Hvers vegna konur í fótbolta fá minna borgað
Geiri85
| 10. júl. '19, kl: 19:58:49
| 162 | Svara
| Er.is
| 0
Og hvers vegna þær eiga að fá minna borgað...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KfDynQFUHys
" This summer, the U.S.
women’s soccer team electrified the nation when it defeated Germany 2–0 and
then Japan 5–2 to win the World Cup. Instead of celebrating the team’s
brilliant play and the continuing growth of women’s soccer, many in the media
are fixating on what they see as a shameful “World Cup pay gap.” The U.S.
women’s team collected only $2 million in prize money for its victory over
Japan. But for the corresponding men’s competition in 2014, the winning German
team won $35 million—while the Americans, who lost in the first round, took
home $8 million. Spurred by the media reports, Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont
introduced a resolution on the floor of the U.S. Senate urging FIFA, the
organization that sponsors the World Cup, to “immediately eliminate gender pay
inequity”: Here is where I think the Senator and the media critics go wrong.
The prize disparity has much more to do with sports economics than sexism.
The World Cup is a world
competition—hence its title—and its prizes are based on paid viewership, in
stadiums but mainly on television, the world over. The women’s players are
formidable athletes and the Women’s World Cup is growing rapidly in popularity,
especially in the U.S., but it’s still nowhere near the men’s cup in terms of
world popularity. According to FIFA, the 2011 Women’s World Cup was watched by
nearly 408 million people around the world; for the men’s World Cup in, 2010
the figure was 3.2 billion. In 2010, the men’s World Cup generated nearly $3.7
billion in revenue, while the women’s World Cup generated about $73 million.
FIFA is a shady organization, and sexism can probably be counted among its many
vices—but the differences in its men’s and women’s prizes are actually less
than the differences in its revenues from the two competitions. Well, the
sports equity activists have heard all of this before, and they have a reply.
“Why accept market forces?” they ask. After all, these forces were shaped by a
culture that has been traditionally hostile to women. Shane Ferro, a feminist
business reporter at Business Insider explains it this way: “Most of us have
been socialized to accept men’s sports as dominant, and somehow automatically
more interesting.” And once society internalizes a falsehood, she says, “it’s
not so easy to correct it.” Hard, but not impossible.
There is now a call by
sports equity activists to change the market by re-socializing fans. “Sports
fans, for the most part, will watch whatever you put in front of them,” says
Kavitha Davidson at Bloomberg News. Highlight the women’s teams, and fan
interest and excitement will come. A recently published study by two feminist
sociologists [SHOW] comes to the same conclusion. The authors lament that
women’s sports receive only about 3% of network TV attention, down from 5% in 1989.
Major sports media, they say, is a “place set up by men for men to celebrate
men’s sensational athletic accomplishments” while giving short shrift to
women’s achievements. They acknowledge that there are fewer female teams, so
they suggest for now the media increase coverage of women’s sports to 12–18%.
They also specify that the sportscasters should report on women’s sports with
the same “enthusiasm” as men’s sports. More coverage plus more enthusiasm will
increase the fan base, and that will drive up women’s salaries and prizes.
Well, it’s the gender sociologists and the feminist journalists—not the sports
fans— who have internalized a falsehood. There are athletic competitions where
women attract more fans than men—figure skating and gymnastics, for example.
And women’s tennis, while not as popular as men’s, certainly has a large and
devoted audience. "
Umræðustjórar: tinnzy123, annarut123, Paul O'Brien, paulobrien, Kristler, Hr Tölva, Bland.is, Guddie
