March is International Women’s Month. It is also the time of the year in which one of the largest, most popular sports tournaments takes place: March Madness. This month, we at The Army of Survivors want to take a deeper look into Women’s March Madness and how the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) continues to present the idea that they are promoting the growth of women’s sports and gender equity in sport, while actively reinforcing the narrative that women’s sports are not as entertaining as men’s sports and inhibiting them in favor of profit.
The current narrative surrounding women’s sports is that they are not as valuable as men’s sports because they are not as popular. Denver Nuggets star Michael Porter Jr. commented during an episode of the podcast The Pivot, “I know these females want to get paid more, and they’re very talented. But so is a famous ping-pong player…Like, the best ping pong player is just as talented as the best NBA player. That doesn’t mean that they’re going to get paid the same because it’s what the people wanna watch…As much as I understand females wanting the same treatment as men basketball players, it’s a different sport. They’re not packing out the arenas; obviously, their TV deals aren’t the same. So as much as I advocate for women and kind of the equality of the respect of their craft, I mean, you can’t pay them the same thing.” As claimed by Porter Jr. and former NFL player Channing Crowder, women’s basketball is deemed as “not as exciting” as men’s basketball, and in need of “lowering the rims” and “dunking” for people to watch. This mentality is used as justification for the inequities in pay between men and women in the sport. It is the same mentality that has allowed the NCAA to ignore the recommendations of the Gender Equity Report and agree to a new media deal that bundled women’s basketball with thirty-nine other sports. This has effectively labeled women’s basketball as not worthy of consideration and marketing as a standalone sport.
In 2022, the NCAA expanded the March Madness brand to include the Division I Women’s basketball tournament, following recommendations from the 2021 NCAA External Gender Equity Review as a way to create growth in women’s sports. This rebranding has helped grow popularity in Division I women’s basketball and establish its value to the NCAA as a true revenue sport. Despite this growth, in January 2024, the NCAA agreed to a new 9-year 940 million dollar media deal that would grant ESPN exclusive media rights to 40 NCAA championships, including Women’s March Madness. At first glance, this deal is a 300% increase in annual value on the previous deal and appears to be a massive win for women’s basketball and gender equity. However, the reality is that this media deal significantly undervalues the impact of women’s basketball and falls short of the recommendations of the NCAA’s 2021 Gender Equity Report on how to create growth in women’s sports.
In 2021, the NCAA faced backlash concerning the differences in its treatment between men’s and women’s basketball in March Madness during COVID-19. The pandemic forced the NCAA to temporarily change how they operated the Men’s and Women’s March Madness tournaments, requiring all participating teams to move to a central location where they were quarantined in a controlled environment and required to stay for the duration of their team’s participation. Because players were constrained within this bubble environment, the NCAA provided all workout and food accommodations for athletes. However, there were distinct differences between the accommodations that the NCAA provided the men’s teams and those that they provided the women’s teams. Sedona Prince, a member of the University of Oregon’s women’s basketball team at the time, utilized her social media presence during the quarantine and promoted change in the treatment of women in sports. In a viral TikTok video, Sedona Prince called out the NCAA for their treatment of women in sports. In this video, she compared the differences in workout accommodations provided to men versus those provided to women. The NCAA tried to claim these disparities were due to a lack of space, but Sedona exposed this false narrative by showing the available space in the women’s portion of the bubble that was empty and could have been available for the NCAA’s use. This sparked public outrage that prompted the NCAA to commission a Gender Equity Review that would analyze the gender equity problems in the organization and provide recommendations on how to better address these problems and rectify the inequalities that were present.
The media deal that the NCAA agreed to in January blatantly disregards the recommendations of the Gender Equity Report. Instead of treating Women’s Division I basketball as a true revenue sport, they bundled it with THIRTY-NINE other sports and championships, essentially labeling it as not worthy or profitable as a standalone product in their eyes. This deal costs ESPN roughly 115 million dollars annually, of which women’s Division I basketball is estimated to be responsible for 65 million dollars. This evaluation is a significant decrease from the 2021 Gender Equity report, which estimated the value of the sport between 81 and 112 million dollars. The NCAA highlighted that they viewed this evaluation as “not realistic” and identified that the potential buyers of the media rights would not find it preferable as a standalone product, that it was “worth more as a bundle.” Women’s Division I basketball is the breadwinner of the media rights deal and the most prominent reason why the deal was worth such an exorbitant amount of money to ESPN. Without its inclusion, the NCAA would likely not have been able to profit off of the media rights of the other 39 sports championships as they have been able to off of the combined deal that includes the media rights to women’s Division I basketball. For the NCAA, it seems that the reason women’s Division I basketball is “worth more as a bundle” isn’t because it isn’t profitable as a standalone product, but rather it makes the media rights of the other 39 sports championships more profitable than they would have been without it. So is the NCAA really saying that Women’s Division I basketball is valuable enough to help promote the marketing of thirty-nine other championships but not for the NCAA to market it as a standalone product, or are they just sacrificing the growth of women’s sports for a greater overall profit?
Perhaps the NCAA and its media partners might view Women’s Division I basketball as a standalone product if the NCAA gave it the proper resources to succeed as a standalone product. We have seen, through the adoption of the March Madness brand, a significant increase in popularity and revenue for Women’s Division I basketball. However, despite this, the NCAA continues to improperly support the sport in revenue shares. As part of the media deal the NCAA announced that they would be exploring new avenues for revenue distribution in the Women’s March Madness tournament, including utilizing a similar distribution model to the men’s tournament for the women’s tournament. The model that is utilized for the men’s tournament, known as the Basketball Performance Fund, divides the revenue accrued from the tournament into units that are distributed to the conferences of teams that participated based on how far its member schools progressed in the tournament. The conferences are encouraged to divide this revenue evenly between all of their member schools; however, are not required to and have the freedom to divide this revenue however they view is best. This tends to lead to the conferences rewarding the teams that were successful and made the tournament with a larger share of the revenue. This method of dividing the revenue incentivizes the member schools to put more effort and funding into supporting their program so that they can better reap the benefits of the Basketball Performance Fund.
For the women’s tournament, however, conferences do not receive any of the revenue accrued by the NCAA tournament. This disparity is most egregiously displayed in last year’s tournament. Last year, the Southeastern Conference (SEC) did not earn any money from the revenue created from the tournament despite having two teams make it to the Final Four, including the eventual national champions. From the men’s tournament, however, they earned over 30 million dollars in revenue from having teams that competed, despite not having a single team make it to the Elite Eight, the tournament’s quarterfinal round. Since the women’s tournament does not provide conferences with any form of revenue distribution as a reward for participation and success in the tournament, conferences are not incentivized to promote the women’s programs within their conferences. In having a performance-based revenue system solely for men’s sports, the NCAA sends a message to the conferences and to the general public that women’s sports are not as valuable to them as men’s sports, quite literally placing no monetary value on the performance of female student-athletes while rewarding male student-athletes for similar or worse performances.
If the NCAA wants to promote gender equity and the growth of women’s sports, as they claimed by commissioning the 2021 Gender Equity Review, then they should opt to utilize this model. This model would allow conferences to invest in growing women’s basketball within their conference, creating a greater level of competition and improving all of the individual programs within the conference, not just the successful ones. This would allow teams not only the ability to better provide for and prepare their players but also better promote the program to more fans and create a larger audience for the sport. Ultimately, distributing revenue from Women’s March Madness to participating conferences in units, similarly to how it is done with the men’s tournament, would work to establish Women’s Division I basketball as a viable standalone product to market to media partners when the current media deal expires, rather than as part of another bundled deal that holds women’s sports back from its true potential.
Though the NCAA has already walked back the recommendations of the Gender Equity Review by agreeing to this bundled media deal, there is still progress that can be made. Not only would redistributing the revenue from the women’s tournament back to the conferences allow them to build up their programs, but it would also help establish the fact that Women’s March Madness is valuable as a standalone sport. So, how can you help to fight this inequity and bring women’s sports the attention and value that they have earned and deserve? The best way we can fight this inequity is simply by watching and enjoying women’s sports. This International Women’s Month, join TAOS in celebrating women in sport by tuning into Women’s March Madness, beginning with the Selection Show on March 17, 2024, at 8 p.m. ET on ABC and concluding with the National Championship on Sunday, April 7, 2024, at 3 p.m. ET, and prove to the NCAA and other doubters that women’s sports are just as exciting as men’s sports and are worthy of equitable treatment.
For more information regarding this issue, please utilize the resources below:
