Gender Discrimination in Women’s Sports? Research Paper Example

Hypothesis: The United States government does not have the power to curb or prevent gender discrimination in women’s Olympic sports women’s collegiate sports and women’s professional sport.

Introduction

Discrimination in professional sports is one of the most contentious issues particularly for competitive countries such as the United States. The problem may be articulated on the basis of ethnic differences, racial profiling, and gender differences. The analysis commands descriptive research particularly to articulate the various relevant ethnographic and historical facts.  On the contrary, selections may often be based on appearances and backgrounds. The role of the state in curbing the evil is yet another area of interests as the government appears to deteriorate the situation. Gender discrimination in women’s soccer is not protected by the U.S government because of a ruling by the Supreme Court. Consequently, these governing bodies, as actors, do not have to abide by the U.S federal laws nor the United States Constitutional compliance.  Certain contentious policies and legislative frameworks reveal that the plight of women in sports particularly regarding constant discrimination continues to take center stage and is often manifested through contractual arrangements as opposed to permanent professional relationships.

Discrimination in professional sports is primarily manifested by gender inequality regarding the participation and competitiveness in various athletic activities. It may be defined as the prejudicial treatment often exhibited in multiple categories. Specific issues reveal why sporting is the most ideal area to contextualize the situation. Most profoundly, it attracts interested parties across multiple scopes manifested in gender, race, ethnicity, and abilities. Regarding the gender imbalance, women complain the most since they possess legitimate claims regarding the various mistreatments.  The women in professional sports are considered contractors, not employees. Professional games are governed by their own players’ association agreements allowing them to address discrimination matters, not the US government. The existence of discrimination in professional sports is corrected by team ownership and sports unions; the professional players are considered independent contractors (Rowan, 2018). Therefore professional athletes are not protected under Federal government discrimination laws.

The United States has many constitutional laws that protect all the citizens of the United States. However, the government does not have the power to protect women in sports regardless of whether they are professional, collegiate or Olympics (Lane, Lynch & Saltau, 2012).  The study by Lavers (2017) found that the U.S government did not demand the Winter Olympics held in South Korea to revise a provision to include not allowing discrimination because of sexual orientation. The United States was powerless to stop gender discrimination. The only recourse was to finally block the UN Winter Committee from removing players due to sexual orientation because of the United States strained relationship with South Korea (Lavers, 2017, pg.11). Rowan (2018) indicated its time for the government to remove these barriers to protect anyone from discrimination regardless of professional or collegiate status.

Literature Review

Discrimination refers to the unfair or unequal treatment of a group or individual based on specific characteristics such as religion, race, national origin, gender or sexual orientation.  Online Etymology Dictionary (2010) defines discrimination as an act of discriminating against a person, group, class or category mistreating them instead of by the content of their character. Bias indicates that a person or group is unjustly treated just because of who they are or their race or color or gender that possess a particular characteristic (Greenland et al., 2018). Those characteristics that are protected by the EEOC and Equality Act 2010 are pregnancy, age, gender, race, disability, religion, sexual orientation, gender reassignment and marriage and civil companion (U.S Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 2018). The U.S. does not have the power to curb discrimination because they have signed an agreement to allow the IOC to handle those matters (Krishna, 2013). Thus the US is unable to prevent discrimination against women in Olympic sports.

One of the reasons that discrimination exists in women sports because the media helps promote discrimination. In an updated study conducted by Los Angeles, New Station(2015) found that thirty-two sports segments featured women while 880 sections featured men’s sports (Rowan,2018). The author suggested that the media sports that cover sports are promoting discriminatory agendas against women. In the same study, it found that Sports Center featured 376 stories on men’s games and thirteen for women sports (Pells, 2013). The final results suggested that the sports media is guilty of sending a discriminatory message that gender discrimination in sports is acceptable. According to The Women’s Sports Foundation statistics prove that men get $179 million more in sports scholarships than women (as cited in Senna, 2016). Also, only 6% of the total media coverage included women and only 3.5% of all sports stories in the news.  In another study by Senna (2016) suggested that discrimination exists in women sports because of social stigmas that define women as less capable and not allowing a woman to pass over male boundaries.

Certain aspects compromise the capacity of the state to address the various issues in the sports industry. The lack of cooperation between the relevant governments agencies coupled with bureaucracy is one of the most critical contributors of the apparent fallout. For instance, the U.S. government has given the authorization to IOC to represent the United States in all matters (Kuppens & Pollet, 2015). The United States does not have any federal government funding to Olympic sports because the Olympic Games are privately funded (Rowan, 2018). The issue of gender discrimination at the Olympic Games has been documented including the physiological damage to the sports athletes.  In the 2012 and 2014 Olympics, gender discrimination caused improper medal distribution for males. The author indicated this was an example the United States lacking the power to prevent gender discrimination during the Olympic events. In a world report by Brinded (2018), suggested that the 2016 Olympics, the United States and the International Olympic Committee (IOC) allow participation of countries that have women discrimination human violations. They knew that the Saudi and North Korea forcing women to complete under horrible conditions in their countries. The author explained that the United States has an Olympic vote but no real authority to prevent states from competing that knowingly discriminate against women in sports. The Olympics is supposed to unite all countries under one event, but in reality, it has a political agenda (Brined, 2018).

Legislations

The EEOC laws do not protect women’s sports when they find cases unlawful women discrimination. The EEOC found gender discrimination actions against women at the University Of Tennessee (UT). The discrimination included gender discrimination, unequally compensated the same as men and women’s sports discrimination. The EEOC only offered a voluntary settlement by the University of Tennessee. The result the UT refused, and the women that filed the suit was given a Right-to-Sue letter. The law is not enforced by EEOC forcing the women to endure a financial burden that does not have the financial resources of the UT (Gribble, 2011).  Ultimately, the government has an EEOC agency that allows organizations to go unpunished even after being caught discriminating against women.

The United States has also allowed Universities to interpret the Title IX protection of women’s discrimination incorrectly. The Universities lack of expenditures spent on women’s sports is per se, not a violation (Furrow 2012). The author suggests the United States does not want to close this loophole. This could lead to a global impact because once Title IX is updated to close this loophole. The women collegiate athletes that compete in the Olympics would be protected because of Federal funds spent towards on women. It would not matter that the US collegiate women are completing internationally, expenditures were spent in the United States.

In a study by Flake (2014), it was found that professional tennis players such as Billie Jean King were not protected the government because she was an independent contractor. The argument that has not been addressed by the government why the tennis player would not be considered an employee. Consequently, professional tennis players do not have protection under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the American Disabilities Act (Flake, 2014, pg.51). The secondary findings by Flake (2014) indicated that Billie Jean King could not sue because of the gender discrimination thus no legal recourse.  The Flake (2014), the study also found that the legislation has been pushing for an expansion of the United States government Anti-discrimination statues to cover professional athletes that are independent contractors.

The women in collegiate sports that face gender discrimination are protected by Title IX of the Omnibus Education Act. The Title IX act was accepted as a law in 1972 to ensure equal opportunities for men and women. The colleges that accepted federal funds are mandated by law to protect female students. The Federal law says that no person shall be discriminated base on sex or denied any benefits under Federal laws (Senne, 2016). Title IX was mandated by the government to ensure that women in sports would be created equal thus providing legal legislation for women’s sports.

The United States should use their veto power to vote to make it mandatory that the IOC add the discrimination language to the laws to protect women in sports. In the collegiate sports, the women have tried to utilize the EEOC discrimination laws, but the EEOC does not punish the lawbreakers. Instead, they provide the women with a Right-to-Sue letter. The government allows the EEOC to put a financial burden on the women. The government needs to revamp the EEOC because they are not enforcing the laws they are just reporting women discrimination.

Private Institutions

The U.S. does not have the power to stop private schools from gender discrimination since the government does not fund them.  Therefore, the government does not protect women sports athletes from discrimination or put preventive measures to deter others from discriminating. College sports athletes are only protected when the college or university accepts federal funds. Consequently, 47 colleges do not accept grants, have a no-loan policy or do not accept any federal funds (Caputo & Marcus, 2016). The private colleges that do not use federal funds are not obligated to follow the Federal discrimination laws. The collegiate level is protected only to a certain degree by the government against discrimination. However, the policies in place do not curb discrimination because the colleges have the power. They use their internal policies to keep the discrimination from going public. Also, the colleges have experience preventing discrimination from reaching the federal levels. According to Wiggins (2011), it has been found that the government does not have the power to prevent gender discrimination at private funded universities that circumventing the discrimination process.

Conclusion

The analysis establishes discrimination in professional sports as one of the most contentious issues. It may be articulated on multiple bases including ethnic differences, racial profiling, and gender differences.  Certain commercial incentives also propagate an apparent antagonism between men and women sporting. Either gender participates in different kinds of games, attracting respective individual and collective benefits. In this regards, discrimination exists in women sports because men’s sports bring in more revenues. Global ports governing bodies are at the forefront of encouraging discrimination in sports. Most prominently, International Olympic Committee (IOC) does not include language to prevent discrimination against women or sexual orientation. The government cannot curb discrimination in Olympics sports because the signing of an agreement to let Institutional Olympic Committee (IOC) handle sports discrimination. Moving forward, the state the relevant bodies must come together in addressing the problem at hand.

Recommendations

The United States (US) government did not have the power to prevent women’s discrimination in Olympic sports. The US government signed an agreement with the International Olympic Committee (IOC) to oversee and make decisions on all discrimination’s issues with women. The best recommendation the United States sign a new agreement that all women Olympic athletes are protected under the United States Anti-discrimination laws. The next Olympics is in 2020. The amount of revenue earned during the Olympics cannot be achieved by the hosting city because the United States does not participate. This would force the OIC and hosting country to sign an agreement that all women’s sports athletes will be protected on the United’s States Anti-discrimination laws

The second recommendation is the Title XI that says no person in the United States shall be denied benefits or be subjected to discrimination. The Title XI needs to add an International addendum that extends this to the Olympics to say any sports women that participate in the Olympics have to meet the standards of the US Constitution and Title XI.

The government failed to protect women in the Winter Olympics held by South Korea. It was public media exposure about South Korea that led the U.S. to demand revisions in policy that does not allow women discrimination. The government needs to make it a policy that all Olympic sports for women is protected under the United States laws.

The third recommendation is the United States should ensure that women in sports should be protected under Title VII, which women’s sports advocates are pushing for the expansion of the laws to include all women in sports regardless of collegiate, professional or Olympics.

The fourth recommendation is that the United States only protects the collegiate women sports in institutions that receive federal funding. Unfortunately, private learning institutions in the U.S. do not receive federal funding. The government should change the laws to protect all women in sports regardless of the fact that the learning institutions receive federal funding or not.

The fifth recommendation is the United States to make the Title IX laws mandatory to prevent discrimination in women Olympic sports. The Title IX laws have increased the opportunities and number of women in sports to enter the Olympics. However, the women discrimination rights are not protected. The United States should mandate that the Title IX laws apply for any athletes that enter the Olympics. If the IOC refuses to comply, the U.S. should boycott.  The Olympics is a significant source of revenue, and if the U.S. threatens not participate, the IOC would comply.

References

Brinded, L. (Feb 2018). The Olympics are a mass propaganda tool for countries to assimilate

their citizens. Quartz. Retrieved from https://qz.com/1190089/winter-olympics-2018-how-the-olympics-is-a-propaganda-tool/

Caputo, I., & Marcus, J. (2016).The controversial reason some religious colleges Fongo Federal funding. Retrieved from https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2016/07/the-controversial-reason-some-religious-colleges-forgo-federal-funding/490253/

Etymology Dictionary. (2010).Definitions: Discrimination: Retrieved from www.dictionary.com/discrimination

Flake, C. R. (2014). Getting to Deuce: Professional Tennis and the Need for Expanding Coverage of Federal Antidiscrimination Laws. Texas Review of Entertainment & Sports Law, 16(1), 51–70. Retrieved from https://login.bw.opallibraries.org/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=102096822&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Furrow, A. D. (2012). A Struggle for identity. Journalism History, 38(3), 156–165. Retrieved from https://login.bw.opal libraries.org/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=82785563&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Greenland, K., Andreouli, E., Augoustinos, M., & Taulke-Johnson, R. (2018). What constitutes ‘discrimination’ in everyday talk? Argumentative lines and the social representations of discrimination. Journal of Language & Social Psychology, 37(5), 541–561. https://doi-org.bw.opal-libraries.org/10.1177/0261927X1876258

Gribble, A. (2011, December 7). UT women’s athletics employees take discrimination claim to EEOC. Knoxville News-Sentinel (TN). Retrieved from https://login.bw.opal-libraries.org/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nfh&AN=2W62100512324&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Krishna, A. (2013). Women, Sports, and the Law: Through the Looking Glass. International Sports Law Review Pandektis, 10(1/2), 236–243. Retrieved from https://login.bw.opal- libraries.org/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=s3h&AN=91264355&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Kuppens, T., & Pollet, T. V. (2015). Gender equality probably does not affect performance at the Olympic games: A comment on Berdahl, Uhlmann, and Bai (2015). Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 61, 144–147. https://doi-org.bw.opal-libraries.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2015.06.002

Lane, S, Lynch, M. & Saltau, C. (2012, July 20). Female stars relegated to the underclass. Age, The (Melbourne), p. 1. Retrieved from https://login.bw.opal-libraries.org/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=rps&AN=SYD-65T39N9HSP418PY2IR0&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Lavers, M. K. (2017, November 9). U.S. Blocks Removal of Discrimination Reference from UN Olympics Resolution. Between the Lines (10807551), p. 11. Retrieved from https://login.bw.opal-libraries.org/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=qth&AN=126218349&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Pells, E. (Oct 2013). USOC adds sexual orientation to policy: AP top news package. associated press DBA press association. AP National Writer Retrieved from https://login.bw.opal-libraries.org/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=rps&AN=AP45 b4f8eb37504f0da8f4eadf342bb9fb&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Rowan, J. N. (2018). Equal Protection for Equal Play: A Constitutional Solution to Gender Discrimination in International Sports. Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment & Technology Law, 20(3), 919–945. Retrieved from https://login.bw.opal-libraries.org/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=129348101&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Senne, J. (2016). Examination of gender equity and female participation in sports. The Sports Journal. Vol. 20. Retrieved from http://thesportjournal.org/article/examination-of-gender-equity-and-female-participation-in-sport/

U.S Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (2018). Description Types. Retrieved from https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/

Wiggins, D. K. (2011). Integrating the Gridiron: Black Civil Rights and American College Football. Journal of Southern History, 77(4), 1031–1032. Retrieved from https://login.bw.opallibraries.org/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=67551749&site=ehost-live&scope=site