A FEW hours before the men’s Tour de France arrived in Paris on July 27th, a women-only peloton dashed up the Champs Elysees. La Course, a one-day race organised by the people behind the Tour de France, is the latest attempt to launch a women’s version of the race. Previous efforts have foundered because of a lack of interest among sponsors and the public. The difficulty of creating a women’s Tour illustrates a wider phenomenon: with a few exceptions, professional women’s sport is much less popular than the male equivalent. Why?
If there were more sponsorship and media coverage, some say, then women’s sport would be more popular. Media outlets and sponsors retort that if women’s sport attracted more interest in the first place then they would invest more time and money in it. All sides agree on what it takes to make a sport successful: a balance of consumer, media and commercial appeal.
Sponsors are unwilling to finance individuals and teams that don’t get good exposure—and few female athletes do. The Women’s Sport and Fitness Foundation (WSFF) reported that in 2013 women’s sports received 7% of coverage and 0.2% of the total value of commercial sponsorships. This is a vicious circle: viewers want to watch sports at the highest professional standard, and it is with the best athletes that sponsors want to be associated. Because of the lack of sponsorship many female athletes, even those who represent their countries, have to fit training around employment. Those who are paid usually get less than male colleagues. The Professional Golfers’ Association, for instance, offers $256m in prize money; the women’s association only offers $50m. This inequality is echoed in pay for coaches for women’s teams.
Why professional women's sport is less popular than men's - @TheEconomist
