Skip to main content

Rewards In Sport Come From Marketability, Not Gender

If no-one's paying to watch is it a
surprise that the rewards are small?
This article on the BBC discusses research that finds an inequality between men and women's prize in 30% of professional sports. Apart from the fact that this hardly seems like the most pressing topic for the time of the UK Government, it's a rather nonsensical study, which vastly misunderstands the concept of prize money as a reward for earning money for a sport's promoter.

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...


Popular posts from this blog

F1: Robert Kubica Impresses In Renault Test Run

The car may be old but its the performance of the driver that's the story here. Robert Kubica returned to F1, after a fashion, earlier this week with an extensive test run in a 2012 Lotus Renault F1 car at Valencia.
The age of the car and the circuit were likely determined by F1's current rules which ban testing, but the reason for Kubica being in the car is far more interesting. Considered by many to be a potential World Champion and certainly one of the fastest drivers of his generation, Kubica's F1 career seemed to be over after a 2011 crash whilst driving in the Rally of Andora. His Skoda Fabia was penetrated by a guardrail in the high speed accident partially severing his right arm.
Up until last year Kubica has been competing in rallying, with the expectation that the limited movement in his repaired arm would prohibit a return to single seater racing.
So this week's test is both interesting and confusing. Interesting because Kubica completed 115 laps of the ret…

F1: Robert Kubica's Williams Test Asks More Questions Than It Answers

Comparing driver's times at a tyre evaluation test like last week's Abu Dhabi event is difficult at the best of times, but when trying to assess the performance of a driver who has been out of the sport for six years, that difficulty level is raised even higher.
On the face of it Robert Kubica's test for Williams was a success. Fastest of the three Williams drivers present the headlines look promising. However, taking into consideration the different tyres used to set those times muddies the water considerably.
Kubica ran a three lap qualifying simulation on the new 'hyper-soft' tyre - which should have given him a two-second advantage. Correcting for tyres it would appear that Kubica was significantly slower than Sergei Sorotkin - who was on the harder 'soft' tyre - and marginally quicker than Lance Stroll, the team's only contracted driver.

Stroll's family fortune currently funds Williams, so there' no chance that he will be anywhere but in a…

Panos Panay's Defence Of Microsoft Surface Hardware Sounds Eerily Familiar

This weekend I went out with my ten year old daughter to select a laptop for her school year beginning in January. The schools requirements are quite specific, requiring a Windows 10 device, with a preference for a touchscreen and a stylus. She chose a Surface Pro, after trying a large number of different options. Having seen the way I use my own Surface Pro - and tried it herself there was only ever going to be two options - and the other was a Surface Laptop.
I tell you this so that you understand I am a buyer of Microsoft's products through choice, not compulsion. I'm on my third Surface device now. 
So when Panos Panay dismissed reports of the death of the Surface hardware line, I was very interested to see exactly how strong these denials were. Especially how they reflect what has gone before. To whit: Windows 10 Mobile.
Panay claimed that Microsoft is in hardware for the long haul. Almost exactly mirroring the words of Terry Myerson, when he claimed Windows Mobile was g…