A Level Paying Field

Whenever people refer to sporting contests the phrase ‘it must be an even playing field’ invariably pops up. Over the years the interpretation of the phrase has changed.

It used to mean that the conditions for all contests and or all teams were the same, in order to give all an even chance of winning.

Sport sadly is no longer about just winning. It is about money. When Premier League coaches can be sacked because the club’s share price went down rather than being judged on the performance of their team you soon realize that there are greater issues at play than whether the contest is fair.

In some cases “an even playing field” now means “I want to be paid what they are getting paid.”

Some sports still endeavor to produce even contests wherever possible. In golf there is the handicap system, as there is in horseracing. In boxing fighters are split into weigh divisions; however that does not mean that a boxer cannot fight above his weight division.

As good as that is in a sport like boxing, sadly the Champions now pick and chose who they fight rather than the sport’s Governing bodies insisting they defend their title against the number one contender. In addition there are too many World bodies trying to run the sport, and too many World Titles. Once again it all comes down to Money.

There are currently 17 weight categories across four World Bodies, which makes a potential 68 World Champions at any one time. If you go back to the start of the last century there were only 11 weight divisions and 11 World Champions

There are huge sums of money tied up in the category one sports, in terms of sponsorship and media rights, and as a result those playing at the highest level can command astronomical salaries. However often the actual salaries or earnings from winning is far outweighed by the revenue earned from endorsements.

In 2018 the highest paid athletes according to Forbes magazine were Boxer Floyd Mayweather ($275M and $10M in endorsements), Footballer Lionel Messi was second ($84M salary and $27M in endorsements) and Cristiano Ronaldo was third ($61M and $47M in endorsements). Conor McGregor was fourth and footballer Neymar and fifth was Basket baller LeBron James ($33.5M and $52M in endorsements). Then came Roger Federer ($12.2M with $67M in endorsements), Stephen Curry ($34.9 salary and $42M endorsements) and then American Footballer Matt Ryan $62.3M and $5M in endorsements.

By comparison Forbes listed the top Female athletes and tennis player Serena Williams was top with $62,000 salary/winnings and $18M in endorsements. Remember she had a baby earlier in 2018. Fellow Tennis player Caroline Wozniacki was second with $7M in prize money and $6M in endorsements. Still with Tennis Sloane Stephens was third ($5.7M and $5.5 in endorsements) another tennis player Garbine Muguruza was fourth ($5.5M and $5.5M in endorsements) she was followed by Maria Sharapova ($1m and $9.5M in endorsements). The top six earners were rounded out by another tennis player Venus Williams ($4.2M and $6M in endorsements). Indian badminton player PV Sindhu came in next with $500,000 and $8M in endorsements. In eighth spot we had tennis player Simone Halap ($6.2M and $1.5M in endorsements), while race car driver Diane Patrick was ninth with $3M and $4.5M in endorsements. The top ten earners list was completed by another tennis player, Angelique Kerber ($3M and $4M in endorsements).

For the record Serena Williams as the highest paid female athlete would not have made it into the top 100 highest paid athletes. At number one hundred was basket baller Nicolas Batum with $22.4M salary and $500,000 in endorsements.

Is this right?

Is it any coincidence that out of the top 10 highest paid female athletes eight came from the sport of Tennis?

Of the major four tournaments that make up the Grand Slam of Tennis only Wimbledon awards the male and female champions the same prize money. However the sport has made a conscious effort to close the gap in terms of prize money between the two sexes.

Understandably there are many who feel that the disparity between the earnings of female athletes and their male counterparts needs to be addressed. In fact just last week the Professional Footballers Australia threatened to take FIFA to court in a bid to try and see the FIFA Women’s World Cup receive the same prize money as the men’s event.

It is undoubtedly an honorable and well-meaning gesture by the PFA. It is however also one that now may well cost Australia who are bidding for the 2023 FIFA Women’s World Cup, much needed votes. The final decision will rest with the 37 FIFA board members, who are predominantly male.

The Prize money at the Men’s World Cup in Russia was USD$400M. The Women’s World Cup in France this year sees prize money of $30million to be shared between the 24 teams competing. That is double what was on offer in Canada four years ago. So to be fair that is a big step in the right direction.

Where Women’s football needs an injection of money is at grassroots and to increase the professionalism in the sport. Currently the female athletes are in the main as dedicated if not more dedicated than some of their fellow professionals, and still the disparity of pay at club level remains.

With investment comes not only success on the field of play, but off it as well. You have to pay out in order to bring in money. The perfect example is Olympique Lyonnais in France.

Earlier this year the side won their fourth consecutive European Champion’s League title. The female side it has been stated breaks even in terms of being its run as its own business. They attract large crowds as well as corporate sponsorship, and it has been reported that they signed a deal last month with credit card group Mastercard.

The club is believed to pay the highest wages to any female players, around EUR10,000 per month. Thanks to the generous salaries they have attracted some of the best players in Women’s football, and the fans and sponsors have in turn supported the side.

As mentioned sport is business, it is sadly today in the main all about money, and as much as the Women’s game has grown remarkably in the past 10 years it still has a fair way to go to match the men’s World Cup.

The FIFA World Cup in Russia is reported to have reached a global audience of between 3.5-4billion people, as a result of that pulling power it generated USD$6.5 billion in revenue. By comparison the women’s World cup underway at the moment is forecast to attract an audience of around one billion and revenues of $1.5Billion. So realistically is the revenue there to be able to offer the same prize money? Even if there was then surely that should be the same across all competitions? The Cerebral Palsy World Cup is about to get underway in July in Spain, once again these athletes are incredibly dedicated and train exceptionally hard, should they not be paid the same if we are to have an even playing filed across the sport?

There is an irony to the women’s situation as during the war years in Britain women played football to help the war effort. The Football League was suspended and players went off to fight. So the women played games in front of packed stadia, and the money went towards the war effort. Dick Kerr Ladies was one of the most famous teams of the day and played against teams from France. They were a very popular side with some of the best players representing the side.

As an example at the end of 1920 and start of 1921 – after the war had ended – the Dick Kerr ladies played two games in Liverpool for charity. These games raised UKL4,350 at the time, the equivalent of $870,000 today. From 1918 to 1921 it has been said that the team raised the equivalent in today’s money of UKL 24 million for War Relief charities.

On the 5th of December 1921 the English FA at the request of many of the top clubs in English Football today announced that Women’s football must stop.

“Complaints have been made as to football being played by women, the council feel impelled to express their strong opinion that the game of football is quite unsuitable for females and ought not to be encouraged,” The statement read.

It finished by saying “For these reasons the Council requests the clubs belonging to the Association refuse use of their grounds for such matches.” Women were banned from playing on English Football League grounds, despite all they had done for the war effort. The reason had to be that they were proving a threat to the men’s game. That ban remained in place for the next fifty years!

Had women been able to share those grounds during that period would this argument even exist today?

There are clearly some sports that are better at managing the battle of the sexes.

There are many that see men and women competing against each other as equals. Horseracing is one, where the handicapping evens things out. There are still many who claim the women riders are not a match for their male counterparts, but there are many who have shut down that argument. Who can forget Michelle Payne winning the Melbourne Cup in 2015?

Are there other sports that could promote mixed events where men and women vie for the same prize pool? Golf is one that springs to mind as all courses have men’s and women’s tees so why in international competition could women not play off the women’s tees? The whole premise of this is to create the even playing field mentioned at the start.

Could Athletics look at staggering the starts similar to races like the Stawell gift based on all runners times, in order to create a close finish?

There are many women who question whether equal pay will mean equal respect? If you look out how money has corrupted many male sports, one wonders why women’s sport would want to head down that track. Women’s football has shown that the game is far more enjoyable when players don’t feign injury or go out of their way to get the opposition booked or sent off. If money resulted in the same behavior then they could kill the one thing that makes their athletes stand out.

Surely the problem really comes at the start of women’s sport? There has to be equal investment in women’s sport as there is in men’s.

The US College system was forced by the United States Government to spend the same on female programs as were being spent on male baseball, American Football and Basketball. Women’s sport benefitted greatly. Should sporting bodies and or clubs around the globe be made to spend equally on male and female teams and development? Should the likes of FIFA and the IOC be policing this if they are genuine about equality?

One cannot help feeling that if the Government investment was based on improvement, rather than as is the case in many countries on past success, not only would participation numbers grow, but so too would the quality of those playing, as there would be more competition for places. Once the standards improve sponsors and investors would be sure to want to come on board, and then the players will start to see the rewards that they deserve.

To be fair to FIFA they have made a pledge to double the number of female players playing football by 2026. The goal they claim is ‘to raise the standard of play and attract investors.’ It is up to those in power to maintain pressure and ensure that they follow through on that promise.

At the end of the day in business you can only pay out based on the revenue you bring in. Across many sports there are teams that have been subsidized to help them get going, but that cannot go on forever, eventually they have to run their own business and pay according to their means.

Few would disagree with the comment made by US Goalkeeping legend Hope Solo when she said on the issue of equal pay, that “male chauvinism is entrenched” in FIFA. It has been pretty much a closed shop to women, and those women who have managed to break into this exclusive club have struggled to affect change.

Women’s Football is a very marketable product, maybe rather than seeking that even playing field, they should create a new field of their own? There would be plenty of other sports where women feel they play second fiddle to the men that would be sure to support such a move.

Maybe there is another Alice Milliat out there. Milliat was a Frenchwoman who in 1921 witnessed male chauvinism first hand and formed La Fédération Sportive Féminine Internationale (FSFI) to oversee international women’s sporting events. The FSFI decided to hold a Women’s Olympic Games in 1922, which would include all sports, rather than the restricted number allowed to women in the official Olympics.

The IOC was livid that the word “Olympics” was used and negotiated with Milliat and the FSFI to change the name of their event. They did, in exchange for adding 10 women’s events to the 1928 Olympic Games.

There needs to for clarity over what is actually being fought for here, if it is equal prize money or equal pay, then that comes down to business, and the revenue generated and received once costs have been covered. Here you will never find an even playing field, just as you will never see all athletes being the same height, weight, funding, and having the exact same meals and training in order to compete in an event.

If it is parity in terms of investment in the sport at development level and marketing then the chances of gaining support from the general populous is going to be far easier to obtain. There would be few in today’s world who would argue against that.