Header picture by Ken Teegardin
Archives (I plan to have some soon)
Error: Twitter did not respond. Please wait a few minutes and refresh this page.
Trying to make sense of nonsense
Sport is a man’s world. At least that’s the impression I get when I watch any. Reporters are (mostly) men, reporting on (mostly) men, except where beach volleyball is concerned, and then it’s still seemingly just for men to look at. Not surprising then, the Olympics were a breath of fresh air this summer. Everyone cheered when Jess Ennis finally won that gold medal, when Lizzie Armitstead was the first Brit to step onto the victory stage, and when the aquatics centre exploded after Ellie Simmonds made it to the finish first. After all those Olympic success stories, you might expect women to get a bit more attention on the BBC’s sports pages*. However, as this tweet in @EverydaySexism’s timeline made clear, it doesn’t seem to have happened. Out of three months of sport’s coverage highlighted on the BBC’s Facebook page, only 5.4% of posts covered women’s sports. Abysmal seems an appropriate description here.
So how does the sports coverage measure up? The BBC Sport’s Facebook page highlights only some of its sports coverage, so there is a chance that women are covered, but they just don’t make it onto the Facebook page. Unfortunately, the Beeb isn’t very good at archiving their sports material, so apart from collecting data from Facebook, there doesn’t seem to an easy way to retrospectively see how often they covered women in sport**. Luckily, the Dutch public broadcaster – the NOS – does archive all their sports coverage by date on their website. And to make this international comparison complete, I also added a bit of Belgian (or rather: Flemish – my French isn’t what it used to be) sports coverage by adding their public broadcaster’s sport Facebook page (Sporza). For all three broadcasters, I gathered all their (highlights of) sport coverage for the whole of November.
So how do these three countries’ public broadcasters compare on reporting on men and in sport? Well, not very good. The BBC had no posts relating to women’s sport at all, while the Belgians only specifically covered women in sport once: a story on professional female cyclists appearing in a ‘sensual’ calendar. The Dutch, who contributed all stories not just highlights, score ever so slightly better. Though with only 11% of articles covering women, it’s hardly an improvement.
But hey, what about confounders, things that might mess this quick analysis up? Maybe there’s one particular sport (let’s call it football) that’s skewing these results. Women’s football is famous for its lack of coverage, so maybe these nations’ football obsession is partly to blame for the lack of coverage of women in sports? Well, football does make up the majority of posts and articles, especially when looking at Facebook highlights.
So what happens if we just ignore football (something we ought to do more often)? Well, nothing much really. Women are still massively underrepresented on the sports pages, with 1 in 5 articles focussing on them at best, and even fewer articles mentioning both men and women.
What about those other sports? The UK and Belgian Facebook highlights didn’t include too many sports besides football or other male-dominated sports such as Formula 1. The Dutch broadcaster did include a lot of other sports though, so surely there must be some sports where reporting is more equal?
And yes: there seems to be some good news: for skiing, swimming and long-track ice speed skating*** gender balance looks a lot more promising with generally equal coverage. There are also some more disappointments though with cycling and tennis, which I expected to be more balanced.
Especially for cycling I personally expected better. Mostly because coverage tends to be biased towards people or teams who win, and the current women’s world and Olympic road cycling champion happens to be Dutch. The men in Dutch cycling on the other hand, have hardly anything to boast about this year, apart from being mentioned in relation to Lance Armstrong just a bit too often. Still, only one single story covered women’s cycling.
Broadcasters aren’t the only ones to blame though. Especially in the case of road cycling, there just isn’t that much to broadcast. While the men will be plastered over the television every weekend from March till September, there are just two women’s races that tend to be covered live on Dutch television: the world championships and the Olympics. For almost all other classic road cycling races such as the Tour de France, Paris-Roubaix or Milan-San Remo, there are no races for women. The men race, amateurs often get a chance to go on the course, and there might even be a special race for under-23s, but not for women.
This seems to lead to a vicious circle: there are fewer events for female athletes, leading to less media coverage, which in turn makes women’s sport less interesting for sponsors who’d like some air time by plastering their logo onto some sporty people, resulting in less money to actually put on those events.
It has to change. Sports like skiing seem to make it work. Lindsey Vonn is so far ahead of the rest of the field that she has asked to compete with the men. She’d stand a fair chance. A mixed gender relay was introduced in swimming so men and women can compete together rather than having separate events. We loved seeing our women competing in the Olympics as much as we did the men. Now let’s get them back on their screens.
*And after the amazing Paralympics you might also expect some more attention for those athletes. However, the BBC Disability Sport page still seems to be stuck in September.
**Do let me know if I missed something obvious – the overwhelming onslaught of male pheromones and yellow banners screaming off the page may have messed up my brain.
***i.e. the greatest sport on earth: athletes reach speeds of up to 70km/h (43mph) while basically wearing nothing but razor sharp knives under their feet and a tight fitting body suit – no helmets or any other type of protection is used. Its popularity is sadly restricted to Holland and Holland alone – though we like it that way as we can scoop up lots of Olympic medals without anyone else noticing.
Written for Significance
In the lull between the end of Wimbledon and the start of the football transfer window, two all-time favourites of the British, one of the most magnificent sporting events of the year takes place: the Tour de France (TdF). Unfortunately, it also appears to be one of the most underrated events, by the British at least. It might have something to do with France being the sole centre of attention for three whole weeks, the popularity of track cycling (even though road cycling can ride in circles around the track variant, very big circles where the TdF is concerned) or the lack of a British Tour de France winner. But with a rider like Mark Cavendish and his ability to actually win – as opposed the ‘cursed’ British tennis players – the spectacle ought to be at least as appealing as the Wimbledon finals.
One feature that does seem to grasp the attention is the spectacular falls that are bountiful in La Grande Boucle. The first week has been notorious for years: traditionally, it is filled with flat stages and the just under 200 riders are all but too eager for some early results in the race they have had their eyes on all year. This year was off to a maybe even more nervous start than normal as there were more flat stages before the riders reached the first real mountains: the Pyrenees. Moreover, the weather wasn’t exactly what you’d expect during summer in France, and wet roads and nervous riders are not the best combination. This shows in the number of riders leaving the Tour early, mostly due to injuries sustained by falls.
That some stages can be particularly dangerous is shown in Figure 1. The line depicts the proportion of riders that remain in the race. During stage 9, a very rainy day with a couple of small, but tricky hills, no less than 8 riders had to leave the race injured. Even more fell but managed to carry on, among whom were the victims of the most spectacular fall: Johnny Hoogerland and Juan Antonia Flecha who were driven off the road and into barbed wire by a car trying to pass them. Accidents like this can happen of course: in the past, riders have had to leave the race after collisions with anything from dogs, motorcycles to not-so-innocent onlookers. However, there might be a trend as to what sort of riders are more likely to get seriously injured. Maybe it’s the younger, less experienced riders who don’t know what to expect? Or maybe the opposite: the older riders who are defying age and maybe better judgement in trying to finish on the Champs-Élysées one last time?
There only one way to find out: throw some data and analyses at the problem. Wikipedia helpfully has a list of riders of this year’s Tour with some additional data on each rider such as country of origin, team and, more importantly, their age. After the first 10 stages, a trend does appear to be developing: older riders seem to be more likely to leave to the Tour: each year increase in age, increase the risk of leaving the Tour by around 10%. However, the difference is not statistically significant and with just 20 riders having been eliminated at this point, this finding is likely to be due to chance. The same holds true when looking at number of previous Tour entries; and there is no one ill-prepared team whose riders have a tendency to get up close and personal with the asphalt.
It gets more interesting when you add Twitter to the equation. Sporza, a sports channel from Belgium, has compiled a list of tweeting riders and a quick analysis learns that these social media savvy men are much more prone to fall: their risk of leaving the Tour early is over twice as high as their non-tweeting colleagues. The effect just fails to reach statistical significance, so when looking just at the numbers we can’t be sure whether we should issue a warning to be on the lookout for all tweeting cyclists.
The picture changes when we take the whole Tour de France, so flat and mountain stages, into account: Twitter loses its influence on the riders’ capability to remain on their bikes, but age does seem to explain away a part of the apparent randomness in the quitting behaviour. It’s only a very small effect, but the older riders do seem to be a tiny bit more likely to give in to injuries and fatigue. When taking a closer look at the Twitter behaviour of the riders, it becomes apparent that the younger riders are just a bit more likely to be on there, thus explaining the initial result. If anything, this shows that if you include enough nonsense in an analysis, you will find something. With Twitter and Tour de France it’s obvious that there is no real cause and effect relation, in trials and medical research it might be a lot less clear.
So should we beware of the tweeting cyclist? Perhaps not, but as it just so happens that the entire top three in the overall classification has a Twitter account, you might want to keep an eye out for them.