On Equal Pay Day earlier this year, leading US football player Megan Rapinoe joined Joe Biden to campaign for greater equality in women’s sport. That significant differences remain between men’s and women’s sport is all too evident, and research from the University of Southern California suggests that the media may play a significant role.
The study shows that women’s sport receives no more air time now than they did in the 1980s. What’s more, the coverage they do receive tends to be lower in production value and technical quality than that for men’s sport.
“Over the past 30 years, we have not seen meaningful change in the amount of coverage women athletes receive,” the researchers say.
Entrenched inequalities
The authors highlight the tremendous improvement in participation among school-age girls, which has grown from 1 in 27 50 years ago to 1 in 3 today. The representation of female athletes in the media, however, has not shown the same progression.
The research shows that in 2019, coverage of female sport received just 5.4% of all airtime devoted to sport. This is a figure that has barely budged, with 5% of coverage devoted to women’s sport in 1989 and 5.1% in 1993. What’s more, if the 2019 Women’s World Cup is removed, the coverage falls to just 3.5%.
“Every now and then, women’s sports break through the glass ceiling of media coverage, but only when it’s an elite, international competition. Even these mega events are eclipsed by the steady stream of men’s sports, which are covered in season, out of season, with more energy, and at higher production values,” the researchers say.
Unequal coverage
The analysis includes not only television but also social media and online newsletters operated by the television networks. The team thought that the inclusion of this online media would level the playing field as the time and space constraints are removed, but that wasn’t the case.
“The data from Twitter and online daily newsletters mirrored the trends we were seeing in televised coverage of women’s sports. With the exception of espnW (which stopped publishing mid-year), significant events were covered, but daily coverage was minimal,” the authors say.
This lack of coverage provides minimal role models for young girls, while the poor quality of what coverage that does exist undermines the value placed on women’s sport.
What has changed is the general tone of the coverage, however. The authors highlight that in the 80s and 90s women’s sport was often sexualized or made fun of, whereas this changed to the scarcely better framing of athletes as our wives and mothers during the 2000s. Now, there is a degree of respect afforded to female athletes, but the lack of energy and excitement afforded the sports is still a concern.
“Women’s coverage is absent, largely, of the elements that we know make watching sport highlights compelling and interesting: exciting commentary, colorful, descriptive, animated delivery, and thoughtful, high-production value interviews and game footage. When you compare women’s coverage to men’s, the women’s comes across as quite bland,” the authors say.
