This is hardly unexpected, but in the UK at least has been particularly harsh on two (large) groups of athletes. Disability sports have been put through the ringer by Oscar Pistorius and, despite some successes, there have been mixed results since the Paralympics. And on International Women's Day, attention has once again turned to the lower profile of women in sport.
Sportswomen are paid less and less supported than their male colleagues, and the gender gap in major sports is infinitesimally larger than in most walks of life - while male footballers can pockets hundreds of thousands of pounds per week, women are only just able to join the PFA. Women's sport is rarely broadcast, and hardly ever on major channels at prime time. The status quo of sport merely serves to cast the Olympics as halcyon period of unattainable equality. So it seems an appropriate time to take stock: how equal are the Olympics?
Taking the roster of sports and events at London 2012, the scorecard looks like this:
(NB: 'Equal medals': the same number of medals are available for male and female competitors
'Equal events': no sporting concessions are made for female competitors, e.g., shorter distances / time / smaller teams)
The results aren't bad. Sixteen sports are either open, women-only, or offer the same medals for the same events; some of the others make only very minor concessions (e.g., the men's tennis final is 5 sets, the women's 3; swimming distances are identical with the exception of the 800m for women and 1500m for men; the cycling team pursuit is for teams for 4 men but 3 women). There are no entirely men only sports, with women's boxing having been introduced in 2012, although there do remain a number of men only events in athletics, canoeing, gymnastics, rowing, sailing, shooting and wrestling.
Beyond boxing, however, long-term Olympic watchers will have noted a number of significant changes in recent Games. Track cycling only began offering equal numbers of medals in 2012, and fencing in 2008. The stubbornly unbalanced events such as athletics, wrestling, shooting and canoeing have made changes to redress the balance, although the narrowly unbalanced rowing programme is unchanged since 1976.
What really stands out when looking at past Games is how much change has happened how recently. In 1976, 21% of athletes were female, and 26% of events were for women. In 2012, this was 44% and 45%. The following chart shows just how sharply these proportions have risen over the history of the summer Olympics:
Note the large gap between the percentage of events for women and percentage of female athletes between 1952 and 1992 in particular, which peaked at 9ppt in 1968. Evenn though the proportions remained low, governing bodies were actively driving the increased participation of women by increasing the number of events, even if the number of athletes didn't match their enthusiasm to stage the competitions, or the competitions were deliberately been restricted in size. Since 1992 this gap has been narrower and narrower, to almost 0 in 2012. So even though the total numbers remain short of 50%, and the rate of increase has slowed overall, supply is matching demand. If the IOC is really committed to pushing for equal representation, the hunger is there - create 50% of events for women, and the proportion of female athletes won't be far behind.
While this is all well and good for 16 days every two weeks, it only serves to highlight the disparity with the reality of sporting inequality. But the appetite for consumption is quite apparently there - the industry of sport, the broadcasters, commercial partners and governing bodies needs to meet that appetite.
