent in the female professional ranks?
A middle of the road male world champion can make millions. Probably the most gifted EVER female boxer, a quadruple world champion, could not earn enough in the professional ranks to warrant turning professional. Only the very desperate are professionals in female professional boxing obviously. Again, we know the situation. The question is are the media giving fair coverage given the above?

Market share can be expanded by media coverage. True sports journalists are not supposed to be slaves to the fads of market (although they have bosses who may be). Taking all this into account: is the coverage of female sportswomen fair relative to their abilities? Not even close. Is the tone of the coverage respectful e.g calling her by her first name etc? Nope.
Absolutely not.
Is the tendency of these "journalists" to concentrate on sports women whom they can sexualise fair and respectful?
Absolutely not.

If journalists give female sportspeople a fair amount of coverage for their ability and make that coverage respectful then they will get a fairer share of the market a better profile and indeed the market may expand.

titan18

MrCreosote wrote: »

A few points


3:Even in sports where the skill/speed argument doesn't apply- tactical sports like road cycling for example- the coverage still isn't on a par. Anyone who believes women's road cycling isn't of interest I'd refer onto the Beijing road race in 2008 which was a fantastic event, easily the equal of the men's. And yet it's nearly impossible to get ANY women's cycling on TV, let alone near the papers.

I watch cycling a lot, and again it ain't the biggest spectator sport around. Men are stronger and faster. There's no question on that. You also have to take into account the women's events. There's no big grand tour like the male Giro,Tour or Vuelta and the Classics, for example the Womens Tour of Flanders are raced over much shorter distances and tend to be on the same day as the male equivalent, and they'll end when the mens race is on.


Also,whilst people might say how can people know it won't be watch if it ain't shown etc. Look at the womens sports that do get the same coverage as mens e.g Tennis, Athletics. More people will watch the men compete than the women. Take the Olympics this year, how many people are going to watch the 100m mens in comparison to 100m women. Roland Garros is on atm, how many people will tune into a final with the likes of Nadal and Djokovic in comparison to the women's final the day before.

T runner

walshb wrote: »

I agree with this. Apart from some rare exceptions I think male sport is so much better to watch. Males are simply made to be able to perform physically that bit better. Gymnastics is the one sport where I think the level is equal as regards aesthetics and technique and skill. But still, the men can do a wee bit more.

Strenght and size is the only advantage that men potentially have over women. Not skill, nor technique, and women may have the advantage in endurance. There is no evidence that at the elite level that men are any more competitive than women. Competition may be affected by the numbers in the sport but none of this can explain the level and type of coverage that female sport receives.
True, there are many thousands of male customers who believe that women sportspeople are only good for (non-serious) coverage if they are sexually attractive.
There is no reason why jounalists with integirty should always ape these numb skulls. Give fe,alesports people the level of coverage and respect that their performances deserve. Thats doesnt warrant equal coverage at the moment. But the pitiful coverage they are getting is a lot less than the skill, power, competiveness and sporting drama that they are producing.

MrCreosote

titan18 wrote: »

I watch cycling a lot, and again it ain't the biggest spectator sport around. Men are stronger and faster. There's no question on that. You also have to take into account the women's events. There's no big grand tour like the male Giro,Tour or Vuelta and the Classics, for example the Womens Tour of Flanders are raced over much shorter distances and tend to be on the same day as the male equivalent, and they'll end when the mens race is on.

And whose fault is that- hardly the participants. If anything I'd be more interested in watching shorter, snappier races. Men are faster, but at the speeds they travel in races it's not apparent to a spectator. The tactics are the key thing, not whether someone is travelling at 45kph or 40kph.

Look at the recent track cycling world champs- you can't really tell the difference between the women's and men's sprints. As it's a tactical race, the rivalry between Pendleton and Meares made the women's far more exciting and interesting. Raw power isn't everything.

walshb

T runner wrote: »

Strenght and size is the only advantage that men potentially have over women. Not skill, nor technique, and women may have the advantage in endurance. There is no evidence that at the elite level that men are any more competitive than women. Competition may be affected by the numbers in the sport but none of this can explain the level and type of coverage that female sport receives.
True, there are many thousands of male customers who believe that women sportspeople are only good for (non-serious) coverage if they are sexually attractive.
There is no reason why jounalists with integirty should always ape these numb skulls. Give fe,alesports people the level of coverage and respect that their performances deserve. Thats doesnt warrant equal coverage at the moment. But the pitiful coverage they are getting is a lot less than the skill, power, competiveness and sporting drama that they are producing.

Well, skill and technique are quite subjective. Ok, males for the most part have better from, delivery, fluidity, mechanics, speed, strength and power. It all adds up to IMO having better overall technique and skill. Skill can be influenced by physical traits and factors.

titan18

T runner wrote: »

Strenght and size is the only advantage that men potentially have over women. Not skill, nor technique, and women may have the advantage in endurance. There is no evidence that at the elite level that men are any more competitive than women. Competition may be affected by the numbers in the sport but none of this can explain the level and type of coverage that female sport receives.
True, there are many thousands of male customers who believe that women sportspeople are only good for (non-serious) coverage if they are sexually attractive.
There is no reason why jounalists with integirty should always ape these numb skulls. Give fe,alesports people the level of coverage and respect that their performances deserve. Thats doesnt warrant equal coverage at the moment. But the pitiful coverage they are getting is a lot less than the skill, power, competiveness and sporting drama that they are producing.

Going to go with basketball, since the WNBA markets itself as a serious sport. The attendance, not taking TV viewers, but the actual people who turn up to watch is shocking. You're looking at about an average of 8,000 per game adn that's with low prices. The NBA teams will sell out their stadiums at much higher prices. The WNBA aren't covered close to as much as the NBA for obvious reasons, but a few of their games are shown on TV. Now if there was a lot of people watching those games, more would be shown.

On the sexual attractive point, most sports viewers are male. You can call it sexism all you want, but tennis is a good example of a sport that has attempted to showcase the attractiveness of their competitors as an advantage. I mean, I'd watch it occasionally, but the attractiveness of someone like Sharapova is going to get people watching

MrCreosote wrote: »

And whose fault is that- hardly the participants. If anything I'd be more interested in watching shorter, snappier races. Men are faster, but at the speeds they travel in races it's not apparent to a spectator. The tactics are the key thing, not whether someone is travelling at 45kph or 40kph.

Look at the recent track cycling world champs- you can't really tell the difference between the women's and men's sprints. As it's a tactical race, the rivalry between Pendleton and Meares made the women's far more exciting and interesting. Raw power isn't everything.

Not the participants fault, but why would any tv company showcase the female race over the male one, when the female race is of a lower standard. It's never going to happen.

MrCreosote

titan18 wrote: »

Not the participants fault, but why would any tv company showcase the female race over the male one, when the female race is of a lower standard. It's never going to happen.

That's my point- how do we know it's better or worse when we never get to see it. Average speeds will be lower for sure, but the race will be just as interesting despite that.

titan18

MrCreosote wrote: »

That's my point- how do we know it's better or worse when we never get to see it. Average speeds will be lower for sure, but the race will be just as interesting despite that.

Sometimes it is on though, Olympics and occasionally womens cycling comes on Eurosport. It'd be rare but it does happen, particularly a few years ago when there was a pretty good rivalry between Cooke,Arndt and Vos. It ain't bad to watch but it's not as good as the mens. Since there's no grand tour to compare, and tbh the Tour and to a lesser extent the Giro make up a lot of cycling popularity, but in the Classics, they're done at the same time but I'd much rather watch Cancellara and Boonen battle it out than Vos and Arndt.

And again, compare the sports that are shown. Tennis is shown pretty equally. The male standard is much higher and whilst there's less possible winners, the battles between Nadal,Djokovic and Federer are brilliant imo.

In athletics again, something with pretty equal coverage, watching Bolt, Blake, Gay,Gatlin and Powell race that Jeter,Baptiste etc.

We can see the men and women compete on television. They both get equal coverage in these sports and the men win out imo

ahnowbrowncow

Why are you so eager for sportspeople who aren't as good as others to be paid the same, who cares if they train equally as hard. Do you think Stephen Hunt doesn't train as hard as Cristiano Ronaldo. Should they be paid the same because they train equally hard? No.

If sports women want equal coverage and pay as men why don't they compete with them?
In the real world, you don't get paid on your training levels, you get paid based on your performance. You also don't get paid based on your gender

MrCreosote

titan18 wrote: »

Sometimes it is on though, Olympics and occasionally womens cycling comes on Eurosport. It'd be rare but it does happen, particularly a few years ago when there was a pretty good rivalry between Cooke,Arndt and Vos. It ain't bad to watch but it's not as good as the mens. Since there's no grand tour to compare, and tbh the Tour and to a lesser extent the Giro make up a lot of cycling popularity, but in the Classics, they're done at the same time but I'd much rather watch Cancellara and Boonen battle it out than Vos and Arndt.


In athletics again, something with pretty equal coverage, watching Bolt, Blake, Gay,Gatlin and Powell race that Jeter,Baptiste etc.

We can see the men and women compete on television. They both get equal coverage in these sports and the men win out imo

In cycling you're interested in the personalities then. Most of that interest is generated by the media hype surrounding them. Same with athletics- and even in a supposedly equal sport like athletics, no-one could argue that the coverage is the same for men and women. Not just televising events, but the acres of newsprint and analysis that comes before and afterwards. That's what generates the interest in the event. And it artificially keeps interest up in men's events to the detriment of women's.

titan18

MrCreosote wrote: »

In cycling you're interested in the personalities then. Most of that interest is generated by the media hype surrounding them. Same with athletics- and even in a supposedly equal sport like athletics, no-one could argue that the coverage is the same for men and women. Not just televising events, but the acres of newsprint and analysis that comes before and afterwards. That's what generates the interest in the event. And it artificially keeps interest up in men's events to the detriment of women's.

That's not true at all. At least for me, and tbh, I wouldn't know cyclists personalities other than someone like Lance Armstrong, who'd be widely publicisied, or Cavendish. It isn't that big of a sport tbh

With cycling at least, there's nothing better than watching the riders absolutely kill themselves going over stuff like the Arenberg Trench in Paris Roubaix, or something like the Mortirolo yesterday in the Giro. You don't get that in womens cycling.There's no grand tours and any of the major Classics that have a womens edition, cut the race dramatically.

It's due to standards (in some sports), the level of competition and the lack of interest from what males(who are the main viewers of sport) that women's sport isn't shown. But then again, when Isinbeyeva was in her prime, or even Vlasic now, they'd get a lot of attention despite being in events that wouldn't attract focus, even on the male side.

Pisco Sour

MrCreosote wrote: »

In cycling you're interested in the personalities then. Most of that interest is generated by the media hype surrounding them. Same with athletics- and even in a supposedly equal sport like athletics, no-one could argue that the coverage is the same for men and women. Not just televising events, but the acres of newsprint and analysis that comes before and afterwards. That's what generates the interest in the event. And it artificially keeps interest up in men's events to the detriment of women's.

Other sports may be different but I disagree that women get less coverage than men in athletics. The only reason why men may get a bit more is because you see more world records on the men’s side of things, while for the women the records date back to the 80s, or early 90s, are drugged up, and completely, well and truly out of reach. So an Allyson Felix will never get the glory, hype and media coverage of a world record like Usain Bolt gets. Blame the GDR et all for that!

MrCreosote

04072511 wrote: »

Other sports may be different but I disagree that women get less coverage than men in athletics. The only reason why men may get a bit more is because you see more world records on the men’s side of things, while for the women the records date back to the 80s, or early 90s, are drugged up, and completely, well and truly out of reach. So an Allyson Felix will never get the glory, hype and media coverage of a world record like Usain Bolt gets. Blame the GDR et all for that!

This is true. All those records from the 80s should be thrown out and start with blank slate again

gaffer91

@OP and T Runner- No offence but you're both talking out your absolute hats. The first name/surname thing has already been debunked, so there is no need to get into that. As previously stated, men sports get more coverage because they are of higher quality. Men have more muscle and less fat than women. This is a biological fact. This gives a huge advantage in practically any sport and thus results in the sport being of a higher standard. How you both fail to grasp this is beyond me.

ceegee

Jesus there's some amount of tripe in that article.

Firstly the suggestion that KT is only getting public recognition now is rubbish, shes been widely covered in the media for a few years now.

On ladies football getting no coverage - TG4 seem to show a bit of it, the reason noone watches is that the standard is muck (goalkeeping seems to be especially bad)

On sports people being referred to by their first names - plenty of GAA stars spring to mind: Henry, Sean Og, DJ, Davey, Micko etc.
Headline writers generally use first names if the sportsperson is famous enough to be identified by first name alone and have a shorter first name than surname (Roy, Katie, Sonia, Sean Og and DJ all look snappier than Keane, Taylor, O'Sullivan, O hAilpin and Carey)

Pisco Sour

MrCreosote wrote: »

This is true. All those records from the 80s should be thrown out and start with blank slate again

Don’t be surprised if Sally breaks the WR in London, but with the exception of relatively new events which came after the Cold War and Ma’s Army (Pole Vault, 5000m, Steeplechase), these records will be few and far between. Maybe the 800 will go soon, but if Semenya got it that would be no less controversial. The 100 will probably stand for years, and the 200 and 400 I cant see ever being beaten. The 1500 record at 3:50 is stupid altogether, and the 8:06 3000m is offensive! The womens long jump is a farce! This is where the inequality of media coverage between men and women in track and field comes from. Take world records out of it and I honestly cant agree that the likes of Jess Ennis, Allyson Felix etc get less coverage than Dayron Robles or Phillips Idowu.

titan18

04072511 wrote: »

Don’t be surprised if Sally breaks the WR in London, but with the exception of relatively new events which came after the Cold War and Ma’s Army (Pole Vault, 5000m, Steeplechase), these records will be few and far between. Maybe the 800 will go soon, but if Semenya got it that would be no less controversial. The 100 will probably stand for years, and the 200 and 400 I cant see ever being beaten. The 1500 record at 3:50 is stupid altogether, and the 8:06 3000m is offensive! The womens long jump is a farce! This is where the inequality of media coverage between men and women in track and field comes from. Take world records out of it and I honestly cant agree that the likes of Jess Ennis, Allyson Felix etc get less coverage than Dayron Robles or Phillips Idowu.

I dunno, look at amount of coverage Isinbeyeva got with her world records. Even Vlasic and Chicerova are coming pretty close to the high jump world record. World record breaking is a factor in popularity.

Pisco Sour

titan18 wrote: »

I dunno, look at amount of coverage Isinbeyeva got with her world records. Even Vlasic and Chicerova are coming pretty close to the high jump world record. World record breaking is a factor in popularity.

If the womens pole vault was around in the 70s and 80s then Isinbayeva would not be currently holding the record. Some doped up East German or Soviet would have it.

In the long established events (100, 100m Hurdles, 200, 400, 800, 1500, 3000, 10000, LJ, HJ, SP) for the most part the records are out of reach. Yes Vlasic got close (though I think her 2:08 days are up) but this is the exception rather than the rule. Women will never enjoy the media acclaim of world records like men do. But outside of world records the women get just as much coverage as the men do. Sure they compete on the exact same circuit, and the best women are as well known as the best men (Bolt aside).

There may be a big issue with inequality in sport but it does not exist in our sport.

titan18

04072511 wrote: »

If the womens pole vault was around in the 70s and 80s then Isinbayeva would not be currently holding the record. Some doped up East German or Soviet would have it.

In the long established events (100, 100m Hurdles, 200, 400, 800, 1500, 3000, 10000, LJ, HJ, SP) for the most part the records are out of reach. Yes Vlasic got close (though I think her 2:08 days are up) but this is the exception rather than the rule. Women will never enjoy the media acclaim of world records like men do. But outside of world records the women get just as much coverage as the men do. Sure they compete on the exact same circuit, and the best women are as well known as the best men (Bolt aside).

There may be a big issue with inequality in sport but it does not exist in our sport.

I agree, in athletics, there's definitely equal coverage, but tbh, and it might just be me, I could name a load of the best male athletes (not just the guys who challenge for the medals, but the guys who'll challenge for the final), but can't really do that for the women's event. Obviously, everyone knows of the likes of Felix,Jeter,Ennis etc but going outside the top 2/3 bar the sprints, I couldn't name much more.

It might just be my opinion, but I like watching the best (taking out gender). You watch women, you're not watching the best cos there are men who run fast,throw further, jump higher etc. That doesn't mean I dont watch women's sport, but if I only had one option, I'm choosing the male equivalent (bar a few exceptions e.g gymnastics, figure skating) every time no matter what woman is competing.

Pisco Sour

gaffer91 wrote: »

@OP and T Runner- No offence but you're both talking out your absolute hats. The first name/surname thing has already been debunked, so there is no need to get into that. As previously stated, men sports get more coverage because they are of higher quality. Men have more muscle and less fat than women. This is a biological fact. This gives a huge advantage in practically any sport and thus results in the sport being of a higher standard. How you both fail to grasp this is beyond me.

I cant agee. Yes biologically speaking male athletes are of a higher standard but this is a stupidly unfair disadvantage to put a woman at. Just because men are born naturally stronger and faster than women doesnt mean they are technically and tactically better. There's no doubt Sonia O'Sullivan is a better athlete than Mark Kenneally for example. I dont care if Mark has faster times, only a moron would call him a better athlete. At a much lower level there are some women who run around the same time as me, or maybe a fraction slower. Are they inferior athletes to me? Not at all. They are definetely superior. Just because I was born with the advantage of being a male and can run a tiny bit faster doesnt mean that I am a better overall athlete. They would be competing at a much higher level than I would be and would have much better form, technique and racing know-how. I would learn a hell of a lot more from them, than they would from me, even if the actual times are similar.

MrCreosote

gaffer91 wrote: »

@OP and T Runner- No offence but you're both talking out your absolute hats. The first name/surname thing has already been debunked, so there is no need to get into that. As previously stated, men sports get more coverage because they are of higher quality. Men have more muscle and less fat than women. This is a biological fact. This gives a huge advantage in practically any sport and thus results in the sport being of a higher standard. How you both fail to grasp this is beyond me.

Standards are one thing. When I watch a sport I want to be entertained- that's all. Now if pure brawn/speed/height etc floats your boat then fine, but I'm more interested in the subtleties at play. This is why I find sports that aren't against the clock more enjoyable to watch.

For something like cycling, I can't believe that somebody can tell the difference between the men's and women's peleton by watching on television. The speed they're travelling is not important to someone's enjoyment of it. It's the attacking/surges/breakaways/tactics and the buildup and anticipation you get from knowing the different athletes well, their strengths and weaknesses etc. None of this is gender specific and women's cycling misses out purely because a conscious decision is made not to carry it on TV- made by the sexist media corps.

titan18

MrCreosote wrote: »

Standards are one thing. When I watch a sport I want to be entertained- that's all. Now if pure brawn/speed/height etc floats your boat then fine, but I'm more interested in the subtleties at play. This is why I find sports that aren't against the clock more enjoyable to watch.

For something like cycling, I can't believe that somebody can tell the difference between the men's and women's peleton by watching on television. The speed they're travelling is not important to someone's enjoyment of it. It's the attacking/surges/breakaways/tactics and the buildup and anticipation you get from knowing the different athletes well, their strengths and weaknesses etc. None of this is gender specific and women's cycling misses out purely because a conscious decision is made not to carry it on TV- made by the sexist media corps.

Again, completely disagree. It's quite easy to see the changes in speed the peleton makes. Also, the lack of km the women travel, or the lack of tough racing they do in comparison to the men makes it worse imo. You'd never see the women do some of previous years Giros, where the riders 3 weeks into the Giro were trying to climb something like the Zoncolan, or even the Mortirolo followed by the Stelvio this year. The pain the riders suffer, watching them drag their way up those mountains, and then fly down the other side of it with some going up to 80kmph on some really dangerous roads. That's entertaining. Women don't do those races, and tbh it'd probably be terrible watching a woman take forever to get up the Zoncolan or Stelvio.

Again, Eurosport are the only channel who cover cycling, with some others coming in for the Tour. Eurosport don't have infinity budget, and they don't really cover womens cycling, but they've shown the odd race over the years.

They cover womens cross country skiing, biathlon etc, and whilst the likes of Bjoergen and Kowalcyzk are great in cross-country, they don't compare to the likes of Northug or Cologna on the mens side.

MrCreosote

titan18 wrote: »

Again, completely disagree. It's quite easy to see the changes in speed the peleton makes. Also, the lack of km the women travel, or the lack of tough racing they do in comparison to the men makes it worse imo. You'd never see the women do some of previous years Giros, where the riders 3 weeks into the Giro were trying to climb something like the Zoncolan, or even the Mortirolo followed by the Stelvio this year. The pain the riders suffer, watching them drag their way up those mountains, and then fly down the other side of it with some going up to 80kmph on some really dangerous roads. That's entertaining. Women don't do those races, and tbh it'd probably be terrible watching a woman take forever to get up the Zoncolan or Stelvio.

As if the pain and bravery is specific only to male cyclists?! What a load of bull. "Women don't do those races"- ask yourself why? Same attitude that prevented women running marathons until relatively recently. Too hard for a woman. Give them a little pat on their head and let them run along to their little races before the real one starts. Pure sexist drivel.

The reason the races don't happen is because of attitudes like yours, from race organisers, media and sports governing bodies.

titan18

MrCreosote wrote: »

As if the pain and bravery is specific only to male cyclists?! What a load of bull. "Women don't do those races"- ask yourself why? Same attitude that prevented women running marathons until relatively recently. Too hard for a woman. Give them a little pat on their head and let them run along to their little races before the real one starts. Pure sexist drivel.

The reason the races don't happen is because of attitudes like yours, from race organisers, media and sports governing bodies.

Well,tbh, women don't possess the same strength,speed or endurance as men, so if those races did happen, it would take the women ages to get up those mountains or complete the same races as men. Considering it can take the men 6-7 hours to compete some mountain stage, the womens race would be terrible to watch

Pisco Sour

MrCreosote wrote: »

As if the pain and bravery is specific only to male cyclists?! What a load of bull. "Women don't do those races"- ask yourself why? Same attitude that prevented women running marathons until relatively recently. Too hard for a woman. Give them a little pat on their head and let them run along to their little races before the real one starts. Pure sexist drivel.

The reason the races don't happen is because of attitudes like yours, from race organisers, media and sports governing bodies.

That’s why athletics is such a great sport. With the exception of lower hurdles or steeple barriers, lighter weighted throwing objects, 100m Hurdles as opposed to 110m, a lack of a 50km walk, and a heptathlon rather than decathlon, the women compete in identical events that men compete in. The sport is as even as it has ever been, and the publicity top female athletes get reflect that. Women run 5000m, 10000m and Marathons like the men. Compare that to tennis where women get to stroll through 6-1 6-2 matches in just over an hour, while Rafa and Djokavic are battling through 3 hour matches every second day!

MrCreosote

titan18 wrote: »

Well,tbh, women don't possess the same strength,speed or endurance as men, so if those races did happen, it would take the women ages to get up those mountains or complete the same races as men. Considering it can take the men 6-7 hours to compete some mountain stage, the womens race would be terrible to watch

Sigh. Again it's all about the time taken. Forget about the speed and focus on the racing.

Long stages are rubbish in men's and women's races- the best one in last year's TdF was the Alpe d'huez one which took about 3.5 hours. Who actually watches the flat first 150k of the Tour of Flanders?

Pisco Sour

Straying ever so slightly from the original discussion, but perhaps, could this equality that exists in athletics compared to other sports be used as a selling point to get more girls involved in the sport from an early age?

There's no doubt that GAA, Soccer and Rugby are all a huge drain on talent coming into athletics. Obviously the publicity and recognition that these sports get are very high in Ireland for males, so we are always going to struggle to get young males into athletics. However, the same cant be said for womens GAA, womens soccer and womens rugby. None of these get any sort of media attention really, and very little, if any, recognition or respect. This is of course is the concern of the GAA, IRFU and FAI, not us, so should we be looking at using this as a way of attracting women to our sport? Could we use the equality between men and women in athletics as a reason to attract women to a sport where they will actually gain respect. There is an opportunity here IMO.

Personally if I was a talented sporty female and had the choice of playing women's GAA and get absolutely no respect or coverage whatsoever, or athletics, where my performances would get just as much attention as a similarly successful male, then there is no doubt which one I would pick. Lets get all the women out of GAA and into a sport that will appreciate them and we'll be rolling in the medals in the next 15 years!

MrCreosote

Rather timely this:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012/may/27/birmingham-city-womens-arsenal-fa-cup?newsfeed=true

FA Women's Cup final, live on Sky. All good you imagine. An exciting game goes to penalties. Sky chop coverage at this stage to go to the f***ing League 1 play-off.

Sums it up really.

gpcummins

Its also worth noting that Aileen Morisson came second representing Ireland at the ITU Triathlon World Championship Series over the weekend. - Dont know if that got any coverage back home?