Equal Pay in Sports: Why is it not equal?

Despite recent advances, significant obstacles remain in women’s sports in the quest for equal pay. A supporter survey of 3000 fans surveyed in 120 countries conducted by Forza Football in conjunction with human rights organisation Equality Now, reported that only 48% of supporters believed prize money should be equal. Unsurprisingly, 83% of female fans are in favour, but only 40% of male support equal pay.

 

Should sports pay equally? Why don’t they pay equally?

 

 

EQUAL PAY IN SPORTS: Why is it not equal?

 

 

Research published in 2021 by BBC Sport found that 83% of sports now offer equal prize money to men and women at the top level. This was especially true for more conventional Olympic sports like triathlon, skiing, and athletics, as well as other sports like judo, handball, and badminton.

 

Along with offering equal pay in the majors since 2007, tennis has taken another positive step towards full equal pay. By 2027, the Women’s Tennis Association (WTA) announced that female players will be awarded the same money as men on WTA-ATP 1000 and 500 tournaments (levels directly below the Grand Slams). This applies when men and women are competing at the same venue at the same time (most tournaments do this). For tournaments held at separate venues for men and women, equal pay will be achieved by 2033.

 

Football is one of the sports and arguably with the highest profile that does not offer equal pay. However, in recent years, many national football federations such as the Football Association of Ireland (FAI), Wales (FAW), England (FA) and Brazilian Football Confederation all pay men and women representing the national teams equally. Furthermore, FIFA President Gianni Infantino has stated payments for the 2026 Men’s and 2027 Women’s Football World Cups will aim to offer pay equity.

 

 

Over the last few years, women’s sport has seen huge increases in prize money. The Women’s Football World Cup prize money increased from US$15m in 2015 to $30m in 2019 to $110m in 2023. Thus, in the last two iterations, women have seen the prize money increase by 633%, with men’s increasing by 23% in the same time ($358m in 2014 to $440 in 2022). The Women’s FA Cup has increased from £429k in 2021/22 to £6m in 2023/24, that’s an increase of 1297%, with the men’s increasing by 25% (£16m to £20m) in the same time. In golf, the Ladies European Tour (LET) has seen prize money in 2023 rise to £31m, up from £14 in 2019 an increase of 121% and the LPGA Tour has gone from $70m in 2019 to $101m in 2023, an increase in 44%.

 

However, despite prize funds increasing rapidly, arguments relating to equal pay and equal treatment are not going to disappear any time soon.

 

So, why are we in this current situation?

 

Men have historically dominated sport in terms of participation and leadership. The first modern Olympic Games were held in Athens in 1896, and women were not allowed to compete. In England, the nation that created the modern football game, women’s football was outlawed until 1971. It was also outlawed in other nations, such as Brazil until 1981 and Germany until 1970. Along with numerous obstacles that women still face today, it gave men a significant advantage. Consequently, men have been able to develop a centuries-long interest in male-focused sports. Their prominence has made it easier for them to demand higher pay and land lucrative sponsorship deals.

 

According to a 2020 study by the workplace equality organisation Work180, the women’s winning Six Nations team received exactly zero money, while the men’s team took home a £5 million cash prize. The 2023 World Snooker Championship saw the male winner take home prize money of £500k whereas the female winner won £8k, 1.6% of her male counterpart. In 2023/24 season, the average NBA salary is $10.8m million per year whereas the average salary for WNBA athletes was $116k, 1.5% of their male counterparts.

 

An average male Premier League player salary is not easy to find because salaries are skewed heavily by the top few players. However, using a middle-ground figure from Deloitte, Wolverhampton Wanderers pay an average of £4.7 million. In 2022, the BBC reported that the average Women’s Super League player earns £47k a year, again this is 1% of the male counterpart. Thus, male footballers make 100 times as much as women footballers do. According to Forbes, in 2023, of the top 50 highest-paid athletes in the world there is just one woman: Serena Williams, at number 49.

 

This article will begin defining what equal pay is and what the gender pay gap is, highlighting the key differences. Next, the two main arguments for why pay is not equal: revenue and ‘equal work’ will be explored and discussed. The final section will look at who is responsible for achieving equal pay in sports. This article is about a 20-minute read.

 

 

Is equal pay the same as the gender pay gap?

 

No. Equal pay is fundamentally different to the gender pay gap. As set out in the Equality Act of 2010, equal pay is when men and women performing equal work receive equal pay. For example, a male teacher and a female teacher would receive equal pay if they had the same responsibilities.

 

 

However, the gender pay gap refers to the difference between men and women’s average earnings across the organisation, expressed as a percentage of men’s earnings. In the example above, the gender pay gap is 28.6% (£16K/£56K). The main cause of this gender pay gap is in favour of men is the demographic profile of the workforce, with more senior roles having male employees.

 

Whilst different, equal pay and the gender pay gap are intertwined and will impact one another. (Just) by achieving equal pay would reduce the gender pay gap. Alternatively, decreasing the gender pay gap would no doubt improve equal pay. For instance, decisions about equal pay are typically made by more senior / leadership roles, i.e., the ones that have more males. In other words, men are deciding (to a certain degree) what women athletes should be paid. Notwithstanding the impact this has on women’s pay in sport, the main focus of this article is on the equal pay claim: people performing equal work receive equal pay.

 

 

Market forces have direct impact on equal pay in sport

 

The global sports market grew from $486.61 billion in 2022 to $512.14 billion in 2023. By 2027, the sports market is projected to reach $623.63 billion. Whenever equal pay in sport is discussed, the first topic to be debated is revenue. Advocates for a blanket equal pay policy in all sports point to large discrepancies between male and female athletes competing in the same sport. Critics of this policy say the pay gap is an unfair but equitable distribution that takes viewership and revenue into account.

 

 

As illustrated above (taken from Statista), the 2023 Women’s World Cup’s $110m total prize pool and the $10.5m winner’s prize money were both 25% of the 2022 Men’s World Cup. The Men’s 2022 World Cup, generated a revenue of $7.6 billion, whereas the Women’s 2023 World Cup generated a revenue of $570m. Thus, backing up the argument of critics.

 

Generally, the more money a sports competition brings in the bigger the prize fund. Sports are a business (even a non-for-profit business like FIFA) and put simply they need to make money. To make money a company needs to subtract costs such as prize money from the money generated (revenue). The 2023 Formula 1 season paid out $2.2 billion in prize money and the UEFA Champions League paid out $2.03 billion in prize money. These enormous prize funds are only possible if the businesses are bringing in enough money to cover costs.

 

 

Whilst bringing in $472m, the US Tennis Open offers a $60m prize fund which is another huge amount of prize money offered to competitors. What it cannot do is offer the same prize money as Formula 1. That’s obvious but what’s the difference between a tennis player in the US Open demanding the same pay as a Formula 1 team? Well, they are different sports, one is a season-long event vs a single event, one has male and female categories, and the other has just a single category, one uses petrol the other one doesn’t, etc. The list goes on.

 

What matters in terms of the same pay is the amount of revenue the business brings in. (Yes, granted that some events have more cost to them and two events could have the same revenue but because one has much higher costs, then prize money will be different.) The point remains: more revenue equals more prize money. So, what are the similarities between a US Open Champion and a Formula 1 Champion? Again, there are many, but the main one is they are both at the pinnacle of their sport. Now, does that warrant equal pay? Should the number one player of tennis be paid the same as the number one driver in Formula 1? Should the Worlds Dart Champion be paid the same? Should anyone who is number one in their sport be paid the same?

 

Absolutely not.

 

 

Equal Pay within the Same Sport

 

As mentioned above, different sports generate different incomes and thus offer differing amounts of prize money. There are not many people, if any, who would argue for all sports to have equal pay. The argument tends to come down to pay differences within sports. Association football – also known as soccer – is the most popular sport in the world by some margin. Football has roughly 3.5 billion fans worldwide and 250 million players.

 

From Deloitte’s football financial analysis, in the 2021/22 season, the wage bill for English Premier League football players was €4.306 billion, Spain’s La Liga €2.381 billion, Germany’s Bundesliga €1.862 billion, Italy’s Serie A €1.950 billion and France’s Ligue 1 €1.760 billion. So why are the best male players, all playing the country’s most popular sport, not being paid the same amount? Well, it’s because the leagues (different businesses) generate different revenues. The English Premier League’s revenue of €6.442 billion is about two times that of La Liga whose revenue is €3.277 billion, hence they pay wages nearly two times that of La Liga.

 

Whilst there are differences in the wages/revenue ratio, i.e., Germany’s wages are 59% of the Bundesliga’s revenue whereas Italy’s Serie A’s wages are 83% of revenue, the correlation between revenue and wages for the ‘Big Five’ European Leagues is 0.9751 which is near perfect. In other words, the more revenue made by one of the Big Five leagues, the more money it can pay its players. More specifically, for every €1 more earned by the leagues, the amount on players’ wages would increase by about 59p for each league.

 

So, are male football players in Spain, Germany, Italy and France demanding equal pay of that of their peers in the English Premier League? No. Granted, they may be pushing the league to make more money, but they are not challenging them legally. It’s the same sport, all playing in the country’s top league, but the reason they get paid non-equal amounts is simply the event (business) they are competing in makes less money and cannot afford to pay them as much as the highest earners.

 

 

Now let’s look at the same sport but also in the same country. The English Football League (a business) runs a number of competitions, three of them being the Championship, League One and League Two. Football player’s wages in the Championship totalled £730 million, in League One £164 million and in League Two £64 million. Again, even though the wages/revenue ratio were different between the leagues (Championship 108%, League One 75% and League Two 52%), the correlation between revenue and wages across the three leagues was 0.9997. This is near perfect once again. Thus, the more money a league generates, the more money the players are paid.

 

So, male football players, playing the same sport, in the same country, with the competition organised by the same business, do not earn the same. Are League Two players demanding the same pay as League One or Championship Players? No. The leagues simply generate less money so pay less. A further argument against this would be performance / skill related. The players in League Two are not as skilful as players in League One who are not as skilful as players in the Championship (more on this later).

 

Now let’s look at the same sport, in the same country, and in the same league. It comes no surprise that the clubs in the Premier League who pay their players the most money are the ones who have the greatest revenue. The correlation between revenue and wages is 0.9552, near perfect once again. Again, should a player who plays for Brentford (revenue £141 million) expect to be paid the same as a player who plays for Manchester City (revenue £619 million)? No. In terms of equal pay, both players play the same sport, in the same country, in the same competition, but do not receive equal pay.

 

A high correlation (0.7875) is also evident in the Women’s Super League (WSL). Some reasons why this correlation is not as high as the previous is because there are only 12 teams in the league and only 7 provided full data to Deloitte. Another reason is that Brighton and Hove Albion’s wages (£1.9m) to revenue (£0.5m) ratio is 392%, whereas no other team in the WSL is over 100%, i.e., no other team’s revenue is less than the wages they pay out. This revenue debate extends further into individual teams, where the ‘best’ players tend to get paid more. A player’s position can impact on how much they are paid.

 

Whilst fairly obvious, overall, it is clear to see that revenue seriously impacts what sports professionals earn. Regardless of whether the sport is different or the same, whether the country is different or the same, whether the team is different or the same, players earnings depend on how much revenue the competition / team etc bring in. According to Dawn Airey, the WSL’s chair, “The whole of women’s sport globally gets a billion dollars in revenues, from sponsorship and gate. Men’s sport gets half a trillion.” Whilst these huge differences in revenue show the main issue, it can be seen as a positive, in that it demonstrates the huge potential that women’s sports have, especially football.

 

 

Did USWNT use the revenue factor to achieve equal pay?

 

In 2022, after years of legal challenges, U.S. Soccer, the women’s national team (USWMT) and the men’s national team (USMNT) came together for a unique and historic agreement. Despite FIFA’s prize money being unequal, the two teams would combine their prize money together and then split it equally.

 

In the last iterations of the world cups, both the men and women’s teams got knocked out in the round of 16. However, due to the prize money being different, the USMNT received $13 million from FIFA whereas the USWNT received only $1.87m. Both amounts were then combined together to form one pot of prize money of $14.87. The US Soccer then take 10% of this to support various programmes, with the remaining 90% split evenly between the men and women’s team, giving them each $6.69m.

 

 

Combining and then splitting the prize money to aid equal pay in sports is certainly one way to achieve equal pay. Since this deal was made, no other nation nor sport has followed suit. Why? It has only been a relatively short amount of time (about 18 months) so maybe further time will tell. However, did the women’s team’s revenue have much influence? The USWNT women’s team have been very successful. They have been crowned world champions four times compared to zero for the USMNT, this is in spite of the competition’s smaller history too. But how does this translate to revenue?

 

Calculating revenue generated by both teams is tricky. It wasn’t until the 2023 Women’s World Cup that broadcasters bid for the tournament as a standalone competition. Until then it was sold as part of the men’s world cup. However, in the three years after winning the world cup in 2015, the USWNT earned $51 million from games compared to $50 million from those featuring the men’s team. The federation’s website has financial audits from US Soccer that provide these figures.

 

In 2019, around 14.3 million Americans tuned in to watch the USWNT play in the World Cup Final while only 11.4 million were interested in the men’s World Cup final the year before. Globally, 1.12 billion people watched the women’s final, however, the winning USWST team only received 7.5% of that offered to the men’s teams. What this demonstrates is that the USWNT equal pay claim had ‘weight’ when looking at how much revenue they generate outside of FIFA competitions. Thus, revenue generated may have helped the USWNT gain their historic pay deal.

 

 

Is Men’s and Women’s sport “like work”?

 

Under UK law, the basis for equal pay is well-established. In 1970, the Equal Pay Act was introduced. More recently, the Equality Act of 2010 which mandates equal compensation for equal work categorised as work of one or more of either: equal value, equivalent-related work or “like work”. In jurisdictions outside the UK claims are likely to be based on similar principles set out in the equality legislation applicable in that country. Regarding the USWNT noted above, if they were subject to the Equality Act, their greater popularity and marketability over the men’s team might have been an argument in their favour.

 

 

Sports organizations frequently argue—citing disparities in revenue and viewership—that male and female athletes do not produce work of equal value. This is hard to argue against. Another equal work category of equivalent-rated pay on a formal job evaluation scheme do not tend to exist in sport. Therefore, the “like work” strand often gets challenged when equal pay is pursued. In establishing whether a particular sport for men and women is “like work”, skills and knowledge are considered, assessing any differences.

 

The likely argument from critics of equal pay in sports is the skill levels needed for men’s and women’s competitions differ significantly, thus a female player is not doing “like work” and is not entitled to pay at the same rate. Especially in football, it is rare for professional male and female teams to play one another. In 2017, the USWNT, the defending World Cup champions lost 5-2 to the under-15 boys’ team of FC Dallas. Regarding golf, professional female golfers, some of the best in the world, most recently, Lexi Thompson, have competed in a men’s PGA Tour event through sponsor invitations. Till this day, not one single woman has made the cut and subsequently did not earn any official prize money.

 

Like golf, there are no restrictions on females qualifying for darts events, with the World Darts Championship, giving them the same opportunities as male players. However, with the addition of a UK and a Rest of the World Qualifier in 2018, women will now be guaranteed at least two of the 96 spots. This has now increased to at least three spots. In the handful of female players competing in the World’s Darts Championship where the winner takes home £500k, only Fallon Sherrock has won matches – two rounds in 2019.

 

In an attempt to advance the women’s game, main tour cards have been given to female snooker players in recent seasons. However, current professionals Rebecca Kenna, Ng On Yee, Evans (who is a 12-time world champion), and Mink Nutcharut have largely struggled to achieve success on the main tour. Dr Emma Hilton, a prize-winning development biologist, highlights the size of the sex gap by pointing out that there are around 9 000 males between the 100m record holder times of 9.58 (Usain Bolt) and 10.49 (Florence Griffith-Joyner). A significant number testifying to the significant physical advantage of men from puberty onwards. This sex advantage is further highlighted by a 14-year-old schoolboy running faster than the current 100m Olympic champion, Elaine Thompson.

 

In addition, some critics point out that despite male and female tennis players having equal pay in the majors, the men play best of five sets whereas the women play best of three of sets. However, going down this path is slippery, i.e., what do you measure effort on? It is length of match? Is it length of rallies? Keeping with tennis, Serena Williams and Venus Williams participated in an exhibition event at the 1998 Australian Open aptly named “The Battle of the Sexes”, both losing heavily to World No. 203 Karsten Braasch who never won an ATP title. Years later, during an interview, the 23-time Grand Slam champion said that there were fundamental differences between men’s and women’s tennis, even going so far as to call them “two completely different sports.”

 

 

Change the argument about “like work”

 

Critics of equal pay argue that sport supports a pure meritocracy, – i.e., whoever is stronger, faster, more skilled will be the winner. They point out that females are allowed to compete against men, though this is not all sports. However, as evidenced above, if sport was just one-single category, then male athletes would dominate. Thus, sport is predominately two categories: male and female (though transgender athletes are challenging sports binary system). To argue that if you are born female, you are highly unlikely to be a world champion is not right. Therefore, the argument isn’t about “like work” between male and female athletes but “like work” within single-sex categories.

 

Critics then argue that females compete against fewer competitors and therefore are not tested as much as their male counterparts to reach the top. Marcus Rashford and Jesse Lingard, teammates at Manchester United, shared the same cryptic message on Instagram on the same day in May 2019. It said “0.012%” and was a reference to research showing that only 180 of the 1.5 million boys in England who play organized youth football will ever see action in the Premier League. This is not the same for women.

 

Whilst not discrediting the high skill level of current or past women sports professionals, this is true. It is a fact that competition drives standards. The issue here is raising female participation (see below), thus, raising standards. As there is roughly the same number of males and females in the world, participation can be equal. And whilst this debate shift does not necessarily help women in the argument for equal pay right now, it does strengthen the argument for equal pay as participation, competition and standards raise. This is because it moves the “like work” argument to within single sex as opposed to the argument of “like work” against men. An argument that will always be an uphill battle.

 

 

How can women’s sport increase their prize money?

 

Critics of a blanket equal pay policy mainly point to two things: revenue and skill differences. As has been highlighted in this article, revenue is king in sport’s pursuit of equal pay. To answer the critics, prize money needs to be increased further or the gap closed other ways (more below). The skill level argument that men and women are not performing “like work” has been repositioned. It is true that males hold physical prowess, such as strength etc compared to their female counterparts, however, the “like work” debate should be centred on “like work” against their competitors. In other words, there needs to be more competition in women’s sport.

 

There is a circular argument that says women’s sport needs to make more money in order to support equal or higher pay, but that money can only come from more coverage, which is only ever changed to satisfy demand. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy in that an increase in one thing will generate an increase in another which then increases the original increase further. So, whose responsibility is it? Everyone. From broadcasters/media to marketing/advertising, from the public to sports fans, from sports organisations to businesses.

 

 

Increase Prize Money

 

One way to increase prize money is for the organisers to simply just increase it. Dr Laura Claus, an Assistant Professor at The School of Management, argues that the market is driven by the money athletes are paid. Professional football players are a prime example of higher salaries attracting greater public attention. Therefore, one could contend that in order for the market to equalize, we must first pay women more.

 

Another way to increase prize money in the women’s sport would be for organisers to value women’s event more. The Women’s 2023 World Cup was marked by a chaotic last-minute situation involving the acquisition of TV rights for the competition, with the FIFA president, Infantino, characterising the bids made by broadcasters as a “slap in the face” because they were too low. Whilst companies may have undervalued the competition, Infantino needs to look at his own organisation and stop finger pointing. As noted earlier, FIFA has traditionally sold the media rights for both the men’s and women’s tournaments in one package, so part of the issue is FIFA itself not valuing the women’s media value soon enough.

 

Supporters of equal pay suggest organisations should simply be equalising prize money, pointing to the huge cash reserves that some sports bodies have. For example, FIFA has a reported cash reserve of $2.8 billion and US Soccer has a surplus of $150 million. Furthering their argument, equalising prize money does not necessarily mean increasing the women’s prize money to match that of men’s. It could mean a simple aggregation and equal split of funds between men and women.

 

However, this is not always straight forward. This is even acknowledged in the UK Government’s independent report: Raising the bar – reframing the opportunity in women’s football. This is due to different competitions likely to have differing cost bases, differing numbers of team participants and differing numbers of rounds. Thus, in order for all sports, particularly those without access to huge cash reserves, to reach equal pay between men and women, increasing the prize money for women alone will help increase it further down the line due to the circulating argument.

 

 

Increase Broadcasting

 

In general, men’s sports receive more media attention than women’s sports. The University of Minnesota’s Tucker Center for Research on Girls & Women in Sport discovered in 2014 that although women made up 40% of all athletes, women’s sports only garnered 4% of all sports media coverage. In 2019, a study carried out by Purdue University, Indiana, showed that little progress had been made, with women athletes’ total percentage of airtime being 5.4%, noting this percentage had remained unchanged since the 1980s.

 

The media—print, radio, and television—is largely responsible for shaping our attitudes, beliefs, and knowledge regarding women in sports. Both the breadth of coverage and the language employed help to achieve this. The visibility of women’s sport is impacted by the underrepresentation of sportswomen in all media, as well as the underrepresentation of women producing sport-related media. In order to increase public awareness of women’s sports, the media can be a powerful tool. Thus, the media can increase prize money by increasing the reporting of women’s sport.

 

According to those who oppose equal pay, women’s sport draws less attention and are therefore not as important as male sports. Is there less exposure or interest, though? If the hype levels and ability to tune in were the same, would more people be interested in seeing women play? Women’s sports have largely been ignored in telecasts. Fast Studios plans to address this by launching The Women’s Sports Network in 2022, a specialised 24-hour streaming service available on multiple digital platforms. This is an important step in helping bring more revenue to the women’s sport. More important than actually drawing spectators to the games, television ratings are now what drive sports.

 

In 2023, in the US, a study by The Collective found that women’s sports comprise on average 15% of total sports media coverage, with a notable increase in content due to the rise of social media and streaming. Whilst a promising shift from the historical 5% coverage women’s sport received, this needs further perspective. In the U.S., of all total competitions played across collegiate, professional and national sports events, women’s sport account for about half. When collegiate competition is taken out of the equation, professional women’s sports account for just 8% of all competitions.

 

 

 

 

 

Decrease Gender Pay Gap

 

 

Conclusion: Why is it not equal?

 

“However, the reality of how and when we get to universal equal pay in sport is certainly not straightforward as there are market dynamics at play which will take time to change.” says Annie Panter, a former Olympic athlete who is currently managing director, ventures at the Two Circles agency.

 

Revenue is king / queen. It absolutely is. And whilst men have been able to create huge prize funds over a long-period of time, it is not feasible for most sports to suddenly give prize money in women’s sport to match that of the men’s – despite huge disparities in some sports and despite some organisations reportedly having the wealth to do so. Sports such as gold, tennis and football are frequently highlighted with huge disparities, whereas female athletes i these disciplines are arguably very well paid. Arsenal women’s boss Jonas Eidevall says, “WSL players who ‘struggle’ financially should be prioritised before equal pay at the top of the game is addressed.” He adds, “I think we’re making a mistake if we’re only looking at the top of the game.”

 

The Stat Squabbler says:

• Revenue in women’s sport is increasing rapidly and will continue to do so with more and more people / companies taking responsibility.
• Opportunities from revenue growth will give rise to new risks such as revenue splits and sovereign state takeovers, some of the issues that have arisen from the men’s game.

 

Do you agree with the Stat Squabbler? Does everyone have a responsibility to increase the revenues for women’s sport? When do you think equal pay in all sports will be achieved?

 

Comment below.