Blog 1: License to Thrive response

Growing up, my generation did not witness segregation in America. For the most part, all races were given the same fundamental rights as United States citizens and everyone could sit in the front of the bus, eat in a restaurant’s main seating area, and vote in the next presidential election. In school, students learned about the famous court case Brown v. Board of Education and were taught that “separate but equal” is, in fact, not equal. Despite the seemingly innate awareness that separate is not equal, the documentary License to Thrive pointed out that the infamous idiom is still used everyday in the world of sports. Because “separate but equal” is used today in terms of gender-separate sport teams and does not apply to a person’s race, it seems that the idea is widely accepted and receives little opposition from the players. Although still in play, “separate but equal” sport teams have pros and cons associated with them.

The modern idea of gender-separated sport teams is backed back the fact that physically, males and females are inherently different. While males contain more testosterone, a hormone necessary for making muscle, than females, this is seen as a biological advantage. Because males are born with the ability to achieve greater muscle mass than women they tend to be stronger, on average, and thus tend to excel over females in sports where strength is a factor. Having gender-separate sport teams allows for a normalized playing field where gender cannot be viewed as an advantage or disadvantage on a particular team. Additionally, gender-separate sport teams negate the need for teams to have quotas or required male to female ratios – ideas that can be viewed as unequal opportunities toward one sex.

Although practical and convenient, gender-separate sport teams can also be viewed as unfair or unequal in terms of funding and salary. As an example, minimum salaries and team salary caps are significantly lower for Women’s National Basketball Association (WNBA) teams as compared to teams belonging to the National Basketball Association (NBA). One can attribute this to the greater popularity of the NBA over the WNBA and thus the larger corporate and private sponsors, but ultimately this is just another case of the “glass ceiling” in action. How will women be seen as equal opponents in the business world if they are not seen as equal opponents in the sports arena? Additionally, who is to say that single gender sport teams are acceptable and single gender business executive boards are not?

Looking over both the pros and cons of gender-separate sport teams, I feel that the current policy of having single gender teams should stand. Taking a step back and looking at the industry of professional sports, the name of the game is entertainment. Both women’s and men’s teams draw in unique fans, and each one enjoys watching that particular team for one reason or another. Because the single purpose of sporting events is entertainment and not to set the precedent for how things should work in government or the business world, the main focus of the professional sports industry is pleasing the crowds. It appears the industry is doing its job and therefore should continue in the practice of having gender-separate sport teams.