Argument: Increased media coverage will lead to increased funding towards women’s sport

Increased media coverage will lead to more money going into women’s sport. This will happen for several reasons.

In the short-term, increased media coverage means more money from advertising and sponsorship, both through the media and directly sponsoring sporting events, clubs and athletes. Increased media involvement also generates revenue for sports in the form of TV and radio licenses (i.e. broadcasting rights). Importantly, as women’s sport increases in popularity, so will the competitiveness to secure sponsorship deals and TV rights in those sports. [2] This will further push up the amount of funding going into women’s sport.

The Government invests in social projects it deems to be worthwhile. As we have seen, the media has a huge influence in forming public opinion as to what constitutes a worthwhile activity. Thus, increased media coverage will create more demand for increased government funding in women’s sport. This phenomenon was observed in the Government funding that went towards the British Olympic team. The increased popularity in the Olympics led to huge increases in funding for the Beijing and London Olympics. [1]

Increased Government funding is desirable because it leads to better facilities and coaching, increased public awareness, increased participation and, ultimately, in improved results on the sporting field (as was seen in both Beijing and London for team GB).

[1] UK Government, London 2012 Funding, accessed 7/9/2012.

[2] Cavanaugh, Maureen and Crook, Hank: “Why Women’s Sports Struggle to Gain Popularity”, These Days Archive, KPBS, July 27, 2009.

Candidate 1: "The proposition themselves have mentioned three examples of female athletes that are excellent role models for young girls. The huge publicity received by female athletes at the Olympic Games alone, but also at Tennis Grand Slams indicates that there are already sufficient sporting role models for girls to admire. Of course more would be better but this should not come about through mandatory extra coverage.

If the proposition’s concern lies in the lack of female role models in traditionally masculine sports like football, then the proposition are still going about this the wrong way. You cannot simply artificially create role models. Sporting heroes may be glorified by the media, but they are not made by them. For a sporting hero to be glorified, the athlete needs to prove himself or herself as exceptional in his or her field and distinguish him or herself. When relatively unknown athletes and sports teams do distinguish themselves, they receive due credit and glorification in the media. Examples include the victory of the USA Women’s soccer team winning the world cup in 1999, and Ireland’s remarkably successful campaign in the 2007 cricket world cup. Both were relatively minor sports with low fan bases and did receive media coverage for their achievements. This indicates that the status quo is sufficient for providing role models even in more niche sports. The proposition may complain that the media attention in such situations is always short-lived, but this is only natural. As we saw with the example of women’s soccer in the USA, media coverage where demand remains limited is unsustainable."
Candidate 2: "The proposition is wrong in assuming that increased media coverage will have the drastic effects it claims on changing public perceptions towards women’s sport. The problem with lack of interest in women’s sport is not caused by a lack of media coverage. It is because of deep-rooted social conceptions of gender roles and sport (as the prop have acknowledged). Sports like figure-skating and gymnastics have traditionally been viewed as female-appropriate whereas high-contact sports like football, rugby, American football or basketball are generally seen as male-appropriate. [1]

Crucially, the proposition are wrong in claiming that such social perceptions are easily changed. Simply providing more media coverage will not have the proposition’s desired effects. In the United States increased participation by women in sport has not lead to changes in perceptions so it seems unlikely media coverage will.[2] This is what was observed when the newly formed Women’s Soccer Association (WSA) in the United States which signed a lucrative TV-rights agreement in 1999. This proved to be overly ambitious for the WSA which, despite having a huge amount of air-time, failed to generate interest and viewer ratings were very low. Subsequently, the WSA collapsed in 2003 setting women’s professional soccer in the USA back immensely. [3]

This is evidence that media coverage cannot change public perceptions in the way the proposition wants. Instead, increased funding to development programs for women’s sport and, more importantly, time are what is needed. Over the last decades, women’s sport has moved on from female-appropriate sports only, to sports like tennis, athletics and swimming that are now largely seen as gender-neutral. This is clear evidence that women’s sport is heading in the right direction despite the fact that media coverage is low. It time, contact sports traditionally viewed as male-appropriate will also become normalised for women.

[1] Cavanaugh, Maureen and Crook, Hank: “Why Women’s Sports Struggle to Gain Popularity”, These Days Archive, KPBS, July 27, 2009.

[2] Hardin, Marie, and Greer, Jennifer D., ‘The Influence of Gender-role Socialization, Media Use and Sports Participation on Perceptions of Gender-Appropriate Sports’, Journal of Sport Behavior, Vol.32 No.2.

[3] Cavanaugh, Maureen and Crook, Hank: “Why Women’s Sports Struggle to Gain Popularity”, These Days Archive, KPBS, July 27, 2009."
Candidate 3: "The unpopularity of the events sports media would be forced to cover would mean less money, not more money going into sports. This is because incentives for lucrative TV rights deals, sponsorships and advertising only exist where there is a high expectation of positive returns for the advertisers and media companies. For example, if Sky Sports feel there is not much scope in broadcasting every single women’s football league match in the UK, it is unlikely to make a particularly lucrative offer. If anything it will detract from valuable air-time that could be used to show other more popular events that are seen as more profitable.

Moreover, it is not true that media coverage is necessary to incite government funding. For example, the British Government offered for the huge amount of funding for relatively unknown sports for the Beijing and London Olympics, not because they are popular [1], but because the government independently believed it was a worthwhile investment. The fact that such government schemes have succeeded in attracting young girls despite of the lack of media coverage is indicative of this.

[1] BBC News: “Funding for Britain’s Olympic sports extended to Rio 2016”, BBC News, 12 August, 2012."
Candidate 4: "The media can and often is used as a tool for public policy. Examples of this include the broadcasting of public information campaigns against drink-driving or smoking or else bans on certain advertising such as smoking advertisements or sponsorship appearing on TV.[1] What’s more the government has a huge influence in what it deems to be worthwhile news or television programs and documentaries. This is because of the existence of state controlled media organisations, like the BBC, and on a more subtle level, with the imposition on restrictions as to what can and cannot be published or broadcast.

The media coverage inequality between women and men’s sport is a different issue to that made out by the opposition. Floods in Queensland Australia are more relevant to Australians than Europeans because they are more likely to have been affected by them. Women’s sports, however, are potentially as relevant to people’s lives as men’s sports. The increased participation in women’s sport indicates that media coverage is likely to be relevant to more and more people. Even if this was not the case women’s sport should still get air time; with the internet and digital TV it is wrong to suggest that more coverage of women’s sport will come at the expense of men’s sports as there is enough airspace.

[1] ‘Law ends UK tobacco sponsorship’, BBC News, 31 July 2005."
Candidate 5: "The government can to a degree cover for any potential drop in funding from private sector sources. Focus can remain on developing grass-roots and sports at schools in order to incentivise new generations of athletes, so the harms mentioned by the opposition will by and large not occur. In time, popularity of women’s sport will increase such that it will once again attract large lucrative TV rights deals and large investments from sponsors.

It must also be mentioned that the opposition to an extent present a false dichotomy with their argument. Increased coverage of women’s sport need not take valuable air time away from more popular men’s sport in the way the opposition claims. Matches can be scheduled so that they do not clash with each other, and more TV channels can be created (such as the BBC’s red button service). Additionally, air-time is often packed trivial stories and programs other than popular men’s sporting events. Examples from American TV include reports ‘on supremely unhealthy hamburgers on sale at a minor league baseball parks or basketball star Shaquille O’Neal’s contest with a 93-year-old woman’ [1]. Such programs could easily and painlessly be replaced with women’s sporting news or live broadcasting.

[1] Deggans, Eric: “Continued apathy by sports media toward women’s sport a bigger problem than first meets the eye”, National Sports Journalism Centre, June 8 2010."
Candidate 6: "The lack of financial incentive to provide media coverage of women’s sporting event is not a reason to not go ahead with this motion. There is often no financial incentive to provide basic welfare needs or provide funding for the development of pharmaceuticals, but the government still pursues such endeavours. In such cases, extra financial incentives can be provided to private companies from the part of the government, or the government itself may be in charge of the scheme. In the case of sports media, state run media do not require a financial incentive to provide equal coverage, while private media companies could either be provided with benefits for covering women’s sport and/or disincentivised from not providing equal coverage by having sufficiently heavy fines in place."
Candidate 7: "The skew in media coverage is not down to personal preferences of sports journalists. If journalists simply reported on what interested them, media companies would not be very successful. Instead, they focus on reporting on sporting events that are more popular and are likely to attract more public attention. The large amount of media coverage of women’s sport in the Olympic Games and Tennis Grand Slams is testimony to this point. It shows that sports journalists are not all subconsciously sexist as the proposition might suggest, they simply cover what they deem to be appropriate and of interest to the public. The Olympics and Wimbledon are sufficiently high-profile to warrant high coverage of the women’s events. The national women’s football league in the UK, however, does not.

Moreover, media coverage is not a matter of fairness as the proposition suggest. It is to do with popularity. If fairness was the main priority, then media would have to cover all stories no-matter what their significance to the general public, to the same level. This would simply be pointless and impractical."

The unpopularity of the events sports media would be forced to cover would mean less money, not more money going into sports. This is because incentives for lucrative TV rights deals, sponsorships and advertising only exist where there is a high expectation of positive returns for the advertisers and media companies. For example, if Sky Sports feel there is not much scope in broadcasting every single women’s football league match in the UK, it is unlikely to make a particularly lucrative offer. If anything it will detract from valuable air-time that could be used to show other more popular events that are seen as more profitable.

Moreover, it is not true that media coverage is necessary to incite government funding. For example, the British Government offered for the huge amount of funding for relatively unknown sports for the Beijing and London Olympics, not because they are popular [1], but because the government independently believed it was a worthwhile investment. The fact that such government schemes have succeeded in attracting young girls despite of the lack of media coverage is indicative of this.

[1] BBC News: “Funding for Britain’s Olympic sports extended to Rio 2016”, BBC News, 12 August, 2012.
