We perform an experiment showing participants video clips of elite female and male soccer players. In the control group, participants evaluated normal videos where the gender of the players was clear to see. In the treatment group, participants evaluated the same videos but with gender obscured by blurring. We find that participants only rated men’s videos higher when they knew they were watching men. When they didn’t know who they were watching, ratings for female and male athletes did not differ significantly. The findings are consistent with the interpretation that gender bias plays a role in the evaluation of athletic performance.
This is showing that the average person cannot discern the quality differences between the men’s and women’s game unless you play the men against the women. Yes, the men are bigger, stronger, and faster than the women. But to the average person, they won’t be able to perceive those differences if they only watch women play women. The level of the women’s game has become high enough (accuracy of passing, tactical play, defensive strategy, etc) that normal people perceive it as worth watching.
Ok. Isn’t that already proved by the fact that audiences are growing and more money is coming into the women’s game anyway?
Maybe, but that could just be indicative of a more open society where more women outside of US/Brazil/Canada/Australia are growing up idolizing women sports stars instead of TV/movie stars, or where men are learning from a younger age to respect women as more than just sex objects. There could be any number of social reasons for the growth of the game.
I get your point, though. This study probably was not needed (most academic studies are superfluous), but it is another pointer that the women’s game is quality entertainment.