Closing the pay gap: The Hundred is making a start but there is a long way to go

Posted by Marmaduke Jinks on 23/03/2022 at 17:23

It’s not even about the level of performance or the quality of the spectacle. It’s about what spectators will pay for. You eat what you kill. If sportswomen generate as much ticket revenue, sponsorship revenue, merchandising revenue and broadcasting revenue as sportsmen then they will deserve to get paid the same as men. If not, not.

Posted by rachel knights on 23/03/2022 at 13:47

why can women expect same pay as men when their product is far inferior. They need to be paid to the standard they play, ie, village cricket. I pay and watch quality and tjey are not worth it

Posted by Marc Evans on 22/03/2022 at 18:50

It's the age old law of business that you pay for return. The fact remains that the women's game cannot be self sustaining as it attracts too little public interest to attract major sponsors, despite its relative media saturation. There is also the fact that standards at the top of the women's game still only reflect minor county level. It's the same problem women's football has where standards to attract the level of sponsorship necessary to be self sustaining clearly have a way to go. The problem in this era of sex equality is that women are getting impatient to see a return on their progress. Unfortunately their progress on the field is not sufficient to warrant comparison yet with the men's game, which has been going a lot longer. It's my experience that the sporting media, most notably sky, do not reflect public interest in women's sport in general, which is still comparatively minor, especially in team sports. Business recognises this and is suitably pragmatic about investing in something with small return.