The history of women in competitive sports has been fraught with systemic exclusion and societal barriers. The first official women’s football match on record took place in 1895. World War I played a crucial role in women’s presence in football: while men were away at the front, women worked in factories, and during breaks or after their shifts, some of them gathered to play football, forming teams. This was the case for the Dick, Kerr’s Ladies Football Club, a team founded in 1894 whose players were primarily female workers from the Preston, Lancashire factory. During those years, teams were forming in Scotland, France, and in 1920 the first international match took place in front of a crowd of 25,000 spectators. But instead of building on the momentum of this growing interest in women’s sport, the Football Association banned all women’s teams from playing on affiliated pitches in 1921. According to the association, football was “unsuitable for women and should not be encouraged.” It took half a century for that ban to be lifted, in 1971, but its lasting effects continue to shape the landscape of women’s football today.
Long-distance running faced similar gender barriers. While the marathon has been part of the modern Olympic Games since 1896, women were barred from competing for decades. It was only in 1984 that the Olympics finally introduced a women’s marathon. A landmark moment in this fight took place at the Boston Marathon in 1967, when Kathrine Switzer became the first woman to officially run the race (Roberta “Bobbi” Gibb ran it unofficially the year before, in 1966). At the time, women were prohibited from entering, but Switzer registered under her initials to avoid detection. Midway through the race, official Jock Semple attempted to physically remove her, grabbing at her and trying to rip off her bib number 261. Switzer went on to finish the race, proving that women could complete the distance. Her defiant run drew widespread attention, eventually pushing the Boston Marathon to lift its ban on female runners in 1972.
Despite growth, women’s sports continue to receive less funding, fewer sponsorship opportunities, and significantly lower media coverage. Most female athletes still face unequal pay, limited access to training facilities, and societal barriers that discourage participation.
Persistent gender disparity in sports today
Perhaps unsurprisingly, female participation in sports today remains significantly lower than that of men, despite a steady upward trend in recent years. In the US, female participation in marathon running has increased from less than 10% in the early 1970s to around 40–45% in major races, and the Paris Olympics made history as the first Games to feature an equal number of male and female athletes.
Despite growth, women’s sports continue to receive less funding, fewer sponsorship opportunities, and significantly lower media coverage. Most female athletes still face unequal pay, limited access to training facilities, and societal barriers that discourage participation. Financial gaps in women’s sports manifest both through differences in the salaries paid to athletes, as well as unequal prizes.
Forbes’ 2024 list of the highest-paid athletes highlights this stark contrast: the top-earning male athletes Cristiano Ronaldo (Football, $260M), Jon Rahm (Golf, $218M), and Lionel Messi (Football, $135M), far outpace their female counterparts. The highest-paid female athletes – Coco Gauff (Tennis, $34.4M), Iga Świątek (Tennis, $23.8M), Eileen Gu (Freestyle Skiing, $22.1M), collectively earned only about 13% of what the top three men made combined.
Prizes in major competitions continue to reflect significant gender disparities. In cycling, the winner of the Tour de France Femmes receives €50,000 while the men’s Tour de France champion enjoys a ten-fold prize. In golf, in 2023, Nelly Korda, who won five consecutive tournaments, earned $2.4M, whereas Scottie Scheffler, who won four, earned $14.7M. However, there are encouraging signs of progress. Tennis has made significant strides, with all four Grand Slam tournaments offering equal prizes, and in marathon running, major events have also adopted equal prize structures for men and women.
Lower prizes reflect broader structural issues, as women’s sports events receive less than 15% of total sports media coverage worldwide, an imbalance that both mirrors and contributes to reduced exposure, sponsorship, and overall investment in female athletes. Yet in 2023, FIFA Women’s World Cup coverage surged, and 2024 marked the highest record of women’s sports coverage in history.
Women-led organisations are also helping to shift this status quo. Innovative media groups such as The Gist and Here for the Women Race are filling the gap by delivering dedicated coverage and fresh perspectives on female athletes. Their work challenges traditional narratives and builds fan engagement. Furthermore, the growing relevance of digital platforms and social media has provided female athletes with an alternative route to build their personal brands and reach wider audiences.
Not only is the sector proving to be profitable, but brands backing women’s sports are also benefiting from improved consumer perception and alignment with gender equity values.
Investment opportunities in women’s sports
The early bird gets the worm, and with surging interest in women’s sports, investors have a prime opportunity to capitalise on a rapidly expanding market, as the sector is poised to keep growing in 2025 and beyond. According to Deloitte, global revenues for women’s sports surpassed $1.3 billion in 2024, with an impressive 300% growth in just three years, a sign that this once-overlooked market is now gaining momentum.
Although some investors have started recognising the untapped potential in this space, the limited historical data and short track record present challenges. As expected, early movers in the market tend to be investors used to backing innovation, such as angel investors and venture capital funds. These investors played a key role in the rise and expansion of Angel City FC, which recently secured additional funding and became the world’s most valuable women’s professional sports team, reaching a valuation of $250 million.
The success of Angel City FC stems from an innovative launch model that merges startup-style ownership with a disruptive approach to sports branding. Co-founded by venture capitalist Kara Nortman, tech entrepreneur Julie Uhrman, and actress Natalie Portman, the club adopted a shared ownership structure that gave its founders the ability to execute their vision without strong interference. Unlike traditional sports teams that start by building a local fanbase first, Angel City prioritised global brand-building, recognising that most fans engage digitally now. Leveraging their backgrounds, the founders built a storytelling-driven brand centred on equity and inclusion, attracting mission-aligned sponsors and investors. At the same time, they invested in grassroots outreach, ensuring strong local engagement and community support.
Building on this momentum, Angel City co-founder Kara Nortman launched Monarch Collective in 2023, a private equity firm focused on accelerating investment in women’s sports. The firm aims to capitalise on the rising commercial viability of the sector while serving as a catalyst for institutional investment in teams, leagues, and infrastructure. The emergence of specialised investors signals a shift in how the industry is perceived: women’s sports are no longer seen as a niche market but as a high-growth investment opportunity.
Overall, these developments highlight the increasing commercial strength of women’s sports and the critical role of strategic investments in fueling further growth. Not only is the sector proving to be profitable, but brands backing women’s sports are also benefiting from improved consumer perception and alignment with gender equity values. While much of the recent growth has been driven by a few sports, primarily in the U.S. and Europe, there remains vast untapped potential in other sports and regions. For investors, this represents a unique opportunity to enter a rapidly expanding and evolving market.
License and Republishing
The Choice - Republishing rules
We publish under a Creative Commons license with the following characteristics Attribution/Sharealike.
- You may not make any changes to the articles published on our site, except for dates, locations (according to the news, if necessary), and your editorial policy. The content must be reproduced and represented by the licensee as published by The Choice, without any cuts, additions, insertions, reductions, alterations or any other modifications.If changes are planned in the text, they must be made in agreement with the author before publication.
- Please make sure to cite the authors of the articles, ideally at the beginning of your republication.
- It is mandatory to cite The Choice and include a link to its homepage or the URL of thearticle. Insertion of The Choice’s logo is highly recommended.
- The sale of our articles in a separate way, in their entirety or in extracts, is not allowed , but you can publish them on pages including advertisements.
- Please request permission before republishing any of the images or pictures contained in our articles. Some of them are not available for republishing without authorization and payment. Please check the terms available in the image caption. However, it is possible to remove images or pictures used by The Choice or replace them with your own.
- Systematic and/or complete republication of the articles and content available on The Choice is prohibited.
- Republishing The Choice articles on a site whose access is entirely available by payment or by subscription is prohibited.
- For websites where access to digital content is restricted by a paywall, republication of The Choice articles, in their entirety, must be on the open access portion of those sites.
- The Choice reserves the right to enter into separate written agreements for the republication of its articles, under the non-exclusive Creative Commons licenses and with the permission of the authors. Please contact The Choice if you are interested at contact@the-choice.org.
Individual cases
Extracts: It is recommended that after republishing the first few lines or a paragraph of an article, you indicate "The entire article is available on ESCP’s media, The Choice" with a link to the article.
Citations: Citations of articles written by authors from The Choice should include a link to the URL of the authors’ article.
Translations: Translations may be considered modifications under The Choice's Creative Commons license, therefore these are not permitted without the approval of the article's author.
Modifications: Modifications are not permitted under the Creative Commons license of The Choice. However, authors may be contacted for authorization, prior to any publication, where a modification is planned. Without express consent, The Choice is not bound by any changes made to its content when republished.
Authorized connections / copyright assignment forms: Their use is not necessary as long as the republishing rules of this article are respected.
Print: The Choice articles can be republished according to the rules mentioned above, without the need to include the view counter and links in a printed version.
If you choose this option, please send an image of the republished article to The Choice team so that the author can review it.
Podcasts and videos: Videos and podcasts whose copyrights belong to The Choice are also under a Creative Commons license. Therefore, the same republishing rules apply to them.
