Unequal pay in sport is a symptom of of a deeper socio-political problem

It is a commonly known fact that male football players are paid exceedingly more than women, and on a first glance it is clear to see why. The viewership of men's football is presumed to be far higher than that of women's, and as football is run as a business, men get paid more. The reality of this is fare different. Below are the World Cup Statistics for both the men's and women's game:

Men's 2018 World Cup

3.572 billion viewers

$400m prize

Women's 2019 World Cup

1.12 billion viewers

$30m prize

Women yield roughly a third of the viewership than men possess, yet their prize is less than a tenth as large. The argument that many put forward that 'Men's football has more viewership and thus deserve more payment' can be disproved by the disproportionate figures above. Football is not the only culprit, other sports which flaunt a gender pay gap include cricket, tennis and cycling.

"World Cup viewing figures debunk the myth that interest in the men’s game dwarfs the women’s. The ball is in Fifa’s court" (The Guardian)

Despite the incoherence of the common argument which I have just outlined, there is a far greater problem at stake. It is not the mere fact that men's sport is more commercialised that is the problem, it is the reason's why it is such, and the knock on effects that this has. It brings to light a far deeper, more political problem that has thus far impacted the whole of society, so much that it even affects entertainment industries such as sport.

Those who veer to the left of the political spectrum - socialists and modern liberals alike - will argue that capitalism relies on the free labour of women. Each year, women provide over £70,000 worth of labour in the household, for free. The value of women's actions has historically been held at a lesser value to that of men's, and this carries through when we talk about sport. When we talk about commercialised sport, we talk of a crossover between business and socioeconomics, where the principles held in each have a great impact on the other. Historically, businesses could not be run by men without a loyal female standing by their side, cooking and cleaning for her husband's return home. The female shoulders that business stands on, and the principles that this relies on, are carried on into sport - when sports are run like businesses, this metaphor proves no exception to it.

Whilst the women are expected to do their part at home, taking maternity leave at the expense of their career, the patriarchal forces exalt men even higher and place them in positions of even more power. I do not even need to voice the statistics that prove this, it is commonly known that men hold the majority of CEO roles and thus hold global economic power. The patriarchy opens doors for men, doors of many shapes and sizes. These doors lead to promotion in the workplace and, most relevant to my point, opens doors into sport that simply are not available for men. And the rest is history... the men become pro footballers thanks to the doors that society opens for them. I don't blame them, given the opportunity, anyone would take it. A survey in 1996 selected 37 'neutral' sports - the result of the survey deemed 12 as female-appropriate, whilst 24 were perceived as male-appropriate (link). The problem is, is that the opportunity is not available to us all, restricting us from having the true liberal values of equality of opportunity and a meritocracy.

When we think of gender inequality in sport, we do not think of women staying at home having babies and waiting for their husband to arrive home. We are more likely to think of rich WAGs exploiting their footballer husband's credit card. But there is a distinct parallel that can be found without much thought - that credit card is the husband opening doors for his wife, doors that she cannot open by herself. Yet another analogy of the patriarchy's disguise as something that is remotely beneficial for women.

It is a question of should. Yes, women's sport viewership is far lower, and yes that is because women, historically are not as good. But this is because of opportunity which has not been accessible because of politics. Of course, when there are sports that men are good at, they will find a way to make money out of them, an entrepreneurial action which I cannot fault. But to close these doors to women, and deem it economically impossible for them to get paid as much, that is wrong. The opportunities for women should be there, so their viewership should be better and their pay should be higher.