The gap can vary significantly between sports but fundamentally
male athletes tend to earn more than female athletes, particularly
at the elite level. Pay falls into two broad categories: income
from sponsorship and endorsement deals on the one hand; and payment
for performance on the other, comprising prize money and/or
payments under an employment contract.
Generally speaking, there is inequality on both sides of this coin.
Whilst tennis offers equal prize money in all grand slams since
2007, prizes for women's only events can be a lot lower than
for similar level men's only events. The inequality widens when
considering the inequality in money earned through sponsorship and
endorsements. For example, Forbes reported that the highest earning
male tennis player (Roger Federer) earned $58 million in 2015 from
this income stream, whereas the highest earning female player in
2015 (Maria Sharapova) earned less than half - $23 million. This is
not an uncommon pattern in other sports.
What action are sporting organisations and governing bodies taking in respect of the gap?
Much of the action being taken is not directly in respect of
pay, but addresses wider issues of gender inequality in sport that
ultimately feed into the issue of pay. Three such issues which are
fundamental to improving equality in sport are representation,
facilities, and societal attitudes.
Female representation in governance of elite sport has long needed
addressing. FIFA is a prime example of governance being a barrier
to success. Former President Sepp Blatter infamously said in 2004
that women should play in 'more feminine clothes like they do
in volleyball'. In a speech coinciding with the first female
participation at a FIFA congress in 2013, Blatter remarked 'say
something, ladies. You are always speaking at home, now you can say
something here.' However, this now appears to be improving.
Moya Dodd, a member of FIFA's Executive Committee (ExCo) and
one of the women at whom Blatter's comment was aimed, has
recently tabled a proposal to increase female representation on
FIFA's ExCo to at least 30%.
In the UK, there has been a long-standing aspiration for governing
bodies to have 25% of their boards made up of women. UK Sport has
not yet made this a hard quota to access funding, but the message
has been more diverse and inclusive boards are required. It is
likely that once progress is made on this front, women's sport
issues will receive more attention.
Inequality in elite level facilities was highlighted during the
2015 FIFA Women's World Cup, which was played on artificial
grass despite players and teams protesting beforehand. Although
there were reasons given by the organisers, it is unthinkable that
the equivalent men's World Cup would be played on anything
other than grass. Similarly, in elite club football there is a
remarkable gulf in the facilities available. Despite being
successful and filled with international players, the women's
teams of Arsenal and Chelsea respectively play their home games at
the stadiums of Borehamwood FC and Staines Town FC. One positive
example in this respect is Doncaster Rovers Belles, who are
currently in the process of building a multi-million pound training
facility, the first dedicated elite women's training facility
in the UK.
Action to address societal attitudes to women's sport is also
key to closing the pay gap in the long term. To this end,
initiatives such as Sport England's 'This Girl Can'
campaign are crucial. The campaign actively encourages female
participation in sport at all levels. The size and scale of the
high profile campaign was unprecedented for Sport England, showing
the level of commitment to women's sport. Public service
broadcasters are also playing their part with a noticeable effort
from the BBC in particular to give coverage to women's sport
over the last couple of years where before there was none, or very
little. In time hopefully this will create a larger market for
broadcasting women's sport and so coverage from subscription
providers will increase. This will be a key part in battling pay
inequality as broadcasting revenue and increased sponsorship will
have a direct effect on sums payable to athletes.
What action have elite athletes themselves taken to address the inequality?
Historically, high profile individuals championing the cause of
equal pay have been an indispensable factor in successfully closing
the gap. Nobody embodies this better than Billie Jean King, whose
huge contribution to the campaign for pay equality is as laudable
as her 39 Grand Slam titles on the court. Venus Williams was
similarly key in persuading the All England Lawn Tennis and Croquet
Club to equalise prize money for Wimbledon in 2007.
The most notable action taken recently has been in relation to
soccer, by the US Women's National Team. US Soccer, the
governing body and employer for both genders, reportedly pays
female player $99,000 per annum, whereas male players are paid
$263,320 on the same basis. Five of the players who won the
Women's World Cup in 2015, led by Carli Lloyd who scored a hat
trick in the final, have filed a complaint with the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission in the US, demanding equal pay
for equal work. This has the potential to be a watershed moment for
women's sport and will no doubt be watched closely
internationally.
Can the inequality ever be justified?
The Equality Act 2010 sets out the legal framework for enforcing
equal pay. Firstly, it is necessary for the athlete to be an
employee (which is defined broadly) and to point to other employees
of the same employer who they say are paid more than them. This may
not be straightforward in sport, for example if athletes are not
obviously 'employed', or there is a separate entity
employing each team. Secondly, it is necessary to show that the
work in question is equal (i.e. it is 'like work', rated
equivalent or of equal value) (sections 64 and 65). Finally, any
difference in pay may be justified if there is a genuine material
factor (which is not itself tainted by discrimination) which is
driving the difference in pay (section 69).
Put simply, in the context of UK football this means that even if
it was possible to show that the work undertaken by male and female
players was equal, it may be possible for clubs to assert that gulf
in salaries was justified on the basis that clubs receive
substantially more revenue from their men's team than their
women's team. Whether or not such defence would be successful
would depend on the circumstances of each case.
If the US women's national team's claim was considered
under the Equality Act, it would by no means be certain to fail.
The gulf in compensation there is against the backdrop of a far
more successful women's team. The women are three-time world
champions and top of the FIFA rankings, whereas the men have never
progressed beyond the quarter-finals of a World Cup, and are placed
29th in the FIFA rankings. Culturally, the women's team are
more popular and arguably more marketable in the US than the men,
all of which could be relevant to the determination of a claim
under the Equality Act.
What effect can lucrative broadcasting and sponsorship deals have on advancing women's sport?
Broadcasting deals, particularly television rights, are absolutely paramount, and are the most powerful force affecting the modern business of sport. Visibility is arguably the single most important factor in advancing both women's sport in general and in achieving equal pay. Without broadcasting deals in place, sponsorship and endorsements will be harder to come by and less lucrative.
However, whereas there is a degree of legal protection in respect of salary and arguably prize money it is hard to see how any claims could be brought in respect of the unequal sums paid to female athletes by way of sponsorship and endorsements, or the unequal distribution of broadcasting deals. These arrangements would likely fall outside the scope of protection in the Equality Act.
Nevertheless, the comments of David Nathanson, head of business operations at Fox Sports, indicate that broadcasters are alive to the huge potential of women's sport to generate revenues. Fox will show all FIFA world cups up to 2022, and Nathanson said 'we valued the Women's World Cup almost as highly as the men's', adding that 'women players are an inspiration – you don't have to explain that to advertisers.'
Put simply, television exposure leads to increased advertising and bigger and wealthier sponsors. In the long term this can only be positive in terms of closing the gender pay gap. On a basic level, as the amount of money in the industry increases, it is inevitable that it will eventually end up in the pockets of the athletes, without whom there would be no product.
Sponsor pressure may also be a factor. It is widely acknowledged that sponsors of the Oxford and Cambridge Boat Race Newton Investment Management and its CEO Helena Morrissey played a key role in encouraging the women's boat race to take place on the Thames at the same time as the men's and therefore giving television coverage to that event for the first time.
The US Women's team provide a clear example of the line that can be drawn linking increased visibility to increased pay. The Women's World Cup final in July 2015 was the most watched soccer match of any gender ever in the US - 25.4 million viewers saw the USA beat Japan 5-2 in Vancouver. On the team's return, the first ever ticker-tape parade for a female sports team was held in their honour in New York. Less than a year later, the claim for equal pay has been filed. The visibility and exposure facilitated their public status, which can now be used as a springboard in their attempt to achieve parity in pay.
This article was first published on Lexis®PSL Employment analysis on 12 April 2016. Click for a free trial of Lexis®PSL
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.