When she first saw the equipment the NCAA provided to the players, she was angry.
Female college athletes had been battling for nearly half a century for the right to use the unused room at the San Antonio convention center as a training facility, and the lonely set of dumbbells and meager stack of yoga mats there was an apt metaphor for the room to strengthen and expand the women. It looked like an opportunity for Prince.
One year after her viral video shined a bright, embarrassing light on the differences between the men, Prince said that she was at the tournament. I can change things.
She was correct.
In the past year, marketing specialists and endorsement companies eager to cash in on the new market of name, image and likeness deals in college sports have been busy calculating the financial value of an athlete's social media content. Prince has 3 million online followers and is one of the most-coveted young people in the market. She uses her platform to advocate for equality in multiple ways. She did not profit from the weight room video that was posted last March. The single social media post has the potential to shift more bank accounts and bottom lines than any other. It could lead to even more investment in women's college basketball.
The 118-page report that the NCAA commissioned to review its gender equity problems in women's basketball last year begins by calling Prince's post "the contemporary equivalent of the shot heard round the world".
The NCAA made a number of changes this year to improve the experience of athletes at the women's tournament. Dan Gavitt, NCAA senior vice president of basketball, said they add up to millions of dollars in new investments. The first steps include:
The number of teams in the tournament will be increased.
The March Madness brand and logo for the women's tournament as well as the men's tournament were used.
There are gift packages and on-site lounge areas that are identical for male and female players.
Adding more promotional items will create a better atmosphere at game sites.
The men's and women's tournaments are promoting each other.
Gavitt acknowledged that there is more work to be done to create fairness for the women's game. Substantial and sustainable change will require a thorough examination of the finances and infrastructure of the sport. A report commissioned by the NCAA and completed by an attorney recommended a number of changes that could help move the sport toward gender equity. Money, how it is counted, how it is maximized, and how it is used to incentivize new investment in the women's game are some of the long-term recommendations.
A new weight room arrived in San Antonio less than a day after Prince's first post, and she said she has been encouraged and surprised by the power her words have had so far. She compared the work ahead to the work she did on Mount Everest. She echoes a general consensus among coaches and fellow players who have formed calluses from years of overpromised and underdelivered tipping points. The NCAA's efforts will amount to more than lip service to quell the outcry of a public-facing debacle, which is what most people think.
It is a constant uphill battle that women have to go through, according to Prince.
Prince and her peers have been taught that change will only come from persistent pressure.
Angel Reese, the top scorer and one of the best young defenders in the game, said she wasn't sure what to expect from her first NCAA tournament last March, but compared the treatment her teammates received
Reese said she tried to point out the disparity between the treatment of the boys and girls at her high school. She joined the chorus of players pointing out the differences between the two tournaments when she saw them at the college level.
Reese said he didn't think he could be quiet about it.
The conversation about gender equity is more widespread now than at any point in the past, according to two head coaches who met in last year's national championship game.
They say a combination of large social media platforms, increased interest in social justice and the effect of last year's COVID-bubble tournaments has turned up the volume to unprecedented levels. Where once players didn't know how to speak up, now others like Reese don't know how to stay silent.
The current conversation and this year&s surface-level changes to the tournament will remain lackluster if a financial shift does not follow.
Barnes said that he would be very disappointed if only the basics changed this year.
The NCAA spent three times as much on the men's tournament as it did on the women's tournament in the last year of the tournaments. Gavitt wouldn't say how much the changes to this year's tournament would narrow the $35 million gap between the two budgets. The men's tournament has higher costs because it is held in bigger venues and is hosted at neutral sites instead of on campus.
The men's tournament gets more money than the women's even after adjusting for financial burdens, according to the Kaplan report. The atmosphere at the women's games lacks the same level of excitement and makes them feel as if they are second-class citizens according to coaches.
It is JV versus varsity. She said it was hot dogs versus steak.
Kaplan found a number of issues with how money is counted and distributed. Several changes that she argued could lead to a better understanding of the women's tournament's true financial value were recommended by her firm.
The majority of NCAA revenue comes from its media rights agreement with CBS and Turner. The College Football Playoff does not produce revenue for the NCAA. The contract gave the NCAA $850 million in 2021, which will make it the most valuable sports organization in the world. CBS and Turner have exclusive rights to sell corporate partnerships to sponsors for all NCAA championship events.
The structure puts women's basketball at a disadvantage in two ways. The men's tournament is given credit for generating $1 billion in revenue even though some of that value could be attributed to a corporate partner's interest in sponsoring the women's tournament. Second, it creates opportunities for a small number of corporate partners who are willing to pay a steep price to sponsor all NCAA championship events. Other brands that might be interested in paying lower fees to support the women's tournament don't have an opportunity to do so.
Gavitt said that the arrangement for sponsorship rightspredates his time in charge, but that in the future the NCAA might be able to carve out sponsorship opportunities for individual sports. Gavitt said it would be premature to comment on whether any of the sponsorship arrangements could change prior to the end of the current deal.
He said that they haven't sat down with their partners to explore what possibilities could be considered for modification.
The NCAA may not be cashing in on the full value of the broadcast rights for its women's tournament, according to a media expert hired by the Kaplan firm. The rights to broadcast the women's tournament and the other college sports were going to be paid by the NCAA. Ed Desser, the media expert hired by Kaplan, estimated that the rights to the women's basketball tournament could be worth anywhere from $81 million to $112 million by 2025.
The popularity of the women's game and the media marketplace have both changed dramatically since the current deal between the NCAA and ESPN was signed in 2011. Gavitt said that the NCAA plans to shop its media rights on the open market and that he is optimistic that they will see a significant increase.
When the time comes, we will have the appropriate conversations with the NCAA about the television rights agreement.
Barnes and others in the women's sports community think it is important that any future influx of money be distributed in a way that encourages schools to invest more in their women's teams. The NCAA gave $613 million to its Division I members. There are a number of factors that affect the amount of money each school gets. More than a quarter of the money is distributed based on how well each conference did in the men's basketball tournament the previous year.
Many conferences have been encouraged to invest in their basketball programs because of those payments. There are no awards or incentives for schools that have success in women's basketball or any other sport besides men's basketball.
Pick the winner of each game of the women's NCAA tournament. Play a tournament.
Barnes said that it was just business and that resources were poured into things that would help them make more money. We will continue to have big discrepancies in equality until we have a system that rewards our programs with money.
The NCAA should change its revenue distribution to award success in other sports, according to a number of reports. Amy Perko, who has advocated for this change in her role as CEO of the Knight Commission, said she has so far been discouraged by the lack of interest from NCAA members on prioritizing a new revenue distribution model. To say that men's basketball is the only sport that we're going to give performance bonuses for, that speaks volumes.
Some of the more significant changes will take years to come to fruition because of the complex nature of existing contracts and partnerships. Both of them say they are committed to creating long-term change.
There may be no convincing until we follow through on all this,& said Holzman, who was a captain for the 1993-94 Kansas State women's basketball team before starting her career in college sports administration. This is very personal for our membership and our leadership.
Current players and coaches say they have reason to doubt that the NCAA leadership will remain proactive if they are not pressured by outspoken players and deep-pocketed sponsors. It did take a public shaming a year ago to spur the initial burst of change to correct some of the issues that had been clear to those inside the game for a long time.
Reese and Prince say they will continue to be on the lookout for signs of inequality at a tournament that is likely to be under scrutiny this year.
It is not what it should be. Prince said that it was not 100% equal.
All Rights Reserved © 2024
