Women's World Cup: Yellow and red cards for journalism
The media coverage focuses more on the athletes' personal lives than on the sport itself. There's a lack of gender perspective and an abundance of sexism.
Share
The 2023 FIFA Women's World Cup tournament began on July 20 (and will continue until August 20) in Australia and New Zealand, and has already generated several controversies. In the days leading up to its opening, the United Nations (UN) and the International Federation of Association Football (FIFA) estimated an audience of two million people .
Despite the enthusiasm of the "Unite for Gender Equality" action, the media network displayed —once again— its lack of interest, commitment and professionalism in strengthening international guidelines against discrimination.
Weeks before the clash between New Zealand and Norway, the conglomerates of the Global North made transparent what, apparently, is the only reason they find for the promotion of women's and gender-diverse sports: monetary benefits.
Little screen time
In May, FIFA President Gianni Infantino and Public Relations Director Bryan Swanson reported that broadcasters from the five largest European markets (Great Britain, Spain, Italy, Germany, and France) were unwilling to pay more than $1 million or $10 million for broadcasting rights. These amounts represent 1% and 3% of their investment in Qatar 2022, respectively.
In Latin America, the threat of the blackout was more subtle in financial terms, but equally violent in symbolic terms. Added to the extremely limited offerings, the private companies in charge of broadcasting (TUDN and Vix) stood out for their scant—if not nonexistent—promotion of the matches.
To avoid discussing and problematizing a differentiated and expressive coverage of heteropatriarchal culture in the football world, the actors involved resorted to the infallible argument in the political economy of the media: time differences as an obstacle to reaching audiences.
There's no talk about football
However, the thrashings (very dirty ones, by the way) don't only come from the television conglomerates. Sports "journalism" hasn't missed an opportunity to award penalties in a male-dominated goal.
Websites have focused their efforts on making the private lives of female athletes the focus of one of the oldest and most sexist narrative resources in the media: confrontation, strife, and enmity between women.
Regarding the match between Ireland and Australia, Fox Sports Digital chose to describe the encounter between footballers Ruesha Littlejohn and Caitlin Foord as an "off-field incident."
Image: Screenshot from the Fox Sports Digital website
This formula, so common among producers and showrunners who are unable to offer a dignified representation that adheres to human rights, is compounded by the resistance of "professionals" in communication or sports to call us players, referees, coaches, and champions.
In its early days, the coverage of the Women's World Cup revealed two of the strategies with which media violence manifests itself: 1) the morbid fascination and spectacularization of sex and affective relationships; 2) The condescension behind words like "warriors" or "lionesses".
We are tired of our story being told from the myth of exceptionalism. Or in terms that don't make those who have never wanted us—or will never want us—on the playing field uncomfortable.
The digital press contributes to a narrative that sensationalizes and dramatizes the romantic and sexual relationships of female athletes as a traffic strategy to their websites.
This approach is not seen in the coverage of men's soccer.
Image: Screenshot from the Olé website
The media and its patriarchy
On the other side of the stands, media outlets are hiding, avoiding a red or yellow card. In one corner are the websites that are "rescuing" the career of forward Yamila Tamara Rodríguez (Argentine women's national football team) in light of the harassment she has faced after speaking about one of her tattoos.
It's true: in interviews, questions about the figures who inspire us are common and valid. But let's not overlook the fact that Yamila—like many other players—has been subjected to attempts to legitimize her career by asking questions like, "Why Cristiano and not Messi?"
Just seconds before the clock reached 90 minutes, it's possible to find those who try to disguise their sexism. We appreciate renowned international media outlets for conducting quizzes that remind us of the history of women's football… But we consider it unnecessary—overwhelming and deeply sexist—to compare—and measure—each of our victories against the performance of the male players.
As one of my dearest friends would say, good intentions are not enough.
Image: Screenshot from the BBC website
Although FIFA opposes recognizing the 1971 Women's World Cup (August 15-September 5, Mexico) as part of the history of the sport, players, coaches, technical directors, sports journalists and fans will continue to be at the forefront.
For many, the battle against cis-heteropatriarchy begins on the playing field.
We are present
We are committed to journalism that delves into the territories and conducts thorough investigations, combined with new technologies and narrative formats. We want the protagonists, their stories, and their struggles to be present.
SUPPORT US
FOLLOW US
Related notes
We are present
This and other stories are not usually on the media agenda. Together we can bring them to light.