|If no-one's paying to watch is it a|
surprise that the rewards are small?
Of the sports identified the really big differences occur in the areas of Football, Cricket and Golf. These sports are hugely popular - or at least the men's versions are. Men's professional football is the most popular spectator sport. Women's football isn't. By a really long way. Not that this means the women are any less capable of playing the game, or it's any less entertaining. But the money that can be earned from sponsors, gate receipts and television deals is several orders of magnitude larger for the men's games and as a result the rewards are higher. I can't see how anyone can make this out to be a gender issue. Bring in the crowds, reap the rewards. Of the other sport's where this is the case, I see no problem.
For the sports where there is no income generation difference between the men's and women's sport I see no excuse for there being a difference in the prize money on offer. Surely though, that is down to the athletes themselves to take up the matter with their sport's governing body?
In reality, the BBC have carried out a study which amounts to a complete waste of the taxpayer's money. By having then involved an untold number of (highly paid) civil servants in crafting the Minister's response they've then compounded that error.
Not one of The Beeb's more memorable efforts...