Why are women so underrepresented in the field of sports economics?

There is an economic dimension to many aspects of women's sport, ranging across attendance and participation, earnings and performance, competitive balance in leagues, discrimination and inequality, infrastructure, sponsorships, and media coverage. And yet when it comes to sports economics research, women are woefully unrepresented. Concomitantly, almost no research has explored why that is the case. This paper does not provide a comprehensive answer as to why this is the case, but does seek to make a start by proffering some explanations for this sad state of affairs. One cluster of explanations is parasitic on reasons offered for the parlous representation of women's issues in economics more generally. The 'base' argument here is that the gender imbalance in the economics profession is reflected in sports economics, which in turn skews research in favour of sports that male economists find interesting" viz. male-dominated sports. Two sub-explanations of the gender imbalance premiss are: first, that the androcentric nature of the theoretic and methodological nostrums of the dominant paradigm used in sports economics discourage female scholars from entering the field; second, the 'toxic' disciplinary culture of the economics profession in general is discouraging to women. Another cluster of explanations is specific to sports economics itself. The 'base' argument here is that economists, both male and female, are less inclined to research women's sport because the incentive structure in the subfield of sports economics tends to 'reward' the study of male-dominated sports. Two sub-explanations arise here: first, male-dominated sports have greater social valence, which in turn influences perceptions of what would or should be acceptable for publication; second, closely related, male-dominated sports spend and generate substantially more money than women's sports, which not only adds to the former's perceived 'importance', but also entails monetary spillovers into 'applied' academic research.These explanations need not be thought of as rivals. It entirely possible that these explanations complement each other, contributing to the sought-after 'comprehensive' explanation. Further research into these explanations, and how they might be related, is important if economists are to address and redress the underrepresentation of women in the field of sports economics.