EDITORIAL: Progress, slow but steady

The University is working toThe University is working toclose the funding and sizeThe University is working toclose the funding and sizegaps between men's andThe University is working toclose the funding and sizegaps between men's andwomen's athletic teams.The University is working toclose the funding and sizegaps between men's andwomen's athletic teams._____________________________ There are several obvious reasons why the University has more male athletes and why it spends more on them. First, a football team can easily carry more than 100 players per season, while a field hockey squad might be too large at three dozen. Next, the cost of outfitting a football player with home and away gear and multiple sets of pads -- when one helmet can run $300 -- is much greater than the cost of a few tennis racquets, skirts and pairs of shoes. The cost difference is compounded by the sheer number of athletes football coaches must outfit. Last, when coaches have 10 or 15 spots on their rosters, rather than two or three, their recruiting budgets will naturally be larger. They are obligated to contact and scout more players since they have more slots to fill and more playing time available. Still, these reasons for continued inequity are no reason to give up on the broader goal of gender equity, which is equal opportunity to participate in intercollegiate athletics, and equal provision of practice facilities, gear and games for women's and men's teams. More encouraging are the average salary figures for men's and women's teams' head coaches, which are separated by just about $5,000. Average salaries for assistant coaches differ by about $3,500. This area of athletic funding is one where administrators can demonstrate most strongly their commitment to gender equity -- by making sure men's and women's coaches receive equal pay for equal work. The most disturbing aspect of the EADA report is the spending disparity between the men's and women's basketball teams. If their travel, meal and uniform expenses were "nearly identical," as Senior Associate Athletic Director Carolyn Schlie Femovich said, why did the men spend $106,000 on operating costs to the womens' $63,000?