The ICC has announced equal prize money across genders in global tournaments, but as Karunya Keshav writes, pay disparity remains a challenge in cricket.

A record 75,784 fans turned out in Sydney last week for co-hosts Australia’s women’s football World Cup opener against Ireland. On a similar evening three years ago, an audience of 86,174 were entertained in Melbourne as Australia beat India for the 2020 T20 World Cup.

When we tell the story of the emphatic progress made in women’s sport, both these events will find a mention. One of the ways in which they differ, however: where Meg Lanning’s cricketers got equal prize money as for the men’s event, if the Matildas go all the way to lift the FIFA women’s trophy, they’ll earn just a fraction of the prize money set aside for the men.

As the Australian team said in a video statement three days before the start of the tournament: “FIFA will still only offer women one-quarter as much prize money as men for the same achievement.”

Since 2020, Cricket Australia have ensured that their women’s team gets the same reward for international success as the men, having pledged to make up any difference in winnings. So, after Australia’s 2023 T20 World Cup win, for example, the board added US$ 600,000 to the US$ 1 million prize to match the US$ 1.6 million taken home by England Men in 2022.

From next time, however, it will be the International Cricket Council ensuring this parity: cricket’s governing body have announced equal prize money across their men’s and women’s tournaments.

“Cricket is genuinely a sport for all and this decision from the ICC Board reinforces that and enables us to celebrate and value every single player’s contribution to the game equally,” said ICC Chair Greg Barclay in a statement.

At the very basic, equal prize money in cricket is the fair thing to do. It affords the women’s game and those playing it the respect that they deserve.

It is also a smart investment. Women’s cricket, as with all women’s sport in the last couple of years, has regularly proved to be among the fastest growing.

And it is symbolic. The ICC’s decision shows up those boards who do not back their women’s sides. It signals to broadcasters and potential rights holders the kind of buy-in expected from them. It is an acknowledgement that unequal treatment of the women’s game is simply not acceptable anymore.

Equal prize money, though, is a piece in the bigger picture of gender pay parity and financial equity.

In cricket, the fight against financial disparity is on multiple fronts: between men and women, women’s teams of different countries, and international and domestic cricketers. High-paying T20 leagues now add a different dimension to the discussion.

Smriti Mandhana, for example, is India’s highest-paid female cricketer. Since the BCCI announced equal match fees in 2022, she earns the same for a day’s play as, say, Virat Kohli. However, Kohli’s annual contract offers 14 times what she gets. And he also plays over double the international matches she turns out in.

When compared to Sri Lanka’s Chamari Athapaththu, though, Mandhana’s match fees of INR 6 lakh (around US$ 7,300) seems a princely sum as against the US$ 750 Sri Lanka Cricket give their skipper for an ODI.

And the INR 20,000 (around US$ 240) a day Mandhana’s Maharashtra teammates get is positively pedestrian.

Recently, the Independent Commission for Equity in Cricket report highlighted the disparity in English cricket, too. It put the average salary for England women at 20.6 percent of that for the men in white-ball cricket (although the ECB expected this figure to be closer to 30 percent). It also found differences in allowances, bonuses and payment for promotional expenses.

In the past few years, some welcome steps have addressed aspects of these disparities.

New Zealand and India have equal match fees for their men’s and women’s teams. New Zealand takes this one step further to their domestic system too.

Australia’s men and women have the same base pay. The MoU announced this year makes cricketers on average the highest paid in women’s team sports in the country. Significantly, female domestic players are at 70 percent of the earnings of their male counterparts.

Australia, New Zealand and Pakistan have all made public their pregnancy policies, which go some way in addressing the ‘motherhood penalty’ that widens any gender pay gap. And the West Indies became the latest among the top teams to bring in equality in working conditions such as travel and stay.

These sporadic positive steps mean there’s still plenty that can be done. If true equity is to be aimed for, the thinking should shift from a system of rewards, such as match fees and prize money, to investment, in competitions, infrastructure, people and opportunities. It’s about well thought out schedules, venues and market positioning.

“Women have the right to equal pay for equal work and should not be penalised for having fewer opportunities to play than their male counterparts,” says the ICEC report.

Although its mandate is specifically to the game in England and Wales, the report’s recommendation for cricket bodies to “address the historic underinvestment and lack of fair (or indeed any) remuneration that women have faced for decades” finds universal echoes.

So does the call for “fundamental overhaul of the pay structure for women’s professional cricket and [to] provide greater investment in its core infrastructure”.

So no, pay parity needn’t wait till female sportspersons are “as good” or “as popular” or “bring in as much money” as the men. That’s not on the women, that’s on the governing bodies.

Fifty years ago, the US Open tennis tournament became the first of the Grand Slams to offer equal prize money. Billie Jean King, whose boycott threat sparked the change, is still working to ensure parity at levels beyond the biggest tournaments and beyond prize money.

It’s a reminder that change takes time. But also that it’s important to now speed things along.

The ICC can rightly take pride in that they accomplished their goal of equal prize money ahead of their initial commitment of 2030. Because when it comes to equity, there’s more to do.