Were Women Really Underrepresented in Media Coverage of Summer Olympic Games (1984–2008)? An Invitation to Open a Methodological Discussion Regarding Sex Equity in Sports Media

Abstract

In previous literature, there is an important heterogeneity in how to proceed to determine whether media coverage of the Summer Olympics in relation to athletes' sex is equitable. Therefore, the aims of this study are to determine the most appropriate standards for this comparison and to use them to assess whether there are biases in the journalistic coverage of the Summer Games, using data from previous studies (n = 18). Results show that media coverage is far from being detrimental to women: They are either equitably represented (28.79%) or significantly overrepresented (46.97%). Indeed, all modalities combined, women are only underrepresented in 22.24% of cases. In most cases, these results significantly differ from those of previous research and stress the importance of and the need to take methodological precautions in this type of study.

Notes

Source: International Olympic Committee.

^a Mixed events included.

¹For instance, in 2008, men had more events than women in the following sports: boxing, greco-roman wrestling, freestyle wrestling, gymnastics, track and field, canoe/kayak, track cycling, rowing, shooting, and weightlifting (see Table 3).

²I thank an anonymous reviewer who suggested this fourth modality.

³Each contest is considered as an “event.” For example, 110 m hurdles and 400 m hurdles are two different events.

⁴Although we have tried to be as comprehensive as possible in our review of the literature, it is possible that we missed some studies. In addition, we focused only on scientific articles because they were easier to obtain than some books. Nevertheless, we must acknowledge that there are interesting data in some books/book chapters that can be analyzed in the same way (e.g., Billings, 2008; Bruce, Hovden, & Markula, 2010).

Note. Δ is the difference between the observed distribution and the theoretical expected distribution.

Note. Δ is the difference between the observed distribution and the theoretical expected distribution.

Note. Δ is the difference between the observed distribution and the theoretical expected distribution.

Note. Δ is the difference between the observed distribution and the theoretical expected distribution.

Note. Δ is the difference between the observed distribution and the theoretical expected distribution.

Note. Δ is the difference between the observed distribution and the theoretical expected distribution.

Note. Δ is the difference between the observed distribution and the theoretical expected distribution.

Note. Δ is the difference between the observed distribution and the theoretical expected distribution.

Note. Δ is the difference between the observed distribution and the theoretical expected distribution.

Note. Δ is the difference between the observed distribution and the theoretical expected distribution.

Note. Δ is the difference between the observed distribution and the theoretical expected distribution.

Note. Δ is the difference between the observed distribution and the theoretical expected distribution.

Note: Δ is the difference between the observed distribution and the theoretical expected distribution.

Note. Δ is the difference between the observed distribution and the theoretical expected distribution.

Note. Δ is the difference between the observed distribution and the theoretical expected distribution.

Note. Δ is the difference between the observed distribution and the theoretical expected distribution.

Note: Δ is the difference between the observed distribution and the theoretical expected distribution.

Note. Δ is the difference between the observed distribution and the theoretical expected distribution.

Note. + + = very significant overrepresentation (p < .0001); + = significant overrepresentation (p < .05); = = fair coverage; − = significant underrepresentation (p < .05); − − = very significant underrepresentation (p < .0001).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Nicolas Delorme

Nicolas Delorme (Ph.D., University of Grenoble, 2011) is Associate Professor at the Laboratoire Cultures Education Sociétés at the University of Bordeaux. His research interests include sports communication and sociology of sport.