They have asked questions about equal opportunities and the funding that goes into under 18's sports for boys and girls. Apparently, sports are excluded from equal opportunities legislation - though most sports bodies purport to have an interest in promoting their sports for both sexes. I'm going to take a look into this to see if I can find anything of interest.
Certainly it's odd that the FA has done so little with women's football even though it's the biggest women's team sport in the country. John Birch wrote that one in 15 rugby players (in the UK I think) is a woman - but the women's pages of the RFU website are tucked away in a remote corner of the home page.
Despite this modest peak of blog interest in the subject of women in sport, I don't expect a sea change in media interest in the foreseeable future. Attempts to redress the balance are a long term goal. A warning shot was fired by the Guardian's sports editors choice of letter in today's sports section:
Female fuss is short-sighted
That live coverge of the Women's World Cup was ignored by the BBC is a
perverse kind of gender equality as the BBC has no live coverage of cricket at all. The shame is that a fuss is only made when it's England and they are successful. Anyway, not to worry, the BBC has secured the rights to show the Boat Race. Does that include the women's Boat Race by any chance? Graham Ullathorne, Derbyshire
What the…? And breathe. To everyone, their opinion. My opinion is that the sub-ed's headline is patronising and designed to alienate women who want to read about women in sport. It ignores the fact that there are also men who want to read about women in sport.
Aside from my past disappointments at not having my own letters published, it's interesting that the Guardian's sports editor (it takes so long to hunt down news about sports women that I have no time to look his name up), selects a letter that focuses the lack of coverage on the BBC. Sportswomen are underrepresented across all media not just the BBC. I think he's trying to pass the buck.
Graham Ullathorne is also wrong to suggest there's only been a fuss about England's sportwomen when they are successful. I've been talking to people about this issue long before I started blogging. I've been frustrated at the lack of women's rugby news ever since I played the game at university. And anyway - what the hell is wrong about expecting the media to report sporting successes such as ICC World Cup and Six Nations Rugby particularly when these events easily make the cut when men are playing (and losing)? Isn't success a creditable feature of many front page sports stories?
Recently, I wrote to ask the BBC about its sports editorial policy and why it shows so little sustained coverage of leading women's sports such as football, rugby, hockey and netball. As I wrote in an earlier post about this:
Apparently, the answer lies in the BBC's need to cover minority sports.
Mmm. Not sure they are doing a great job of this. It also begs the question,
before covering minority sports wouldn't it be a good idea to cover sports
played by a representation of more than 50% of the UK population?
The Corporation also said it needs to get good value for money out of its
deals to cover major tournaments. Maybe with the spare air time created by the
ECB's latest Twenty 20 fiasco, it can find time to cover women's cricket? I
shall not be holding my breath.
No doubt, someone can point out that my Twenty20 analysis is naïve. But as Deborah Tydings pointed out, the Guardian knows all sorts of stuff about cricketing venue and broadcasting issues - it dedicates plenty of space to the subject. It should be possible to commission an informed sports business journalist to identify a strategy for the media to improve the gender balance in sports broadcasting and journalism - and at the same time, increase the total size of the audience and readership for sporting events.
