You're In The Agora
Welcome to the Net's best new source for commentary on current events, culture, faith, science and much more.
Faith
Confessing Evangelical Evangelical Outpost He Lives Mere Comments Mirror of Justice Religion Clause Three Hierarchies Science Dispatches from the Culture Wars In the Pipeline New Scientist Tierney Lab Liberty A Constrained Vision Asymmetrical Information Becker-Posner Blog Hit & Run Instapundit Positive Liberty The Agitator Volokh Conspiracy Economics Café Hayek EconLog Environmental Economics Freakonomics Free Exchange Greg Mankiw J. Bradfor DeLong Marginal Revolution The Right Andrew Sullivan Best of the Web Eunomia Hugh Hewitt Michelle Malkin Power Line The American Scene The Corner The Left After the Future Ezra Klein Matthew Yglesias Political Animal Talking Points Memo Errata Daniel Drezner Democracy in America Dilbert Blog Lilek's Bleat Overcoming Bias The Sartorialist Hoosiers Daily Contentions Indiana Barrister Masson's Blog Matthew Stevenson |
|
« Dual Incomes: Masking a Middle Class Crisis? | Main | Two Giants » April 27, 2006Gender and SportThere has been some interesting news recently concerning gender lines in sports. Coincidentally (or not), both stories I've come across involve tennis. At the professional level, the All England Lawn Tennis Club has drawn controversy by announcing that this year's prize money for the Wimbledon men's champion will again be higher than that for the women's champion. Wimbledon thus remains the only event in tennis' 4-event "grand slam" not to pay its male and female champions equally. At this point, professional basketball fans may be asking themselves what the big deal is. After all, WNBA players are paid substantially less than their male NBA counterparts. And this is obviously due to the fact that the WNBA brings in much less money in ticket revenue, merchandising, television broadcasts, etc. So, this raises the question, how does revenue from women's tennis compare to men's tennis? Women's tennis star Maria Sharapova claims that the women get just as many sponsorships and equal television ratings to the men. This is certainly true for the glamorous Sharapova (a.k.a. the Anna Kournikova of the sport who can actually win tournaments), but is it true for the entire women's side of the tournament? Also, Wimbledon has pointed out that the women play only to the best of 3 sets, whereas the men play to the best of 5. It seems to me that the only fair way to determine the payouts is by the comparative revenue to the tournament from each gender. In a more interesting development, Quaker Valley High School tennis player Annie Houghton recently won the Western Pennsylvania Interscholastic Athletic League boys' tennis championship. Houghton was allowed to play on the boys' team this spring because she missed the girls' tennis season last fall while recovering from knee surgery. Columnist Bonnie Erbe is celebrating Houghton's achievement while disparaging the push by Western Pennsylvanian athletic directors to implement anti-gender-crossing rules in high school sports. Erbe goes on to argue, rather unconvincingly, that gender time differences in running are "evaporating." The men's world record in the 10K is 27:02, while the women's record is 30:21--a difference of over ten percent! I suspect a time of 30:21 wouldn't even qualify a man for international competition in the 10K. Erbe seems to advocate allowing the best women in a sport to opt to compete with the men, and she offers the case of professional golfer Michelle Wie--who will be competing in a PGA tournament this fall--as an example. However, if we allow the standout females to compete on the male tournament for the greater payouts found there, should we allow less-skilled male golfers to play in the LPGA for a shot at the championship? The idea sounds absurd, but why should we make exceptions only in one direction? Or perhaps we could eliminate the gender line in golf completely. However, the problem with that would be that most women would never have a shot at winning a tournament. On this subject, you can count me as a traditionalist. Gender lines in most sports are a good thing for both genders. The occasional problems with the status quo are outweighed by the problems that would arise from erasing the gender lines. Posted by Eric Seymour at April 27, 2006 12:41 PM CommentsAlso, Wimbledon has pointed out that the women play only to the best of 3 sets, whereas the men play to the best of 5. Which has absolutely no impact on ticket sales, as the the number of matches is fixed and the time of the match is unrelated. I believe for Wimbledon the ticket draw is maxed out (similar to the Cubs, Yankees or Red Sox), but in the case of the U.S. Open, women do outdraw the men in terms of ticket sales. Posted by: jason at April 28, 2006 10:36 AM | permalink For several years, around 97-02, the women were THE story on the tour. This was the time when Venus, Serena, Hingis, Capriati and others were going strong. Due to the incessant injuries of the top players (which is the REAL story of modern tennis), and a resurgance of the men's tour, I think the men have regained the upper hand in terms of popularity. Wimbledon trotted out the same old sad story about 3 sets versus five even when everyone came to the show to see the women. All it will take is one year of the top female players boycotting the tournament, and that problem can be quicly solved. I don't even think it will take that much, just the threat of boycott and the resolve to follow through if their demands aren't met. Please also remember that Wimbledon only recently allowed players to wear a color besides white, so change comes slowly. Posted by: Anonymous at April 28, 2006 10:45 AM | permalink [3 sets versus 5] has absolutely no impact on ticket sales No, but it stands to reason that if the men play longer than the women, they bring in more television advertising revenue--which, for an international event like Wimbledon surely exceeds ticket revenue. As I said in the article, the only fair way to split the championship payout is based on how much revenue each gender brings in. Whether that means the men get paid more or the women get paid more, so be it. Posted by: Eric Seymour at April 28, 2006 11:07 AM | permalink As I said in the article, the only fair way to split the championship payout is based on how much revenue each gender brings in. I tend to agree with your assesment of what might be fair, but as there is not sport that I can think of that pays it's players in some matching fashion to revenue, it's rather unlikely. Posted by: jason at April 28, 2006 05:23 PM | permalink Posted by: Foltz at April 29, 2006 04:11 PM | permalink Foltz, an explanation of your assertion of the NFL? The NFL certainly has revenue sharing among the teams, but that in no way necessarily translates to the players. Posted by: jason at April 29, 2006 06:56 PM | permalink One amendment to what I was saying, if I'm not awknowledging the portion of the shared revenue that is designated to the players salary pool, I believe that there are still several areas (luxury boxes, etc.) that the teams do not share. On top of that, players in the NFL play under contracts that are non-guaranteed, making the "contracts" worthless. Posted by: jason at April 29, 2006 07:03 PM | permalink Post a comment |
|
---- ADVERTISEMENTS ----
|