insideMAN

Should women sports stars get equal pay when they underperform men?

by 17 Comments

A new report found that 70% of sports now pay women the same  prize money as men. Glen Poole considers the arguments for and against “equal pay” in sport.

I love women’s sport. One of my earliest sporting memories was running home from school at the age of eight, to watch Virginia Wade defend her Wimbledon title in 1978.

There have been other favourite over the years including Tessa and Fatima fighting for javelin gold in the eighties; Sally Gunnell breaking the 400m hurdles world record in the nineties; the GB curling team winning gold in Salt Lake City in 2002; Kelly Holmes bagging two golds in 2004 and the great list of women’s gold medallists in the rowing, boxing, cycling, equestrian and taekwondo at London 2012.

I’m also a champion of gender equality, so you may assume that I’m an unequivocal supporter of equal pay for women in sport. However, my love of sport’s raw individualism  and the caring collectivism of equal outcomes don’t make the best of companions.

Should the winner take it all? 

For those of a rational, objective mind who have no issues with the individualistic, hierarchical nature of sport— paying female champions the same as male champions makes no sense whatsoever.

Take a look at this table of world records for example:

Event Men’s Record Women’s Record
100m 9.58 seconds 10.49 seconds
100m freestyle swim 46.91 seconds 52.07 seconds
Cycling 1km time trial 56.303 seconds 69.01 seconds
Ski Jump 809 feet 418 feet
Weightlifting (Clean & Jerk) 263 kg 192 kg
Javelin 98.48 72.28
Long Jump 8.95m 7.52m
High Jump 2.45m 2.09m
Pole Vault 6.16m 5.06m
Marathon 2:02:57 2:15:25

If you believe in equality in its rawest form, measured by hard scientific units like seconds and metres and kilograms, then there is no argument for “equal pay” for women in sport.

At the 2012 Olympics, not one single sprinter in the 100m Women’s Final ran faster than the slowest male sprinter who got knocked out in Round One, Heat One of the men’s competition.

When you think about performance-related pay, the question isn’t whether the gold medallists Shelly-Ann Fraser-Pryce and Usain Bolt should be worth the same prize money, the question is should Fraser-Pryce be paid more than Holder da Silva of Guinea-Bissau, who crossed the line last in Round One, Heat Four of the men’s competition in a time that would have won him gold medal in the women’s event.

Why is Holder da Silva worth less than Fraser-Pryce when he can run faster? Because he is a man. To some, that paradox, speaks not of gender equality, but “positive discrimination for women against men”.

Should female champions be given equal value

One example often cited by those who oppose equal pay for female sport champions is the tennis, a sport in which men often have to play more sets than women.

Some claim that his is unfair because men have to spend more time on court for the same pay. This is a weak argument. All tennis champions train for thousands of hours in their careers to reach the top of their game, the argument that they should be paid less because they may (or may not) spend a few hours less on court to win a championship is a minor detail.

It is reasonable, however, to argue that women should be paid less, because they play at a lower standard to men. Some campaigners for equality disagree and have successfully argued that the top women should receive the same as the top men in 70% of sports.

This is an example not of “equal pay for equal work” but of “equal pay for work of equal value”. It has been deemed, that winning a women’s competition is of equal value as winning a men’s competition.

This is a difficult concept for many sport fans to understand. When two men throw a javelin, it is easy to measure which throw has greater value in sporting terms—-it comes down to a simple, objective question—how many metres did he throw the javelin?

But when it comes the question of whether winning the women’s competition is the same value as winning the men’s competition—-this is a subjective question that will always produce conflicting answers.

One of the deciding factors seems to be whether a sport is seen more as a business asset or a cultural asset.

Take boxing, formula one and football as three examples. It’s extremely difficult to imagine the businesses behind these sports paying women the same as men.

However, when a sport is seen as a cultural asset, it becomes easier to make a case for the top women to be paid the same as the top men, because this is seen to be the right thing to do, from a cultural perspective.

The problem with equality is it never ends

In the vast majority of sports, if women were made to compete against men they would never be among the top earners. So we have created a tradition where women don’t have to compete against the best in their sport, they only have to compete against the best in their gender.

So if most sports have already come to the conclusion that special allowances should be made for women to create equality, then what about other groups? Why don’t we:

  • Pay disabled competitors the same as able-bodied athletes
  • Pay people over 80 the same as people in their twenties
  • Pay the best black swimmers the same as the best white swimmers
  • Pay the best white sprinters, the same as the best black sprinters
  • Pay the best transgender athletes the same as their “cisgender” peers

If Serena Williams is worth the same as Andy Murray when they win a grand slam, why isn’t the best wheelchair tennis player worth the same as Serena Williams? Does sport think that able-bodied women are more valuable than disabled men?

And what about the sports that allow women to enter both the women’s and the men’s competitions, like snooker and darts? If women can step up into the men’s game, how about letting boys under 16 (for example) enter women’s competition and see how they compare?

Most people believe in equality and think men and women should have equal pay for equal work. Most people are also comfortable with the idea that workers who consistently perform better are likely to get paid more.

But the trouble with “equal pay for work of equal value”, in sport and in wider society, is that it is an ever-changing concept defined by what certain people “feel” should be of equal value, from one week to the next.

So in conclusion, which approach is right—paying women the same or paying men more? Ultimately it’s down to sport’s governing bodies to make these decisions. but there is one thing worth remembering: men may get more prize money in 30% of sports, but they outperform women in 99% of sports.

—Photo Credit: K.M. Klemencic 

Article by Glen Poole author of the book Equality For Men

If you liked this article and want to read more, follow us on Twitter @insideMANmag and Facebook

 

  • http://youtube.com/user/therealjoshobrien Josh O’Brien

    I don’t think that the “more sets played=higher pay” argument is weak. The actual work that you are paid for is the sets on court. Men do more work, they should be paid more money. Simple. Just like if the female sprint was 50m, they shouldn’t be paid the same as the men’s 100m sprint. Regardless of the fact that female sprinters would (in this hypothetical) train the same amount.

    • Inside MAN

      Hi Josh

      Thanks for the comments

      Okay so try this as thought experiment……

      A woman wins Wimbledon in 3 hours in a long and gruelling match 7-6, 20-18

      A man wins Wimbledon in five minutes because his opponent slips and twists his ankle (or he wins it in 90 minutes 6-0, 6-0, 6-0 if you prefer)

      So the woman should be paid more right? Because it took her more hours to win?

      Sport isn’t paid on a hourly rate (based on how many hours you compete). Sport success is based in large part on how many hours your put in all year round AND your performance on the big stage.

      You don’t get paid more to win a marathon than to win 100m because it takes longer to run. If that was the case Marathon runners would get paid thousands of times more than sprinters.

      Sport is not paid on an hourly rate.

      It’s paid on value—-what the organisers deem to be the value of winning—-and is often performance related (ie first place gets more than last place). The argument is then two-fold:

      Is that value defined by sporting factors (eg the best get paid more, so men get paid more than women), business factors (the players/teams who generate more revenue get paid more as happens in football) or cultural factors (the best women and the best men are deemed to be of equal value irrespective of sporting or business factors)

      The additional layer to that is there is a growing overlap in business and cultural factors as it is increasingly deemed shrewd business practice to give men and women champs equal cultural value. This is true from a reputational perspective (and reputation can impact business performance) and may also be a reflection of a sport’s genuine commitment to diversify and include and promote a certain type of “equality” based on “equal cultural value” as opposed to equal sporting prowess.

      Glen

    • td9red

      The underlying premise of this article and similar articles which suggest that male athletes, firefighters, policemen, military members should be paid more is essentially that men should get more SOLELY b/c of the physical advantages of strength, speed, endurance, and whatever else, that biology bestows to males. The question is do men feel that women should get more where their body allows them to do more? I assure you they don’t.

      Let us play out this theory that where male biology is superior men get more and where female biology is superior females get more in the realm of reproduction. Under the do more/get more theory, there is no valid argument for equal parenting… Women do substantially more when it comes to reproduction or using Mr. Poole’s words, men “underperform.” A family court system based upon a presumption of equal parenting would be providing men with a “special allowance” and would be ignoring the much greater effort that women put into the finished product, right? Not one man who thinks they should get more where their biology allows them to do more would agree with this… A major MRA complaint is the female advantage in family court. Does this complaint ignore the fact that men “underperform” when it comes to reproduction?

      I’m also a sports fan, but, I don’t think Bolt should get one dime more than Shelly-Anne Fraser-Price b/c his biology allows him to run faster, any more than I think women should get an advantage in family court. Tennis is slightly different with the different number of sets thing. Women should play the same number of sets as men do for the same pay.

      • Inside MAN

        Hi There

        Judgments on who should get custody of a child are based on who is considered to be the best parent.

        On what biological basis do you think women can claim to be better parents than men once breast feeding stops?

        Best

        Glen

        • td9red

          So are you suggesting that all the parts before the baby is weaned should be forgotten… ignored?

          Aren’t you proving my point that men feel they should get more where their body allows them to do more, but, where women’s bodies allow them to do more, it should be ignored?

          • Glen Poole

            No, I’m saying that breastfeeding your child when he/she is one year old (for example) does not make you the “best” parent to have custody of the child when he/she is two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven, twelve, thirteen, fourteen, fifteen etc.

        • td9red

          So are you suggesting that all the parts before the baby is weaned should be forgotten… ignored?

          Aren’t you proving my point that men feel they should get more where their body allows them to do more, but, where women’s bodies allow them to do more, it should be ignored?

          Ultimately, whether men and women make the same amount of money participating in professional sports is trivial. I honestly could care less whether Federer feels cheated or whether WNBA players think they should earn more. Professional athletes make too much money for me to cry for them b/c they think they deserve more. My concern is how the “do more/get more” argument based solely upon biology works in the real world… Should male policemen and firefighters get more b/c they can lift more and heavier widgets? Is the ability to lift more and heavier widgets the only important part of the job…

          • Inside MAN

            Sport is based on beating your opponent, for which biological factors such as superior muscle mass, can provide an advantage.

            Custody of children is decided by making a judgment on what is deemed to be in the child’s best interest. There is no biological basis, beyond breast feeding, for assuming that it is always in the child’s best interest for women to have custody of children.

            Police officers and firefighters pay is decided by their grade (and not their ability to lift more widgets than their colleagues). To be appointed to a particular grade, you have to meet a whole host of criteria—-if you meet those criteria, you are eligible to be paid at that level, irrespective of what your gender is or how many widgets you can lift.

            If you’re really good at lifting widgets and want to be rewarded for your skills you should enter a widget lifting contest where you will be judged on the number of widgets you lift.

  • http://JohnAllman.UK John Allman

    There is plenty enough else to complain about. I’d be content to let market forces decide this question.

  • Darren Ball

    Hi Glen,

    Isn’t sport is essentially entertainment? Winners are paid what they’re worth from a business perspective. The women’s prise money for winning Wimbledon should be less because they play fewer games and therefore the club can sell fewer tickets. If you pay them the same as men, then the men’s performances are cross-subsidising the women’s.

    I’m unconvinced that prize money should be linked to absolute performance between sexes; there’s no inherent value in how far you can throw a javelin or run 100 metres. It’s just a competition for entertainment purposes.

    • Inside MAN

      Hi Darren

      Thanks for that. Yes sport is entertainment. Sport is business. And sport is a cultural asset.

      Women and men play the same number of MATCHES at Grand Slams. A man can win a MATCH in 18 games, a woman can take more than 36 games to win a match —- it’s irrelevant. Players get paid the same amount for winning a MATCH irrespective of how many games they play. This really isn’t about the number of games. The games issues refers to one sport only out of dozens of sports. It’s a red herring.

      (In 1936 for eg Fred Perry won the Wimbledon final in just 20 games while Helen Jacobs took 30 games to win the ladies’ final)

      Tennis does have something in common with 70% of sports which is this—-it pays female champs the same even though they are not as good as the male champions—that’s the place to look. That’s where the unifying trend is.

      Focussing on the number of games played in tennis is kindergarten stuff, if we want to be serious about understanding this issue we need a much bigger lens that takes in all sports.

      When you look at all sport through a wider lens you see three key perspectives at play:

      * Sport as a competition
      * Sport as a business (an entertainment business if you like)
      * Sport as a cultural asset

      1. If you see it mostly as competition then women winning the same prize money doesn’t make sense—you say you’re “unconvinced that prize money should be linked to absolute performance between sexes” — bear with, I’ll come back to that…..

      2. If you see sport as mostly business then it makes sense for pay to be linked to financial performance. When you look at the 30% of sports which pay men more, it’s sports like football, cricket, boxing, golf………sports where even the women at the top of the game are saying that “equal pay” is an absurb concept. The men’s games generate substantially more income and the male players are paid more as result. I have no issue with that.

      3. If you see sport as a cultural asset, things start to change a little. Sport has increasingly become a cultural asset in recent years with national governments building strategies seeking to harness the cultural power of sport to meet other collective goals (eg improve health, tackle unemployment, beat crime, promote social inclusion and yes support the equality and diversity agenda). Many sports also benefit from large chunks of government funding.

      Sport is not just a competition or just a business it is also a cultural asset, funded in part by tax payers and working to support state objectives, as such it is inevitable that it will reflect top-down and bottom up cultural attitudes about issues like gender equality.

      I’m not saying I agree with that but I am saying that this aspect is very real and present and needs to be taken into account.

      And I think it’s really interesting because it’s a very liberal, progressive, deconstructionist approach where male dominance is being dismantled and equalised……….but that’s happening in a very binary and hierarchical way where the young and able bodied are given hierarchical privilege over the elderly and the disabled.

      Remember the recent uproar when the MP said we should consider allowing firms to pay disabled workers who couldn’t perform at the same level as able bodied workers, less than the minimum wage. Well that’s what sport does—-it pays disabled athletes who can’t perform as well as abled bodied athletes, less money while at the same time paying female athletes who can’t perform as well as male athletes the same money.

      You said you’re unconvinced that “prize money should be linked to absolute performance between sexes”. Well pay in sport is dictated by absolute performance between disabled and able bodied // between young men and old men in many sports // between white people and black people in some sports // between women and men?

      Why, culturally, is it right to make allowances for women who underperform men but not make allowances for disabled people who underperform able-bodied people?

      The culture and business of sport have become so intertwined that this question of equal pay is never going away, it will only become more complex. Why is sport only open to two genders? Why are high performing intersex people who grew up as girls and who live as women, being banned from competing as women athletes?

      Like it or not, sport is a cultural asset and the dominant cultural worldview on gender is feelings based, subjective and disproportionately focused on concepts like “equal outcomes” and placing equal or greater value on women’s achievements.

      I’m not saying it’s right (or wrong) but I’m saying it exists and ignoring it is like trying to hit a golf ball onto the green when there’s a huge crosswind——you can ignore the wind is there; but it will still affect your shot……….you can also ignore the competitive and cultural aspects of sport but they both influence prize money in sport, whether you like it or not.

      Thanks for your comment

      Glen

  • Pingback: Politics of Participation and Representation (A Dialogue) | USP Notebook 2013()

  • Nigel

    I think it is precisely the case that sport with wages or prize money is entertainment. So just as pop stars , opera stars , actors , movie stars and so on the truth is it’s who attracts ” bums on seats”. In which case it would be perfectly likely to see different earnings according to popular audiences willing to pay to see the stars. So in tennis interest rises in this country if there is a local star Virginia Wade, Sue Barker Tim Henman and now Andy Murray. Good looking or those with an interesting “story” may not be the 
    It seems quite likely that in some sports a mainly male audience pays money partly to see their Heroes do what they dream of doing . Just as many TV variety shows have a largely female audience. Or costume drama’s attract middle aged and older women. 
    It’s not unusual for a ” lesser” sports star to attract attention( anyone remember “Eddie the Eagle”). It seems reasonable to base “pay” on the income the sport and sports person can bring in! 
    Quite possibly “unfair” ( think of Premiership Footballer Pay) but just more workable than trying to work out some “equality” formula. After all why should there be different pay for different sports ? And is an all black line up for the 100 metres a problem? What about the winter olympics lots of countries never have snow? 

    Of course amateur sport , where one may prioritise the “taking part” is quite different. After all even in rich sports only a small minority actually can make a living playing, much the same in acting, music etc. 

  • Darren Ball

    You raise a good point about women fire fighters. In order to allow women into the service, they dropped the physical standard to something absurdly low. I know a few male fire fighters and they’re very fit and strong – but this is likely to be because of the type of men attracted to that service, not because they need to be that strong to pass the physical test. The fire service relies upon the fact that it’s always going to have mostly strong and fit men, regardless of the actual physical requirements.

    I doubt very much that any commander would allow a watch to be 100% female, and if my wife was trapped on the third floor of a burning building and a fire crew turned up who were all women, having passed a physical endurance test significantly less demanding that what I do each time I carry her suit cases to the airport, I would be deeply worried. The reality is likely to put the male fire fighters at more at risk because the female fire fighters are unlikely to take an equal share of risk.

    We have seen this everywhere where women have been allowed into physically demanding front-line jobs, including soldiers, marines, etc. Quite frankly women should not be in these jobs at all. The public expect these people to be extremely strong men, so a woman of the same standard would be so exceptional that it would be unfair on the tax payer to make the necessary provisions for women to join.

    But this is different to sport. In sport there’s no intrinsic value to how far you can throw something, how fast you can run, how much you can lift. Nobody’s going to die if you don’t run fast enough. People who are interested in sport (I’m not) might be as interested to see who is the best female tennis player as they are who is the best male tennis player, etc., so it’s seems to me that in sport the absolute difference in performance between competing groups is irrelevant.

  • karen woodall

    Big topic in our house and oft debated. Frankly my view is that whilst sport is tied to sponsorship and sponsorship relies on bums on seats, women are never going to get paid the same as men because you only have to have a look at some of the events to see how many bums on seats there are for women’s football for example versus men’s football.

    In my opinion, women play brilliant sport at sports that suit their physical ability and agility. I know some people think women rugby players and footballers are great but when I watch them play I cannot see the grace, the balance, the space and the absolute breathtaking agility of men that makes those games so brilliant to watch (which puts bums on seats).

    But when I watch women play netball, or hockey I see that same grace, power, balance, speed and excitement, for me, we should be televising those sports and enjoying women doing what they do well and are built for.

    Tennis is different both men and women play at their own level and are built for the game. Which is why it is so good to watch, which is why the sponsorships are high for both, which is why they both get paid the same. Isn’t it?

  • Darren Ball

    Good morning Glen,

    You seem to have stuck a cord with this one.

    Sport isn’t really my thing, so perhaps I’m not the best person to comment. However, my response at 7.49 (which I meant as a response to TD9RED) is really where I stand. Absolute performance matters if you’re carrying a heavy person down a ladder, but not if you’re lifting a bar over your head for no good reason.

    For me, it’s just as interesting to know who is the best female athelite and what she can do, as it is to know who is the best male athelite and what he can do.

    Best

  • Lastango

    This piece is titled, “Should women sports stars get equal pay when they underperform men?”

    That’s meaningless, and entirely the wrong frame. Worse, it obfuscates the true, core question: “Should women in sports be paid the same as men even though the public won’t pay as much to watch them?”

    Answering any version of “yes” presupposes governments should subsidize the difference, on grounds that this produces a social good and that sports has become an expression of collectivized society.