The role of the media: Fact or fiction?

A post by Shannon:

Recently I was thrilled when, in the lead up to the Australia v New Zealand netball test series, the Today Show featured the Australian Diamonds on the program, and Karl Stefanovic even took part in a mock training drill with the girls. I thought “wow, isn’t it fabulous that main stream breakfast television is promoting the series!”. Sadly it was all undone when, only minutes later, Neil Mitchell from 3AW radio (and a regular guest on the Today Show) told Karl that “netball is OK to play but boring to watch”. Neil Mitchell, if you are reading this blog (and I’m tipping you’re not) you should be ashamed of yourself.

The simple fact of the matter is that Mitchell’s statement is just not true. Regardless of if you are a netball fan, and even if you don’t know the rules, the rivalry between Australia and New Zealand has to be up there with the best in the world. For at least 15 years, these two teams have had hard fought matches with such close finishes. I could probably count on two hands the number of times that the final margin has been more than five goals. I think most people would be drawn into any sport where the lead changes constantly and the winner is literally not clear until the final siren.

But Mitchell, like everyone, is entitled to his opinion. However it got me to thinking: should media personalities make their opinions known, or should they simply report the facts, and allow the public to make their own decisions and inform their own opinions based on these facts.

The media is so influential in our day to day lives. And while I am certainly not endorsing censorship, or opposing freedom of speech, I believe that members of the media should be held to a higher standard. What was surely intended as an off the cuff remark by Mitchell, has the ability to influence others, and undo some of the good work of his fellow media members. In this instance it was a case of taking one step forward and two steps back.

Women on Sporting Boards

A post by Beth

Photo source: www.business21.com.au

Back in the day sporting clubs and definitely board rooms were a male only environment. The suggestion that women should be a part of a sporting board would have caused outright hilarity. However times have changed and women are now not content to sit on the sides lines politely cheering on their muscled men. Women want to be a part of sporting organisations in higher positions than secretary or personal assistant. And so they should! Surprise, surprise women are not as fragile as they were perceived to be in the good old times.  Women are just as intelligent and highly skilled enough to be able to take up positions within sporting organisations that used to be the domain of men only. This blog entry will talk about women’s representation in Australian sporting boards, barriers to them getting there and some programs and ideas in place to assist them.

 

Sporting organisations have been male only places but are now being pressured to conform and allow more women to join their boards.  In Australia only 23% of board positions in National Sporting Organisations (NSOs) are female (ASC, 2013). Of this percentage 37% are CEOs and only 19% are Presidents. The board structure of an NSO is essential to its continued ability to provide the best opportunities for the organisation, so why is it still so hard for women to become a part of a male dominated area of sport? As stated on the ASC website:

 

“Extensive research among leading businesses shows that diverse boards make for better decision-making and more effective organisations.  Companies where women hold at least 30% of senior management positions are significantly more successful and better able to deal with future challenges.” (ASC, 2013)

 

So if this is the case for corporate businesses then why are some sporting organisations so reluctant to allow women to be a part of their organisation? Perhaps it has something to do with a lot of board members being older and more set in traditional ways. Their experience is invaluable for a sporting organisation but it is also important to regularly rotate new board members in to keep the board fresh with new ideas and perspectives. Without change a board could become stagnant and entrenched in the same methods they always use. Incorporating new ideas and changes will benefit the organisation. Having women on the board would add a new perspective as well. Women think differently to men and obviously would have a better perspective of women’s issues that may be occurring within the organisation and be better able to represent them on the board than another male member.

 

According to Claringbould and Knoppers, 2012 “The gender ratio of those in positions of leadership continues to be skewed toward a male majority.” This means that women are still not getting the opportunities that men have of being members of sports boards. Of the 58 sports funded by the Australian Sports Commission 10 have met the new guidelines for having at least 40% of board members being female (Yay for those sports you’re awesome!), 26 sports have only one female board member and six of the sports have no female members (Boo!) (Taylor, 2013). For whole article http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/take-more-women-on-board-lundy-20130226-2f46v.html)

 

Curious I looked up several Australian sporting organisations to see their board member ratio as of this year.

Netball Australia: 7 women, 0 men

Hockey Australia: 4 women, 5 men

Swimming Australia: 2 women, 5 men

Gymnastics Australia: 2 women, 5 men

Football Federation Australia (FFA): 1 woman, 6 men

Cricket Australia: 1 woman, 8 men

Judo Australia: 0 women,  5 men

Just looking at these few organisations clearly represents that women are significantly underrepresented in the structural organisation of Australian sporting boards (excepting Netball). Clearly something needs to be done!

 

Picture source: www.glasslewis.com

 

So what is keeping women from joining the elusive ranks of a sporting organisation? According to the ASC there are several reasons why women are finding it hard to launch into leadership roles. Reasons include a lack of role models, as there are so few women in leadership roles in sport the idea of becoming involved is still very strange and without women to look up to potential employees are reluctant to try and enter into a male dominated environment. Institutionalised structures and recruitment processes may also deter women from wanting to join. Some sporting organisations may be very reluctant to allow people from outside the sport to become members of the board, preferring to recruit new board members from a known pool of current members. This again discourages women from applying unless they are already involved in the sport in some way.

 

Another barrier to women being members of sports boards is that they may not have the knowledge or skills required to be a board member. It is important that women have the opportunity to gain the skills and merit needed to become members of sports boards. Sporting boards have long been dominated by males. It is time for women to have the chance to show that they too have the skills and abilities to be in charge of sport organisations. To counter these barriers the ASC has set up two programs designed to aid women to become members of sporting organisations, these programs are the Sport Leadership Grants and Scholarships for Women program (SLGSWP) which in 2013-14 period has been provided with $400,000 from the Australian Government to assist women in gaining the training they need in coaching, officiating, governance and other areas of sport. Linking with the SLGSWP is the Women in Sport Leadership Register which aims to help women gain places on sporting boards. (ASC, 2013)

For more info www.ausport.gov.au/participating/women/get_involved

New legislation from the ASC concerning the governance of sporting boards includes a section on gender balance and an incentive to quickly improve on their governance is that NSOs that don’t comply could risk losing 20% of the funding they receive from the Australian Government. (Women’s Agenda, 2013). For whole article http://www.womensagenda.com.au/talking-about/top-stories/sporting-bodies-told-to-address-board-gender-diversity/201303191849

Another way to aid women in being able to be a part of a board could be the introduction of compulsory quotas that include a certain amount of women members. VicSport interviewed women who are currently board directors and got their opinions on various issues that women face in the sporting world. The idea of quotas received both positive and negative responses. Positive responses included that it would be “an opportunity to break down barriers and improve the confidence of women to apply for the positions with a reasonable and fair chance at being successful in the application” (VicSport, 2013) also having quotas would increase “awareness of the benefits of gender diversity on boards” (VicSport, 2013). Some negative responses included that “positions may no longer be afforded to the best possible candidate” (VicSport, 2013) or that unless the entire board is willing to embrace a significant cultural change then the chances of failure increase significantly. (VicSport, 2013). So quotas could be a good thing for women but they may also become an issue for boards as they may be forced to fill positions with people that are not qualified for the job.

So the unequal ratios of women vs men on sporting boards are slowly being reduced. This is encouraging for many women who wish to share their skills and knowledge to further enhance a sporting organisation. As discussed there are many barriers preventing women from joining sporting boards but with the provision of support programs such as the Sport Leadership Grants and Scholarships for Women program (SLGSWP) and information about the benefits of cultural change within boards being provided, the motion is in place to improve the ratios of women on sporting boards.

 

Ideally we want to go from this to this eventually :-)

 

Picture source: www.wescotland.co.uk

 

Gender differences in salary/prize winning payments

A post by Beth

I’m going to start this blog post with a simple question: Should male and female sports stars be paid the same amount of money within their sport? To me the simple answer is yes of course! Male and female athletes train as hard as each other within their respective sports. Men and women are both able to represent their countries at the highest level. Female sports and sport stars offer a different form of entertainment to the more male dominated sports. Their goals of achievement are similar so why should their salary be different? Now I’m sure everyone will start shouting their own opinion which shows that the answer to the question is not as simple as you might think.

Tennis is a great example where male and female competitors receive the same prize winning amounts. During the 2013 Australian Open the winners of the men’s and ladies singles won $2.43 million (Heathcote, 2013), this equal prize giving continued throughout the various winning levels of the competition to a total pool of $22.01 million for each competition.  Wimbledon became the last of the four Grand Slams (US, Australia, French, Wimbledon) to offer equal pay for men and women, finally joining the ranks in 2007, just over four decades after the US first initiated equal prize winnings(Handley, 2013).

On first reading this it sounds pretty fair but remember that in tennis the difference in playing times has caused argument over whether women should be paid the same as men. Yes men have a longer game of five sets compared to women only playing three but that doesn’t necessarily mean the game will always be longer. If there are two particularly strong female players competing compared to a strong and weaker male the female game may last longer as they are more competitive and if similarly skilled more difficult to gain the points needed to win. A stronger vs weaker male game, though it is allowed 5 sets could be over in 3 straight sets, so the same length as a women’s game. In this case equal pay is fair.

Continuing with this argument this difference in match length could show that women are not strong enough to play five sets but since they haven’t been given the opportunity to prove they can this theory is not well met. Women should be given the opportunity to play five set games the same as men to prove that they too can come back from being two sets down to win the match. These are the exciting men’s games that people stay up to watch, it takes great skill and mental strength to come back fighting from being down two sets in a five set match. Women should be given this same chance to prove they have the same stamina and skill that men have. Or should men’s matches be shortened to three sets? This would also equal the time played for men and women and the men might feel better about it as less effort to earn the same amount of money. An interesting concept that I’m sure would trigger discussion!

Golf on the other hand is a sport where there are huge differences in the amount of prize money men and women receive. The 2013 PGA Championships had a prize pool of $8 million (Golf & Course, 2013) in comparison, tournaments on the Ladies PGA circuit did not even come close to this amount, prize money for the tournaments throughout the season varied between $1 million and $3.25 million (LPGA, 2013), a far cry from the men’s game. Currently men’s games are more popular and thus attract more sponsors which enables a higher prize pool. Again is this fair on the ladies? Are men’s games more interesting because they can hit the ball further than women? Women have as much skill and talent as men do and train for their events just as hard and yet their games and women’s sport in general are not as popular or seen to be as interesting so lack support from sponsors.

The American NBA and WNBA also have quite staggering differences in the salary between men and women despite the fact that they play the same game. Looking at a list of player salaries for the various teams of the NBA, player salaries have a wide range from a “lowly” $500,000 to the tens of millions for one season (Hoopsworld, 2013). In comparison, women in the WNBA have a much lower salary. Their maximum payout is $107,000 for the 2013 season and only if they have been a member of the WNBA for 6 years. The minimum they have to be paid for less than 3 years service is a piddling $37,950!! (Examiner, 2013). This vastly differing salary range is again due to the fact that the men’s basketball is highly anticipated, and watched by a lot more people than the women’s, it is seen to be more exciting so thus attracts more sponsors and media attention which allows the player’s salaries to be much higher than the women’s.

So although there are some sports embracing equality in men’s and women’s salaries or prize winnings, the majority of sports still have a wide gap in the amount that professional men and women get paid for their sport. It is important to acknowledge women’s sport and the impact it does have on young girls even though it is not strongly represented through the media. Women work just as hard at their sports as men do and despite the lack of media attention and sponsors it is important that women are respected and in the future work is done to ensure that a more even amount of money is paid to our female sport stars.

Is there such a thing as too much sex?

A post by Shannon:

We all know that sex sells, and many people are all guilty of using the suggestion of sex to their advantage from time to time. I’ve just done it here by putting the word ‘sex’ in the title of my blog, when really, that’s not what my blog is about. Well, it’s not the complete focus anyway.

So, let’s talk about sex…

Recently, I caught the pre-game promo for a televised Australia v Malawi netball match. The promo showed various members of the Australian Diamonds netball team with long flowing hair, and meticulously applied make up in semi-staged catching and passing poses on a netball court. Don’t get me wrong, there are some attractive girls on that team, but the promo was not indicative of what really goes on on the netball court. Only one week earlier, I had watched the same girls live at the Australian Institute of Sport (AIS) in a match against New Zealand, and there was lots of body contact, quite a few spills, and even a few drops of blood.

My initial reaction was to be appalled that those elite athletes had to ‘reduce themselves’ to using their feminine wiles to attract spectators, but then I stopped myself and wondered… should I be appalled, or should I stand up and applaud these women for doing whatever it takes to ensure the longevity of their sport?

In the year 2000, the Australian women’s soccer team, the Matildas, launched a nude calendar, displaying each of the 12 players naked in black and white photos. The initial print run of 5,000 copies had to be increased to 45,000 copies to meet demand, and the launch party was standing room only. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/543803.stm). News related to the calendar was reported globally, and so, it is fair to say that the goal of increasing the publicity of the Matildas was achieved. However this publicity did not escape criticism, and many questioned why the media typically focused more on the physical attributes of female athletes rather than their sporting prowess. (http://fulltext.ausport.gov.au/fulltext/2000/ascweb/sexploitation.asp).

Picture source: The Daily Telegraph

The Matildas are not the only female athletes to release a calendar, in fact it’s fairly common place these days. I recall seeing a Maria Sharapova calendar a few years ago which actually did feature pictures that demonstrated Sharapova’s sporting prowess: either hitting a strong forehand, or smashing a lob. It would have been perfect except for the inclusion of the side on profile of Sharapova eating a banana. Subtle, this was not!

Picture source: Photobucket 

‘Sexploitation’ is a term that is commonly used to describe the sexualisation of athletes (http://www.ausport.gov.au/participating/women/resources/issues/sexploitation) and some may say this is taken to a new level with the development of sports such as the Legends Football League (LFL) (formerly known as the Lingerie Football League), which is the fastest growing pro sports league in the US, according to NBC Sports (http://www.lflus.com/). In the early days, this league literally featured women playing gridiron in bras and underpants. They wore no shoulder padding, and could often be seen as the halftime entertainment at games of the National Football League (NFL). Interestingly, a few years down the track and now that the LFL is well established, subtle changes are beginning to occur such as the competitors now wear uniforms that are now classed as performance apparel and not lingerie (yes, they are still skimpy) and images of sexy women are being omitted from team logos.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legends_Football_League). Does this mean that even though the sport began by hooking people in with the suggestion of sex, fans now appreciate the players for their sporting ability and not just for their physical attributes? The clip below demonstrates that these women are proper competitors and they play the game hard!

Source: Youtube 

To be honest, I am really torn about this topic. In a perfect world, female professional athletes would be recognised more for their sporting prowess and performance on the field, and less for how they look, with or without their clothes on. But it is not a perfect world, and female athletes face the same challenges that women in all professions do - the main challenge being that it is not always a level playing field (pardon the pun). Even though it is not a perfect solution, and part of me is cringing as I am writing this, why shouldn’t women feel empowered to use whatever means they have at their disposal if it means they can increase viewership, and media exposure, and fans, and sponsorship. And if the suggestion of sex is one of those options, then I say, use it!