Glass half full

The last few weeks we’ve heard a lot of comparisons of the pay and money brought in by the Women’s World Cup and the Men’s World Cup.

But, there’s no mention on how the $130 million brought in by the Women’s World Cup compares to other women sporting events.

I can’t think of any that could come close to that.

Major tennis tournaments and the Olympics probably come close if you break out the female sporting events, but that’s tough to do.

My guess is the Women’s World Cup is the most valuable female-only sporting event and it continues to grow, which are good signs that don’t seem to get noticed.

Why not ask broadcasters and advertisers why they spend less on the Women’s World Cup?

I’m a fan of women’s soccer. I think they deserve as much as they can get.

But, I think many pin the unequal pay blame on the wrong folks.

The 2018 World Cup (men’s version) brought in about $5 billion.

The 2019 World Cup (women’s version) is expected to bring in about $130 million.

This easy to find fact doesn’t get much coverage.

If it did, a¬†good reporter might recognize that the pay gap primarily originates from how much broadcasters are willing to pay to secure the rights to carry the respective tournaments and ask network executives why they spend less on rights to the Women’s tournament.

Of course, the answer would be that they make less in advertising off of that programming.

That same reporter could then ask the marketing execs at the tournament’s advertisers why they spend less.

Nike would be a good place to start.

They produced an inspiring commercial to cap off the World Cup. But, nobody asked them how what they spent in 2019 compares to what they spent in 2018.

Perhaps they spent the same.

If not, they get a lot of credit for bringing attention to the pay gap while avoiding blame for contributing to it.