Parity Not Charity

It is regrettable that so many aspects of life today are all about ticking boxes, and there is a pretence to satisfying perceived needs. Much of this stems from flawed funding models, which determine that organisations must comply with certain criteria in order to gain funding, or indeed become a supplier.

We see this on a regular basis across the sporting landscape.

Multiculturalism is a word thrown around at will but frequently not backed up with any genuine understanding or proof of it actually being evident on a daily basis. It is not hard to see if this is working or not. Simply by walking down to the local park and watching a game you can see if integration is happening. In some sports many of the migrant communities have created their own competitions. When asked why this is the case, one reason given is because they have not felt welcome at the established clubs.

The buzz across the sporting landscape at the moment surrounds an equality of the sexes. However there seems to be some confusion over the issue.

The Women’s rights movement gained momentum after the end of the second World War. While their husbands, brothers and fathers were away fighting it was the women who kept the factories operating, and also working on the land. When the men returned, they wanted their jobs back and there was friction as some women wished to keep working. Following that, what followed was a disparity in pay which was in many cases not addressed until the late 1970’s early 1980’s.

Even in sport there was an issue. With the men away fighting Women’s football became extremely popular as teams like the Dick Kerr Ladies raised thousands of pounds for charity playing in front of packed houses at all the major stadia in England. Once the war was over, threatened by the popularity of women’s football, they were banned from playing on Football League grounds. A ban that was not lifted again until the 1970’s.

When it came to the Olympic Games the decision as to whether women could participate in the event or not was up to the men who operated the Olympic Games. In the second edition of the modern Olympic Games in 1900 only 12 female athletes competed in only two events which were golf and tennis. At the St. Louis Olympics four years later archery was the only women’s event! Only the events that men considered being a “feminine sport” were recognized as being women’s sport events at the Games.

Thankfully those attitudes have changed, and we have seen more women gaining positions of influence within the areas of decision making on sport.

The issue today when the word equality is mentioned in sport comes down to women being given equal opportunities. What are those opportunities?

The main issues are exactly that opportunities. The opportunity to have access to the same quality coaching that their male counterparts have, to play at the same venues or have the same quality of pitches, changing facilities, and training facilities. Equal investment and equal pay are two other issues constantly on the table. Finally some parity in terms of media coverage. On the flip side there is a genuine attempt made to end gender stereotyping and sexism and see a balance between men’s sport and women’s sport.

In many countries around the globe sport plays a big part in their society. As a result of that sport becomes an important part of the media landscape. People want to watch sport, listen to sport and read about sport. It helps generate sponsorship dollars on television and radio, and sport sells newspapers; if written about properly!

Back in 1993 in Australia a report found that only 5% of televised sports news covered women’s sport. An up to date figure has been hard to find to see if that has improved. However according to a report by research specialists Nielsen in March this year women’s sport now makes up 10% of live sports broadcasts. That is still a low percentage. The same report revealed that Women’s sport had a unique broadcast reach across the key sports of 5 million people which represents just 36% of the audience of men’s sport (13.8 million)

The report went on to state “Overcoming barriers to engagement is key. Interest in women’s leagues and sports is higher when a free-to-air broadcasting strategy has been developed and executed. One-in-two (48%) people say they would watch more women’s sport if it was accessible on free-to-air TV or free online. Facebook is the most popular social media channel to follow women’s sport (87%), followed by YouTube (56%), and Instagram (43%).”

In the late 1990’s a survey titled “An Illusory Image: A Report on the Media Coverage and Portrayal of Women’s Sport in Australia 1996,” highlighted an issue that is still relevant today “although the nation’s sportswomen are playing faster, harder and more professionally than ever, and have a proven international record, they will struggle for consistent, long-term coverage.”

The media is obviously a very strong form of communication to the public. The way a sport or athlete is portrayed in the media can have far-reaching affect. It can have a huge impact on the credibility of a sport and or a sporting personality.

Which raises a vert pertinent issue. How important is it to have the right people cover sport?

A recent development under the guise of equality arose with a commentator colleague of mine in recent weeks. They were pencilled in to commentate a major sporting event. Then when the final appointments were announced they were advised that they would not be covering the sport that they have a healthy reputation as a commentator. The reason given was that the expert on that event was the same sex as them, so therefore the lead commentator needed to be of the opposite sex, in line with sexual equality.

Does this mean that in ten years time all sport will be played by mixed gender teams?

Has something been lost in translation here? If you read back over the history of women fighting for equal rights, most of the arguments have been based on them having access to equal opportunities. That is as it should be. Then it must come down to who is the best, irrespective of sex.

As many of the South African athletes selected under the quota system have openly stated, it undermined them as people and athletes having the quota system. It gave people the opportunity to say that they had not earned the right to be in their national team. Is this not the same situation?

We are seeing the best being rewarded in a number of sports around the globe now where we have female referees and umpires officiating men’s sports. If they are good enough why shouldn’t they be given that opportunity? Does the sex of an official really matter? Most players simply want the best so that they have the best outcomes in the game.

We are seeing female coaches taking control of men’s teams too. It may surprise some readers to know that it was a Chinese woman who in 2017 became the first woman to coach a male football club in a top-flight continental competition. Chan Yuen Ting managed Hong Kong side Eastern against Guangzhou Evergrande in the AFC Champions League. In Germany late last year Imke Wubbenhorst took over as the coach of fifth-tier men’s team BV Cloppenburg. This list is growing.

Sport should always be based on merit. If you are the best, you are selected. We have seen post apartheid in South Africa how a quota system does not work.

If women’s sport is to receive the best coverage it needs the best commentators irrespective of sex. However the opportunities must be there for both sexes. There is no place for tokenism. Ultimately that will harm the sport and the coverage.

There are some top women commentators in sport these days who have total respect from all viewers, because they know their stuff, Gabby Logan, Clare Balding, Isa Guha and Alison Mitchell are a some that automatically spring to mind.When it comes to experts in certain sports the list is even longer.

When watching sport most fans simply want to hear the best bringing them the action. They want impartiality and information to make the viewing experience enjoyable. Good commentators make dull games worth watching.

The policy inflicted upon my colleague could be deemed a form of apartheid. It appears that the employer has sanctioned a form of sexual segregation. Their decision could also be classified as political discrimination, and if there is a disparity of pay also economic discrimination.

Is this really what the the fight for equality was about? Surely not. Wasn’t it always about having equal opportunities?