I find myself jumping about a bit on this issue. On one side, I strongly believe that women's sport has its place in the world of sports and entertainment. On the other, I find it difficult to argue with the complete equality demands of some sports ( such as Tennis), where the insistence that both sides take home the same prize money, is at odds with the level of interest, and to an extent the quality of the fare on offer.
The conflict to me comes with the crossover between sport and entertainment, and why it is that people watch sport. I think watchers fall into 2 categories... I'll call one the tribalists. These are the people that watch sport for the personalities involved. I'm an Ipswich Town fan. I'll pay to watch them, even though I accept that they don't produce the best examples of football available to me. On the other side, are the technical fans - who watch a sport because they like to see it played, and played well - I will go and watch top class squash, regardless of who is playing, as I love to see masters at work.
So when it comes to the division of men's and women's sport, here is the issue. Given that there is a limitation of what I can watch, I will usually go for the highest quality example of what I can see, this doesn't necessarily make one or the other less interesting - just different. Case study: Last weekend was the British National Squash Championships. Men and women, competing in the same place. You buy your ticket, and you see both sexes compete. The issue is, that top level men's squash is a phenomenon. Its completely different to the sort of game you see in your local club. Whereas top level women's squash is about on a level with the top of men's club level squash. It's still exciting. The women's final over 5 sets and almost 80 minutes was actually a much better match in terms of tension and excitement, than a somewhat one sided men's final was. However, if you forced me to choose between going to watch a women's match or a men's one, I would choose the men's one every time, because I want to see the best quality squash that I can.
So what does this mean? If we accept that for the majority of sports, the physiological differences will always mean that men's sport is harder, faster, stronger, higher, do we give up on women's sport, or do we think, actually, the reasons that the gaps are so big in some sports is due to the lack of funding available for so much of it. The small pools of players mean that you are less likely to find those that have the x-factor. The lack of money available to attract the best coaches leads to lower quality, which makes it less attractive... etc etc. Do we say that only the best is good enough - or do we accept that watching women, at the top of their game is still an exciting, fascinating way to spend our time. Who can seriously argue that Jessica Ennis wasn't brilliant to watch at the Olympics, who can say that they weren't blown away by the guts and determination shown by Laura Trott in the elimination race of the world championships. Watching the women's rowers kick start the British gold rush - was that tribalism, or can we add a third category to why we watch sport? That of seeing people push themselves to the limit, physically, mentally, emotionally. The human side of sport is the same whatever sex you are.
As I write this, I find more thoughts crowding in - its interesting that the sports I've highlighted in the olympics, are of the pure faster/higher/stronger types, the ones where women could never compete on a level playing field. As we look at something like cricket though, we are already seeing the gaps close between men's and women's levels. More women than ever are playing, and they are getting coaching and funding to make it a proper career. This leads to better skills - we're starting to see the opportunity for the best to start to compete with the men, perhaps only at 2nd XI level, but the difference even to only a few years ago is phenomenal. Yes, you could argue that the viewing figures are low - but then large amounts of men's cricket is too. How many of the people that go and watch international cricket are real connoisseurs of top quality cricket - and how many just go for a day on the lash with their mates? Is the demand for top quality cricket, or is it just tribalism. Maybe the answer is to get tribalism on side - do what the rugby have been doing and put women's matches into double bills with the men? Raise exposure of women's sport, and the people will realise that the human side is the same. The tensions of a close game are the same whether the skills are high or not. Again, some of the worst quality sports matches are the best in terms of tension - errors are made, tension rises. The human side takes over.
I started writing this to try and get my thoughts in order, the conclusion I've come to as I've spent the time thinking it through, is that ok, maybe some of the skill levels in women's sport aren't as high as the men, but we can always make them better. At the end of the day, part of why we play and watch sport is about seeing how hard the human can push itself, and that is the same whatever the sex. I don't pretend to be able to answer questions about how to raise exposure, participation levels and funding for women's sport, but I find myself firmly in the camp that thinks its good to try.
