Is women's sport finally being taken seriously?

29 replies

grimbletart · 19/08/2014 14:50

The Daily Telegraph devoted a whole centre spread in it sports section today to the England women's world cup rugby win (and the comments underneath were all positive). The team's pictures were also all over the media yesterday and all the matches were covered by Sky.

A couple of examples from the centre spread below. At last the media coverage of women's sport is growing and the bums on seats are growing too as a result.

The women's cricket team are now fully paid professionals although the rugby players all still hold down other jobs.

Will this, plus the profile given to women's athletics now finally get female sports taken seriously.

(Loved it that the rugby women received a congratulatory text from none other than that rugby God Jonny Wilkinson)! If he can be a fan you would think it would shut up the derisory stuff that some men spout about women in sport.

www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/international/england/11042240/Womens-Rugby-World-Cup-The-morning-after-and-Englands-triumph-feels-as-if-it-is-a-seminal-moment.html

www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/international/england/11042222/We-must-capitalise-on-this-magnificent-triumph-to-develop-the-womens-game.html

OP posts:

Subhuman · 19/08/2014 16:06

I agree, media coverage is a barrier, but when it is shown, the ratings generally aren't as high (Wimbledon women's final had 3m viewers, men's had 10m). What is the reason for that? The advertisers and sponsors aren't going to pay as much when only a third of the amount of people watch. And if they aren't going to pay, the commercial channels will simply show something that gets a bigger audience. BBC on the other hand has more flexibility and responsibility to show female sport as they don't have to pander to the advertisers, so if the coverage is going to get boosted, that is probably the only realistic option for many sports.

scallopsrgreat · 19/08/2014 15:35

I don't understand why it is an either/or question. Men never had to make that choice. The standard of men's sport is never in question. Even though most women's sport is probably better in terms of quality and competition than a lot of men's sport say 30 yrs ago when men's sport still had the majority of coverage and funding.

Women aren't playing off a level playing field. Never have done. They have barriers that men don't have. One of them is media coverage.

Subhuman · 19/08/2014 15:26

It's a catch 22. Because the quality of men's sport is generally higher (not in all sports, but in many, due to being traditionally male dominated) the public only want to watch the men perform. If the audience isn't there, the money doesn't follow and without the money, the training to improve the quality is lacking.

It's great that England women won the RWC and the commentators are gradually filtering through to TV and radio but it becomes a question of what comes first, the coverage of the sport or the training of the athletes?

AICM · 19/08/2014 14:57

On breakfast TV (BBC) there is a woman presenting the sports news at least as often as a man. The BBC show women's results more often than I have ever seen them before. Radio 5 Live as a female cricket commentator commenting on male test matches.

Not there yet , but the BBC and the Daily telegraph are doing well.

Unflip

1 2