Sports payment with the biggest
disparity in prize money

When sports payment started paying equal prize money from 1973-2004

When it comes to Sports Payment, men get more prize money than women in 30% of sports money payment. Is this disparity correct?

The biggest disparities in sport payment prize money or sport authority payment were found in football, cricket, golf, darts, snooker and squash.

Balance and Fairness in Pay

Men and women in sports take payment need to engage in the battle for gender balance and fairness pay into prize money found 30% of sports reward men more highly than women.

There is a sport payment gap, which argues by women needs to be closed but it's not going to happen overnight.

Yes! We know that some women's sport is very exciting and can draw considerably big audiences but it need more media coverage and more commercial investment.

Where the sports payment investment
would come from?

The battle for gender balance and fairness pay in the 21st century is gradually narrowing as the bottom line and profit and return on investment (ROI) when it comes to prize money in sports.

Prize Money in Sports Payment

A study into prize money in sport payment was conducted by contacting the sport governing bodies of 56 sports of which 51 provided information set out in the below.

The study found 35 sports pay prize money at world level, 25 pay equal prize money, 10 do not. Cycling pays equal prize money in some events but not others. Men and women compete together in horse racing and equestrian.

Fourteen sports payment, including rugby union and hockey, do not pay any prize money at all. Five sports did not provide information for the study.

Athletics, bowls, skating, marathons, shooting, tennis and volleyball have all paid equal prize money since before 2004.

In the past decade, nine more sports have starting doing so with five - diving, sailing, taekwondo, windsurfing and some cycling events - achieving equality in the past couple of years.

Sports with the Biggest Disparity
in Prize Money Payment

We should be encouraged by the number of sports payment which does pay equal prize money adding.

We can see that in 70% of sports payment there is parity and that's great and that's what we want.

Also we want the others moving in that direction too and it will happen when the full potential of women's sport is seen and realised.

For example, we know that women in tennis get paid the same as men for playing 3 sets instead of 5 and at a lower standard. Women's tennis at Wimbledon attracting the same prize money is wrong when they only compete over three sets.

Yes! The girls are great but they play shorter matches and are not as good, so why should they have the same sports payment? Many female tennis players who play tennis agree with this point!

Of course some men will say... this is nonsense except where women compete on equal terms and attract equal crowds.

It could be said that this argument is fundamentally flawed. What is referred to as Male Competition is effectively an Open competition.

Golf for example, there is nothing stopping a female entering any big competition. Are there any sports payments where the rules stipulate that you have to be male to compete with men? Female is like U18, U21 a sub division.

All for women in sport payment but equal prize money should and must be determined by the crowds they attract.

Female footballers are rewarded significantly less than their male counterparts.

For winning this year's World Cup in Brazil, Germany received more than 21Million more than Japan's women did after they were crowned world champions in 2011.

This season's men's FA (Football Association ) Cup winners, a competition watched in more than 120 countries, will secure 1.8m in prize money while the team who lift the Women's Cup will net 5,000 - the same amount as the winning semi-finalists of non-league competition the FA Vase.

The Football Association has said men's and women's football are incomparable, describing them as "polar opposites" in global reach.

The men's game is a huge multi-million pound industry so when you compare it to the women's game, which until three or four years ago was played by amateurs, the gulf is enormous.

According to FA, there is an investment of 12Million in women's football this year but they want to direct that investment where they think it will have the biggest impact and at the moment they do not think that is in prize funds.

It's an unfair world of supply and demand. There is some sports payment that women are more physically suited to than others?

Most people enjoy watching, athletics, cycling, tennis and golf. Can't see why the prize payment money shouldn't be the same in those?

A great deal more could be done to sell the sports that women compete in. Prize payment money is a function of sponsorship and gate money.

If a sport payment, male or female, isn't popular, it won't get the income, so won't be able to pay higher prize money.

And, by the way, it isn't pay, ladies, as in wages or salary; it's prize money. If you don't like the prizes, don't enter the competition.

Another example, look at the Rowing for a simple example in order to get as many spectators and sponsors they have decide to have women and men's university events combined for 2015 to achieve equal billing on the same day.

Why? Because the majority of fans do not watch the Women's sporting events and hence the Sponsorship and TV reflect that in time slots and prizes.

Maria Sharapova Sports Payment
against Novak Djokovic

If people want equality then let them all compete together. You may have total respect for women who already do, such as jockeys.

They deserve equality… but put Maria Sharapova in against Novak Djokovic… Then… you'll hear a lot of bleating about how unfair it is.

Let everyone earn their money payment, and then they will have some genuine grounds for complaint if there is a difference.

Men get more because they are usually better, more entertaining and provide better commercial opportunities for sponsors.

More people pay to attend; more watch on television - quite simply, fairness dictates they should earn more. It's obvious the pay gap is as it is. Think why?

Female tennis players should only be rewarded equal prize money when they start playing the same number of Sets as the Male tennis players.

With regards to the other sports, they are paid on the basis of what the sponsorships and television coverage can raise for those particular female competitors. It is not a question of gender inequality but of the funding available.

The male of the species is quicker and stronger and as most sports payment is built around speed and strength what do you have?

Even sports that are solely built around accuracy it seems women are not quite as good. Old fashioned knuckle dragger or stating a fact? Equal pay for not quite as good, really?

It is easy - if women compete on an equal basis, they should get equal pay. So as soon as women play in Men's Soccer, Cricket, Golf, and Athletics and are therefore part of the higher sponsorship income then they should be paid accordingly.

Why is male rugby players paid less than football players? - Because sponsorship is less and less people watch the game.

How about Andy Murray, Rafael Nadal or
Roger Federer Sports Earnings Payment?

Anyone who thinks that pay equality in sports payment is fair and reasonable should have watched Britain's Andy Murray and Spaniard Tommy Robredo thrash it out last Sunday Valencia Open, over three massive punishing sets...and it wasn't even a major.

Rafael Nadal's tennis game is a test of endurance, as is Novak's. Roger Federer's is more a test of skill and finesse.

When females can compete in the same leagues and/or attract the same crowds and sponsorships, then there shall be no debate.

Should we make ticket prices equal first and see who still pays? There can never be true equality in sport payment because we are not equal.

Payment prize money should relate to the standard of play e.g. Premier League players get more that Championship. Never understood why women tennis at Wimbledon for laying fewer games at a lower standard receives the same prize money!

Unfortunately most women's sports payment just isn't as good to watch as the men. Fewer viewers' means less sponsorship means less prize money. The simple truth is that people - women included, prefer to watch men's sports.

To avoid sexism just have open competitions, and let the best people win the money payment. If there are special competitions for women only why should they expect to win as much as an open competition?

Unfortunately it's down to evolution and/or genetics for the most part - men are just better at most sports payment, hence the attractiveness to the audience, because the standards are higher.

To use football, rugby and cricket as examples is laughable. Most of the money in these sports payment is reflected on TV and sponsorship revenue. To add supporter numbers into the mix as well. This is why in these cases there are such vast differences.

Paid Sport Pay View

Below is a study of paid sport pay view or sports payment prize money in which the governing bodies of 56 sports of which 51 provided information set out in the table below.