Close menu

World T20 cricket: Controversy at men's & women's pay divide

Last updated on .From the section Cricketcomments129

England captain Charlotte Edwards

World Twenty20 chiefs must re-examine giving women players a third less daily living allowance than men, England captain Charlotte Edwards has said.

The men receive £61 per day during the tournament for food and living costs, the women £37.

"This is something to look at after the event. I'm sure the ICC will do that," she told the BBC.

The BBC's Alison Mitchell also reports that women were flown out by the ICC in economy class, the men in business.

Prize money is also higher for men, which the ICC puts down to the reduced revenue from - and lower budget for - the women's game.

"Our focus is on the cricket at the moment and not on how much money we get. It is possibly something that needs to be looked at after the event," Edwards said.

She added that £37 is "quite enough to live on", adding: "We're eating well. Obviously the guys must have a bigger appetite than the women."

In terms of tournament prize money, the winning men's team will take home £616,000, with £40,000 going to the women.

Jodie Fields, captain of defending champions Australia, said her team are just happy to be in Sri Lanka and believed they were well looked after by the ICC and Cricket Australia.

Of the prize money disparity, former England captain Alec Stewart, said: "As much as I'm in favour of promoting cricket, you have to look at what brings in the money. Do the TV companies pay all this money to watch the women or the men?

"I don't see it being a problem with the men's being a full-time game, up against a part-time game.

"I'm a fan of women's cricket and I want to see it promoted but it's a part-time sport around the world.

"Whether it's right or wrong, the facts are that the money that is generated for the game comes from the men's side."

The women's tournament begins on Wednesday and is being played alongside the men's for the third time, with semi-finals and finals being double-header matches in Colombo.

The men's tournament began on 18 September.

Comments

Join the conversation

These comments are now closed.

129 comments

  • Comment posted by Nick Ebrell, at 16:03 25 Sep 2012

    If women's cricket breaks even for this tournament then they'll be lucky. Airfares, hotels, training facilities... and all for something that doesn't have the interest that would normally allow this kind of event. If we want equality, this isn't it. Its gender pandering.

  • Comment posted by U13651290, at 22:21 25 Sep 2012

    " This is also true of other sports, most notably tennis, where women, in effect, are massively overpaid. True equality would mean one competition."

    You're spot on, but being downvoted because it's "sexist" (it's not). Women earn the same as men in tennis despite doing at most 3/5ths of the work. Grossly unfair, but we won't hear the feminists moaning about that.

  • Comment posted by SurfingSharka, at 18:38 25 Sep 2012

    @69

    It's like shouting into the void. I reckon schools need to teach critical analysis of media articles from an early age. Some people have read this and now genuinely believe that the women were complaining about their treatment and asking for equal prize money. It shouldn’t be so easy to manipulate people but evidently it is!

  • Comment posted by U15320005, at 15:55 25 Sep 2012

    I think the answer is very clear, more people care about men's cricket than women's cricket, because to be honest women's cricket sucks just as much as women's football!!

  • Comment posted by U10714459, at 15:52 25 Sep 2012

    A better comparison would be to compare the Women's Twenty20 to the qualifying tournament between the associate members such as Ireland, Kenya, Canada, Scotland and Afghanistan. Both are loss-making and subsidised by the ICC in an effort to grow the game, and I'm willing to bet England's women earn more than the Afghans.who are now competing at the very top level.

  • Comment posted by U14972306, at 15:40 25 Sep 2012

    If you play for Man United you go first clas if you play for Crewe you go second class, its quite simple really.

  • Comment posted by Joe, at 20:40 25 Sep 2012

    Logged into the BBC website to see the Pakistan v Bangladesh result, and this was the most prominent cricket story.

    Can the BBC please report proper sports stories first, and daily mail type "outrage" second.

  • Comment posted by Mr W, at 17:30 25 Sep 2012

    The prize money just reflects where the TV money is and that has to be accepted , until the female game wins more viewers , however I do think if the ICC are flying players out they should all be in the same class of seats , same rating of hotels and have the same daily allowance

  • Comment posted by alex_wood88, at 15:51 25 Sep 2012

    At the end of the day Mens International Cricket is a business, Womens International Cricket is a business, if one business makes more money than the other, they can afford to pay their employees (the cricketers) more money. To be honest its it could be an idea to reduce the mens prize fund to suit, see how many would play for national pride and not the prize fund.

  • Comment posted by Boombadah, at 15:50 25 Sep 2012

    U'l find many professional sportsmen donate these payments to a collective pool which is paid to some charity e.g. it has been widely reported that the England football team alway donates away their match fees
    Like the footballers, the cricket team also earns substantially but im sure the same spirit exists. I wud be v surprised if the food allowance didnt make its way to some sri lankan orphanage

  • Comment posted by Kapnag, at 15:47 25 Sep 2012

    All this talk of cricket slipping back into the dark ages, who here actually pays to watch women's cricket? Do the BBC do anything for women's sport in general, apart from write the occasional blog about things like this and show the FA Cup final? Edwards suggests nothing like the BBC have twisted in her quotes.

  • Comment posted by U14540049, at 15:13 25 Sep 2012

    I love a sense of perspective. I wonder what the average income is in Sri Lanka? I wonder what the less well in Sri Lanka have as a food allowance? Why don't these folks want a similar food allowance to that enjoyed by our politicians when they go on a fact finding tour to Sri Lanka? KP could do the cooking and washing up for them, he is free.

  • Comment posted by Sons Of Albion, at 22:53 25 Sep 2012

    The question is why is anybody getting an 'allowance' to play cricket of their own free will? Parity now. ZERO for both sexes.

  • Comment posted by 00Mike26, at 22:02 25 Sep 2012

    This story has been mis-sold. Actually, I can accept that men and women should receive the same daily living allowance.

    As for prize money, no chance! Men are much better at cricket, if they were equal, they wouldn't need separate competitions. This is also true of other sports, most notably tennis, where women, in effect, are massively overpaid. True equality would mean one competition. Try that

  • Comment posted by mcgrathcantcatch, at 20:44 25 Sep 2012

    £61 a day for food in Sri Lanka is a bit hefty. You can eat whatever you like for a couple of quid and I thought the teams usually prepared their own grub to avoid any illness? If they play like they did in the last match they should have their pocket money taken away in any case.

  • Comment posted by B Hansen, at 19:54 25 Sep 2012

    In reply to JackStumps (78): I doubt you have actually watched a game of women's rugby or football. The quality is not as bad as you make out, and is excellent when the support and remuneration the women get is taken into account! It was evident by large crowds at Olympic football that there is an appetite for women's sport; broadcasters and national bodies need to support and promote it.

  • Comment posted by Funky, at 17:41 25 Sep 2012

    I agree about the prize money but i think the living and travel should be the same. When you book an all inclusive holiday, Thomson dont say oh right the woman will be cheaper as she eats less and you sir can have extra leg room because your a bloke. £61 compared to £37 is too much in my opinion

  • Comment posted by Straussian, at 17:32 25 Sep 2012

    Living expenses, at the very least, should be on a par.

  • Comment posted by SurfingSharka, at 17:17 25 Sep 2012

    @51 Didn't you know, all women get 1/3 off their hotel and restaurant bills? The sisterhood tried to keep it quiet but the ICC have found out somehow! ;)

    I find it ironic that the women's game may not be professional, but compared to the recent behaviour of the men's team they certainly seem to act in a more professional manner.

  • Comment posted by U1920243, at 17:12 25 Sep 2012

    Perhaps people could read this article before commenting. This article is about LIVING ALLOWANCES. Does it cost men £24 per day to live? If not, such arrangements just smack of imbalance and unfairness.

Top Stories