An e-mail discussion in my office recently about equality in sport, in terms of prize money between the sexes, has prompted this particular blog.  It is a controversial topic, because it is one of those topics where people tend to come in from their own perspective and depending on whether you are male or female, you may have a very different perspective.  My viewpoint is much more of a commercial one and so I will start with Wimbledon, which is one of the few events in the world where the women’s winner wins the same amount of money as the men’s winner.  The women’s winner only plays the best of a three set match however and the men play the best of five sets, which of course allows for a lot more advertising to be sold during what would typically speaking be a much longer game.  There are those who say that that is unfair and there are those who say that all sports should be that way.  For example, some of my staff members say that women’s golf should be covered much more on television and that they should win the same amount of money as men.  I understand ideologically where people are coming from when they say things like that, but I do believe that the market dictates.  

We don’t after all say that all attorneys should be paid the same salary or that the lead attorney in each firm should be paid the same amount as the lead attorney at another firm in the same field.  Women’s golf cannot afford to pay as much prize money because there are not as many sponsors or advertisers who are interested in women’s golf as with the men’s golf, and it starts with the people watching television.  It is one thing for women to say they support equal pay for women golfers, but the best way to guarantee it would be for all women to start watching women’s golf on television, which of course would send the ratings sky-high and make advertisers want to pay more to be associated with women’s golf.  The second they did that, the Ladies PGA Tour would then be able to sell the television rights to a broadcaster for much more money than in the past and thus have a lot more money for prizes.  

In short, what I am saying is that there are not that many people watching women’s golf in the first place, let alone women, and that is why the prize money as well as the sponsorships are not close to being the same.  

Do we, while thriving on living in a capitalistic society paying people what they are worth, now make new rules and say that to promote equality, we will give the same prize money to both the men’s and women’s winners, regardless of the interest.  For that matter, and to give an example not involving the sexes, why should we then treat sports differently – why should hockey players earn a small fraction of what rugby players?  It may not matter then that hockey is not popular in South Africa, and most people do not want to watch it and that a full stadium might be 3,000 to 4,000 people compared to 100,000 people at FNB Stadium.  Hockey tickets also cost a fraction of the price compared to a ticket for the Springboks vs the All Blacks.  

It’s so easy to say put the money in, market it and then the audience will follow, but like many things saying something is not the same as doing.  If it was your company and there was a sport where you believed more equality was required – whether that be for children, for women, for men (in the case of modelling where very few people have any interest in male models) does one then spend one’s money advertising on a programme or a sports event that you know not many people are watching, because they have no interest in it, and then double up your losses by also sponsoring the event and sponsoring some of the individual players in that event?  It is a difficult debate, and it is not just about male versus female because it is about different sports against each other.  At the end of the day, unless you are going to tax everybody extra, so as to be able to give unpopular sports or lesser watched sports more money so that everybody can be equal regardless of the interest or lack thereof, you have to leave it to the market.  The market already decides right now by paying the prize money and advertising rates that they want to on certain events.  For me, the solution is quite different and that is it starts at grass roots and if you cannot get the interest at grass roots, then you are flogging a dead horse, as they say.  In other words, to take women’s golf, if you cannot get lots of young women to go and walk on the fairways of golf courses on the weekend, and march up and down, watching their favourite female golfers and to turn off the rugby or the movie on M-Net and switch over to ladies golf instead, you are never going to get the money.  You have to get the interest first and when the interest is there, the money will follow.