WHY WE IGNORE WOMEN'S SPORTS
There is an American in pink, but
nobody cares. Not that that's anything new.
The Giro d’Italia Femminile is the biggest
race you’ve never heard of. Covering 961.4 kilometers of Italian countryside
over nine days, 127 athletes compete for one of the sport’s biggest prizes—the
pink jersey. And in 2010, an American won it all. But as is usual for women’s
cycling, the coverage was muted.
Again in 2012, American cyclists
should be in the news: Evelyn Stevens
became only the second American—after Lance Armstrong—to win the spring classic
Fleche Wallone. She also recently won a stage at the Giro d’Italia Femminile.
And Kristin Armstrong is a
favorite to defend her gold medal in the time trial at the London Olympics.
There’s even a new race on the map: The Exergy Tour,
a women’s only stage race with $100,000 on the line. But for some reason,
nobody seems to notice.
Throughout history, women have been
deterred from competing in sports. The first woman to run the Boston Marathon
as a numbered entry made headlines worldwide after her boyfriend shoved aside a
race official who was berating her. And that was in 1967. Only in 1981—14 years
later—did the International Olympic Committee welcome its first female member
(today, 16 of 107 are women).
But things have improved. Women’s
tennis has strong ratings and is often more riveting than men’s tennis. Fans
tune in across the globe to watch women’s soccer at the Olympics. And the WNCAA
championship reaches over three million U.S. households. On the 40th
anniversary of Title IX, there is hope.
When it comes to cycling, though,
hope isn’t the first thing to pop into mind. Lance Armstrong, the sport’s icon,
has fallen in recent years due to allegations of doping. Sponsors come and go
at a frightening pace, and sustainability is tough. The Tour may be broadcast
in 180 countries, but teams—despite their multi-million dollar budgets—don’t
get a chunk of that money. They rely solely on the companies plastered across
their jerseys (hence the frantic zipping-up at the finish line). In a single
season, the sport’s most successful team can fold if a sponsor backs out. It
happens often.
Meanwhile, women’s teams operate on
the fringe—out of the limelight as the secondary counterpart to men. So when a
sponsor disappears, the women are usually first to be cut (it doesn’t matter
that for the salary of two high-level male pros you can sponsor an entire
female team).
And the inequality doesn’t end
there. As a rule, women’s races have smaller prize-lists, less media coverage
and fewer fans than comparable men’s races do. To make matters worse, female
cyclists aren’t often really considered racers by fans. “It’s as though we’re
not taken so seriously,” says Nicola Cranmer, the founder and General Manager
of Exergy Twenty12, a
professional women’s team.
The reasons people give are many
and varied, with some more valid than others. Women are slower then men (often,
but not always). The competition isn’t as deep (yes and no—more men can win
a given race, but it’s always the same handful of cyclists dominating in both
fields). They don’t race “tactically” (bullocks). Whatever the case, women’s
cycling doesn’t draw the sponsorship or attention that men’s cycling does.
THE ROLE OF SPONSORSHIP
Above all else, cycling is driven by sponsorship. Like many
professional sports, cycling relies on a handful of large companies to bankroll
the top teams. The French money-lending company Cofidis has been sponsoring an
unsuccessful team for 12 years. Nine out of the top 15 teams in the world
are—in some way—reliant on wealthy backers rather than commercial sponsors.
Patronage is problematic; sponsoring a cycling team isn’t viewed as an
investment, but an act of charity.
It’s perplexing. Professional
cyclists—male and female—are often young, athletic and attractive. They’re the
perfect walking billboards. Sometimes, the system works. Evaluating the return
on sponsorship as a ratio of cost per one thousand media impressions, cycling
is a tremendous value (partially due to doping scandals). Team Columbia
Highroad won 85 races in 2008 and was at 20-30 cents per thousand compared to
25-30 euros for a Formula One team during that period.
But for sponsorship to truly gel,
the media is required. It doesn’t matter how many races you’re winning, how
personable your athletes are or how incredible their stories are if nobody is
writing about them. Cyclists across the board gripe about a lack of media
coverage, but things are even tougher for women.
“Men’s cycling garners most of the
media coverage and it’s always baffling as to why. We have incredible women on
this team. Incredible stories. Even the cycling media just really focuses on
the men’s racing, on the men’s team,” says Cranmer.
THE INTERSECTION OF SPONSORSHIP AND
MEDIA
To an extent, if a sponsor leaves cycling citing not
enough exposure, it might be because of unrealistic expectations. To benefit
fully from a cycling sponsorship, you need to spend as much money on promoting
your sponsorship as you do on the actual sponsorship, says Lee Zalben, the
founder and president of Peanut Butter
& Co., and former sponsor of the Twenty12 women’s
professional team.
“A company might spend $100,000 on
sponsoring a team,” he says, “but in order to realize the potential of that
value, I think that the company probably needs to be prepared to spend another
$100,000 on media, ads, or other exposure that feature or highlight that
sponsorship.”
When a sponsor isn’t pumping money
into self-promotion, all that’s left is the media. But media companies don’t
always have an incentive to publicize women’s cycling. Broadcasting costs are
immense—you need a rolling caravan with multiple cameras to properly televise
an event—and many customers haven’t shown any interest.
“We run stories online, and the
numbers don’t lie. They don’t get the clicks. They don’t get the reads,” says
Neal Rogers, the editor in chief of VeloNews,
the leading U.S. cycling magazine.
It’s not that magazines don’t want
to cover women’s cycling. Readers haven’t made women’s cycling a top priority,
and publications have followed their lead. Logistics also get in the way. Many
domestic races have concurrent racing for men and women. In those settings,
it’s possible to provide equal coverage. But internationally, many of the men’s
races lack a companion race for women, or the timing is such to make reporting
on both nearly impossible. Even in the U.S., some of the largest races like the
Amgen Tour of California have been run without a truly comparable women’s
event.
Given the dearth of mainstream
media coverage and the constraints facing the cycling press, promoters of
women’s racing are asking everyone to chip in.
“It’s sad to say, but women’s
racing is kind of like a charity. We need everyone to step up a little bit and
donate a little bit of time or a paragraph in an article to really make a
difference,” says Jessica Phillips Van Garderen, promoter of the Blue Ribbon
Alpine Challenge.
Like Van Garderen, Liz Hatch is a
professional cyclist. But unlike Van Garderen, Liz has turned to less
conventional means to gain media coverage: racy photos. In 2008, Hatch posed
for Maxim Magazine. And the cycling world didn’t turn against her.
Instead, some embraced her tactics.
Those who support Hatch turn to
anecdote. The reality is that people care to watch athletic and sexy women,
says Van Garderen. Fans remember that moment when Brandi Chastain tore off her shirt.
And it makes them tune in. But it also speaks to a double standard, says Susan Douglas, the Catherine Neafie
Kellogg Professor of Communication Studies at the University of Michigan.
“Derek Jeter doesn’t have to pose
in Playgirl to increase his visibility,” says Douglas. “There is a real
double standard here where women are still prized first and foremost for their
sexuality and how conventionally sexy and beautiful they are”
SEX SELLS SPORTS?
To paraphrase a common line of thinking, pretty girls in pretty
outfits get a lot of attention. If you follow women’s tennis, the thinking
goes, you’re not just doing it for the sport. But what about cycling? Female
cyclists wear—just like the men—very revealing lyrca shorts and form-fitting
jerseys that often go unzipped in hot weather. And the women are—coming from a
cyclist—often very good looking. So why doesn’t cycling get the coverage it
deserves?
Part of the difference may be what
we’re looking for. Tennis is a game of finesse and skill as much as it is one
of strength. But cycling is about power. Women can serve, return and volley
with the same artistry as the men. In cycling, they just cannot put out the
watts. Kristin Armstrong is fast enough to beat many men on the domestic circuit,
but she’s no Fabian Cancellara.
Another difference is the skirts.
Cycling has not, for the most part, adopted a sex-sells mantra. And
surprisingly, the research shows sex doesn’t always sell; it offends the core
group of women’s sports fans: women and older men. Sure, it spikes attention in
a particular person as a sex object (think Maria Sharapova or Lindsey Vonn),
but the interest is laser-focused. Can you name another top skier besides Vonn,
a top soccer player besides Mia Hamm?
“Sex doesn’t sell sports,” says
Douglas. “Viewers who are sports fans don’t want to see women as sex
objects.... They want to see them as athletes. When they learn more about the
women as an athlete, they’re more interested in her than when she’s sold as
here’s her latest hoochie outfit.”
TURNING OFF READERS
It’s the age-old chicken or the egg conundrum: Does fan
interest drive media coverage or does media coverage create fans and sponsors?
The answer is, as usual, somewhat mixed, and there are extraneous variables.
When magazines justify their lack
of women’s coverage on supply and demand, they’re missing the mark. In the
‘60s, nobody made athletic clothing for women. But today, women are the biggest
drivers of the market. It’s not that people aren’t interested in women’s
coverage,” says Cheryl Cooky,
a professor in the Department of Health & Kinesiology and Women’s Studies
at Purdue University. “They’ve turned away from publications that don’t provide
it.
“If I’m interested in following
women’s sports and a magazine has poor coverage, I’ll go elsewhere,” she says.
Customers don’t buy products that don’t interest them. When a publication
justifies a lack of coverage on low ratings and poor survey performance,
they’re missing the mark—and a potentially huge market—because of selection
bias.
Not only do women’s sports suffer
from a lack of coverage, but the coverage is flawed. To start, it’s staggering
just how little coverage women receive: 96 percent of all television sports
coverage focuses on men, according to a study released by the Women's Sports
Foundation. Things take a more distressing turn when it comes to
the type of coverage women receive.
“Women are assessed much more
critically on how they look,” says Douglas. “On the extent to which they are
conventionally attractive. There is more commentary typically on their clothing
and or their uniforms.”
Even at the Olympics, commentators
focus more on the physical appearance and personal lives of the women than on
their athletic ability. Count how many times the commentators say “girls” and
mention looks, clothing or children at the London Games. Compare that to men:
when’s the last time an elite athlete was called a boy?
It’s not just semantics. Such
language actually undermines the notion of women as athletes, and reduces
interest in women’s sports. Feminizing language is rampant. Often, a race will
be called a “lady’s tour,” or women are said to compete on the “lady’s
circuit.” This genteel word packs a punch. Ladies pose no threat to men. Sure,
women may be participating in sports, but they are totally feminine. No
lesbians or tomboys to worry about.
Broadcasters, writers and
photographers feminize women as a cure-all for viewers. There’s an accepted
framework for how to portray female athletes, and it’s through feminization.
But the solution is causing the problem. Feminizing or sexualizing women
reduces interest in their sports, says Cooky.
“You don’t take these athletes
seriously,” she says. “Athletes don’t gain respect from sex appeal but through
athletic performance and strength.”
RACIAL LANGUAGE PERMEATES
Yet these standards don’t hold across the board. Women of color
are depicted as being powerful and athletic, rarely graceful or intelligent. Just
think of the Williams sisters or football. When it comes to the quarterback
position, caucasians are portrayed as thinkers while black players are known
for their speed, strength or agility, says Ketra L.
Armstrong, a professor at the University of Michigan who
specializes in sports marketing/consumer behavior and is a member of the
Internal Advisory Board for the SHARP Center for
Women and Girls.
The power of these narratives is
immense. Because of the looking glass phenomenon, people want to see people
like themselves in the sports they participate in. So when the “media portrayal
is not congruent with their self-schema, they feel like they don’t belong,”
says Armstrong. These narratives influence both the thinking of the consumer and
would-be participant. If your daughter has no exposure to female cyclists,
she’s unlikely to become one herself.
“People need to understand that
media depictions have a very pervasive impact on the image of the sport, the
desire of the participants and the interest of the consumers,” says Armstrong.
“It’s never as minimal as people think. It’s much more than people realize. It
tells us what to think. It tells us why we think what we think. It helps to
shape our attitude.”
CYCLING'S UNIQUE POSITION
Cycling sits in an interesting, somewhat gender-neutral
position by virtue of how little coverage the sport receives. On one hand, it’s
surprisingly natural to sexualize and racialize women cyclists by picturing
them all as lean, tan, attractive sex symbols wearing the latest and greatest
sunglasses. But because they can also be incredibly fast, it’s easy to be
intimidated, to re-position them within the framework of motherhood and
femininity. The competing narratives might explain the sport’s obscurity.
But obscurity can quickly turn into
popularity. Track and field, a sport that sat at a similar juncture, has become
immensely popular. With the right push, the same may be possible for cycling.
And the 2012 Exergy Tour may have been a glimpse of this.
A first year event rising out of
the ashes of a famous but discontinued women’s race, the Exergy
Tour garnered a surprising amount of coverage. And it was the first women’s
race to be covered by Tour Tracker,
a GPS-based real-time mobile coverage platform.
What’s surprising is the level of
interest it generated for the company: on par with the first national-level
men’s race Tour Tracker covered. People tuned in because the racing was
high-caliber and not so different from what happens on the men’s side, says
Allan Padgett, the founder of Tour Tracker.
Companies like Tour Tracker
represent the vanguard of cycling coverage and herald an age of digitization in
the peloton. What fantasy leagues did for baseball, football and basketball,
power numbers and Tour Tracker might do for cycling. And because women’s
cycling has fewer controlling interests, it might be poised to lead the way.
