Sports economist accuses FIFA of blatant discrimination against female soccer players
Smith College economics professor Andrew Zimbalist has written several books about the business of sports, including Circus Maximus: The Economic Gamble Behind Hosting the Olympics and the World Cup. And in an interview on the Brookings Institution website, he claimed that FIFA "continues to treat the women in a blatantly discriminatory manner".
Zimbalist singled out the decision to allow women's matches on artificial turf whereas all the men's games take place on grass. (For more on this, read Bob Mackin's recent article in the Georgia Straight.)
"Turf is not only a different game in terms of ball movement, but it entails rubber pellets from the turf flying into the face, hair, and uniforms of the players," Zimbalist told interviewer Rebecca Campany.
Zimbalist also pointed out that the men's prize money is 38.5 times higher than that given to the women. This occurred even though the Women's World Cup enjoyed exceptionally strong TV ratings and large audiences in the stadiums.
He noted that the semifinal match between Germany and the United States had 8.4 million viewers in the U.S., amounting to a 6.1 rating. In Germany, the game had a 42.6 percent share of the TV audience even though it began at 1 a.m. in that country.
The Women's World Cup final between the U.S. and Japan had a 15.2 overnight rating in the U.S., easily eclipsing the previous record for soccer.
"NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman can crow all he wants about the resurgence of hockey's popularity, but its Stanley Cup final game this year drew only a 5.6 rating," Zimbalist said on the Brookings Institution website. "The women's final even came within a hair of matching the NBA championship game last month between the Cleveland Cavaliers and the Golden State Warriors, which garnered a 15.9 overnight rating."
Comments
8 Comments
Just sayin'
Jul 7, 2015 at 8:28am
No one wanted to host this World Cup, yet Canada was supposed to spend tens or billions building new stadiums Just to satisfy the Turf whiners. Sure.
Yeah right
Jul 7, 2015 at 8:45am
First off, I really enjoyed the women's world cup this year and am so happy that it was played in Canada so the world could see our level of support for the game. And Yes, this one championship game did indeed draw large numbers of viewers. But those numbers are for the US only . How did the final game draw around the world? And even in a soccer crazy country like Canada, they still can't sell out a game at the gate. So yes, the men's payout is much higher than the women's. But the reality is that - the past week's championship aside- the women's game still has a way to go to catch up in viewership eyeball and in people in the seats. Can anyone really say that women's soccer has 1/10th the interest that the Premier league has??? I didn't think so. When we start putting more people in the seats, then the revenue will increase.
Math good?
Jul 7, 2015 at 9:24am
The reason men get paid 35 times more then woman is because way more people watch the men's World Cup. Sorry it's not even close in numbers. Woman's soccer isn't nearly as popular. Also comparing an intentional world wide tours events ratings to that of a spirt played Blu by 1 country (basket ball) isn't a reasonable comparison either.
The woman want to be treated like men... I say let them play the men.
specious
Jul 7, 2015 at 9:57am
US national team, Sunday afternoon game for the gold medal on a holiday weekend without any other major sporting events as competition; no doubt it drew huge numbers in the US. I doubt the US numbers would have held for a final without the US team involved though. Maybe FIFA can work to guarantee they're always in it?
As for prize money, what were the revenue numbers for comparision between the men's and women's tournament? A decent investigation should really provide this basic information so we can see what the disparity represents.
42.6% share of TV viewers in Germany even though their game aired at 1am? That says the largest group of people who decided to stay up late to watch TV were watching... but how many? Come on... this is basic analysis.
Overall, I thought the turf looked good. The game was fast (exposed some players who need to age out perhaps - which should be good for the game going forward) and the play didn't seem to be negatively impacted. But then the Whitecaps look like they do well on it also so I wasn't too surprised. Money well spent for a great tournament with legacy faciltiy upgrades for future events... but if you want a shorter life-span grass field next time, please ask some other taxpayers to foot the bill.
Reality Check
Jul 7, 2015 at 10:49am
The only reason the Women's World Cup exists (as well as FIFA's various youth and futsal tournaments) is due to the billions in revenues the men's World Cup brings in to support them.
ursa minor
Jul 7, 2015 at 11:26am
"Can anyone really say that women's soccer has 1/10th the interest that the Premier league has???"
I can say that a lot of Premier League clubs have an interest in women's soccer:
http://fawsl.com
Arsenal, Aston Villa, Chelsea, Everton, Liverpool, Manchester City, Sunderland, and Watford are all fielding women's teams.
Cel
Jul 7, 2015 at 12:31pm
I am tired of these dishonest articles. I have seen them in many different sites.
They keep repeating the irrelevant fact that more Americans watched this game than any other soccer game.
None of them mention the relevant information:
The 2011 Women's World Cup brought FIFA $5.8 million in ad revenue. The 2014 men's WC brought $1.4 billion.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/05/magazine/why-is-us-womens-soccer-still...
The women's teams are proportionally overpaid relative to the revenue they generate, which is the only relevant factor.
The Problem...
Jul 7, 2015 at 3:23pm
...is that people are diluting a legitimate issue (why should a financially viable tournament played by the best female soccer players in the world be played on inferior turf) with a ridiculous complaint (why do the men make more).
NBA players make a lot more than WNBA players, as they should....but the WNBA doesn't have to play their games on cracked floorboards or on cement. Female hockey players in the Olympics get the same quality of ice as their male counterparts. Etc etc.
The pay scale seems fair, but the tournament should have been on grass.