Publications
Partners
It was that arch misogynist, sexist and paragon of patriarchy Sepp Blatter who suggested in 2004 that the best way for women’s football to market itself was for players to wear sexy outfits.
Blatter, then the supreme leader of the world’s richest sport, used to boast that “I consider myself a little bit of a godfather of the organisation of women’s football”, believing he was being very progressive when he uttered the following about woman players:
“They could, for example, have tighter shorts. Female players are pretty, if you excuse me for saying so, and they already have some different rules to men, such as playing with a lighter ball. That decision was taken to create a more female aesthetic, so why not do it in fashion?”
He was widely castigated by activists, fellow administrators and, most importantly, players, with Norway’s Lise Klaveness asking how woman footballers should expect to be taken seriously if they turned out in hot pants.
“As footballers, we have to think practically … If the crowd only wants to come and watch models, then they should go and buy a copy of Playboy,” she said at the time.
And damn right she was.
One wonders where Blatter was and what he was thinking as this Women’s World Cup unfolded in France.
This tournament, the best since it was first staged 28 years ago, can confidently be called the coming-of-age of women’s football.
Whereas woman players were recognisable figures in their own countries and little beyond, after this World Cup, they will be global superstars.
They may still continue to live in the shadow of their well-remunerated male counterparts, but, in the past month, a dramatic change happened – we now know their names.
US forward Megan Rapinoe is now a household name in all four corners of the planet. France’s Wendie Renard’s bushy hairdo is as almost as recognizable as Paul Pogba’s cut. England’s Demi Stokes’ name rolls easily off our tongues, as does Australia’s Sam Kerr.
The Italian team, which was labelled a “bunch of lesbians” by a senior football official who was forced to quit the game, are heroes at home and abroad.
Even though Banyana Banyana disappointed at the competition, this did not mean that the likes of Thembi Kgatlana and Janine van Wyk didn’t get their share of international adulation.
The football itself has been of a high calibre. It is tempting to say much of it has been as good and even superior to men’s games, but that would be patronising to the women who have taken to the field and given us fabulous entertainment.
One could just as well say that some of the football being played at the Copa America in Brazil has been just as good as that being played in France. The names being chanted on the stands and in living rooms are being chanted because the football they are playing is exquisite, not because their standard matches that of men.
The television numbers have been sweet, proving that football – not sexy outfits – are what people are interested in. Records are being broken in almost every country as audiences tune in to watch not only their teams, but the most exciting sides on display. Fifa is hoping that this year’s numbers break records.
The numbers watching England – whose performances lift the hopes of a nation whose men’s senior side perennially underperforms at international tournaments – have averaged about 7 million.
In the US, where women’s football is bigger than the men’s game, audiences during the group stages numbered just under 1 million and are expected to explode now that the quarterfinalists are the favourites to lift the cup.
Money has followed suit. The Washington Post reported this week that, four years ago, the Fox network was selling advertising spots on a game-by-game basis and 30-second spots cost about $40 000 (R563 444). This year, most spots were sold before the tournament started and it is now almost impossible for advertisers to squeeze themselves into the $140 000 slots.
The paper quoted sports marketing guru Andre Schunk of the Octagon group as saying this year’s change was significant.
“World Cups draw the biggest brands, spending their biggest dollars with their biggest talent. What you see this year is them investing in big campaigns and approaching the women’s tournament the same way as the men’s World Cup in terms of the power of the platform. That’s a material change,” Schunk said.
On the downside, attendances in the group stages were sometimes paltry, with minions playing to near empty stadiums and big numbers following the giants.
This is unlike the men’s World Cup, where the privilege of a seat outweighs the significance of the game. Hopefully when the next edition rolls around, Fifa will have found ways to overcome this.
There is also still the issue of the gender pay gap, which the soccer bosses are battling to justify.
Depending on how far they go in the tournament, participating teams at this tournament will share $30 million in prize money, with the least going to those knocked out in the group stages and the lion’s share going to the ultimate winner.
Contrast this with the $400 million the men shared after last year’s World Cup.
The gap also applies to incentives that get paid to individual teams. In the US, for instance, the pool of incentive money deemed that the bonus paid for qualifying for the World Cup would see the top women’s player get $37 500, while the top male in the same position would get $108 695, according to The Guardian.
This is yet another road that has to be travelled in the valuing of football players. Nevertheless, major strides have been made.
 |
| ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
