Unfair media bias in the sports world 

  By: Brayden A, Noah B, Graeme G, Carson F 

While in 2019 many male tennis stars such as “Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokovic argued that men should earn higher salaries than women as their matches have higher attendance and viewership”. While this was partially true the men only had more viewers in the Australian Open and the French Open while the women outgained them in Wimbledon and the U.S. Open. While women have gained more views than men in their respected sport we still see unfair gender discrepancies throughout the media. 

It is important to look at who is reporting this information when questioning the gender gap. A study by The Institute for Diversity and Ethics in Sports found the majority of people working in sports news were white and male. The institute puts out a report card each year on reports of gender and race in the sports industry. They found that “83.3% of sports editors were men compared to 16.7% of women in 2021”. With the majority of the sports world being covered by men, how do we expect the issue of gender bias to change. Women need to be represented more so throughout sports news so that we can hear a new perspective. Although these gender discrepancies are still an ongoing issue there are signs pointing in the right direction. 

Womens sports editors have seen an increase of nearly 7% from 2018 to 2021. Also the Associated Press Sports Editors Racial and Gender Report Card found that “For the upper management category, a new category that analyzes the managing director position across an entire newspaper or website, women's representation was a report card-high 36.3%”. These findings are a step in the right direction as we look at gender bias in media. It is important to hire a diverse media staff  in order to report on the wide range of athletes from different demographics. Although we are not satisfied we are happy to see changes being made and hope for more change in the future. 

Through discussing  issues of gender bias in sports we have also seen racial bias throughout the media. With media coverage being prodomantley reported by the white male it's important to undertand how race is unfairly discussed in the medias sports coverage. We saw this first hand in Allen Iverson's 2002 press conference which is one of the most infamous moments in sports media history.  A moment shaped not by what he said, but by how the media chose to frame it. His now-legendary “practice” press conference is a textbook example of Framing Theory in action, demonstrating how selective media emphasis distorts public perception, especially when it comes to Black athletes. The dominant narrative that emerged painted Iverson as erratic, arrogant, and uncontrollable. His visible grief rooted in the loss of a close friend was stripped of context and reframed not as a human response to trauma, but as a tantrum. Instead of empathy, the reaction was dismissal: “Why’s he upset? He’s a millionaire. Just shut up and play basketball.” That sentiment echoed across headlines and broadcasts, reinforcing the tired trope that Black athletes should be grateful, silent, and stoic.

What the media truly conveyed, without ever needing to say it directly, was that Iverson’s emotional honesty didn’t align with their constructed ideal of leadership or professionalism. Labeling his expression a “rant” wasn’t just careless journalism; it was racially coded language. For some, Iverson wasn’t just out of control, he was a threat figuretivaley and literally. From his unapologetic embrace of hip-hop culture to his tattoos, cornrows, and baggy clothes, Iverson brought the streets into a league that preferred polish over authenticity. He made basketball real and that made people uncomfortable. You can dress it up in DEI language, YN-coded talk, or even call it “woke.” But at its core, it’s just another way to say: “We still see you as a n word.” The narratives that dehumanized Iverson are the same ones that shape how young Black men are viewed and treated every day by schools, work, and the prison system. The same finger the media wagged at Iverson is pointed at the kids who idolize him, who are criminalized just for existing.

Kent Babb, a veteran sports journalist known for his in-depth reporting on athletes beyond the headlines, provides crucial context that was missing from mainstream coverage of Allen Iverson’s infamous 2002 "practice" press conference. At the time, Babb was covering the NBA and later wrote extensively on the pressures and personal struggles of high-profile athletes. His reporting exposes what was left out of the moment that would define Iverson’s public image. He writes:"Some were amused, and others watched the trainwreck unfold, knowing from experience that Iverson was drunk. 'He was lit,' said [Philadelphia Daily News' John] Smallwood, who attended the conference. 'If he had been sober, he would have been able to get himself out of that. He never would've gone down that path. Maybe you had to have been around him all the time to know the difference, but we all knew.'"

The deeper context complicates the narrative, but the media wasn’t interested in that. Instead of acknowledging Iverson’s compromised state or questioning why he was put in front of cameras in the first place, reporters latched onto his words, stripping them of nuance and amplifying his frustration as spectacle. The coverage fixated on his repetition of the word "practice," and his body language, all while omitting the very real pain that fueled the outburst. What few recall is that Iverson was mourning. Seven months earlier, his best friend Rahsaan Langeford was shot and killed, a loss that weighed heavily on him throughout the '01-'02 season. His grief was compounded by the fact that, just days before the press conference, the murder trial of Langeford’s accused killer had begun. The 2014 documentary Iverson addresses this crucial but overlooked dimension. Scoop Jackson states:
"Nobody looks at the whole comment Allen made. He was talking about his boy dying ... [The media] would not play that full track." In reality, the most telling moment of the conference was not the infamous "practice" repetition, but what followed. Minutes after the laughter and incredulity, Iverson’s tone shifted:
"I'm upset for one reason: 'Cause I'm in here. I lost. I lost my best friend. I lost him, and I lost this year. Everything is just going downhill for me, as far as just that. You know, as far as my life. And then I'm dealing with this. ... My best friend is dead. Dead. And we lost. And this is what I have to go through for the rest of the summer until the season is all over again."

This moment of raw vulnerability never became the story. It was inconvenient to the narrative the media had already constructed, one that aligned with the broader racial framing of Black athletes as emotional and undisciplined rather than complex individuals with real struggles. The public perception of Iverson as erractic and reckless was not accidental; it was the result of deliberate media framing that ignored his humanity in favor of reinforcing a stereotype. Ultimately, the practice interview endured because it was never about Iverson’s words. It was about how those words were repackaged, redistributed, and reshaped to fit an agenda. His pain, his loss, and his context were erased in favor of a digestible soundbite, one that, decades later, remains one of the most misrepresented moments in sports history. 

Dirk Nowitzki’s career was shaped not only by his exceptional skill but also by the persistent narrative that he was "soft." This perception stemmed from a combination of racial and cultural biases, as well as the rigid constructs of masculinity reinforced by media discourse. Peaking in the 1980s with Larry Bird, the belief has been that white stars in the NBA have been excessively mythologized for their hard work and sacrifices, while Black players were framed as naturally gifted. Isiah Thomas famously illustrated this divide, saying, "I came dribbling out of my mother’s womb," emphasizing how white players were seen as fundamentally different from their Black counterparts. However, Nowitzki, as a European player, entered an even more complex conversation one that positioned him within the stereotype of the "soft Euro." During the 2007 Western Conference first round, the Dallas Mavericks entered the playoffs as the top seed, led by MVP Dirk Nowitzki after a dominant regular season. However, as the series against the eighth-seeded Golden State Warriors unfolded, the media narrative around Nowitzki began to shift. Instead of being framed as an unstoppable force, he was cast as an exposed and soft star, struggling against a faster, more physical Warriors team. Henry Abbott of ESPN captured this evolving perception, writing: "Dirk Nowitzki, I fear, is about to be emasculated for, essentially, being a good person without a reliable way to beat long defenders who are much faster than him. Dirk Nowitzki is what those people want. He's just as nice as people can be. He's honest. He does great, selfless things far from the limelight. And I am not one of those people who buys the notion that you can't be both nice off the court and a top competitor."

This characterization extended beyond a critique of his on-court struggles, it positioned Nowitzki as prey rather than predator, a stark contrast to the aggressive, alpha-male archetype glorified in sports. Rather than focusing on tactical mismatches or team dynamics, the framing subtly questioned his toughness, playing into a broader discourse about masculinity in athletics. This notion of Nowitzki as a passive figure resurfaced in 2009 when commentator Michael Wilbon critiqued his relationship with Mavericks owner Mark Cuban. Wilbon’s remarks reinforced the idea that Nowitzki lacked the assertiveness expected of a franchise player, stating: "This is the problem with the Dallas Mavericks. If your player, if your best player is so weak that he lets the owner tell him what to do, you have no great player."

Here, Wilbon's criticism was not about leadership, it was about authority, independence, and control. In a league where greatness is often synonymous with dominance, the media’s framing of Nowitzki as deferential rather than a leader contributed to a broader skepticism about his legitimacy as a superstar. Even former players In 2016, NBA legend Kareem Abdul-Jabbar further diminished Nowitzki’s career, calling him a "one-trick pony": "Dirk Nowitzki’s shot is very hard to block, but I don’t think that he was able to have a dominant career because he couldn’t do other things. If he could have shot like that and rebounded and played defense and blocked shots, then he would have been all-around, and he would have gotten more credit. He was like a one-trick pony."

These critiques align with Agenda Setting Theory, which suggests that the media doesn’t necessarily tell audiences what to think, but rather what to think about. In Dirk Nowitzki’s case, the media consistently framed him through the lens of inadequacy highlighting his European background and perceived lack of toughness. This framing shaped how fans and analysts discussed his game. His playoff shortcomings in the mid-2000s only fueled that narrative. After the Mavericks’ shocking first-round exit in the 2007 playoffs, the “soft Euro” label overshadowed his entire MVP campaign. The discourse centered not on the team’s collective failures, but on Nowitzki’s inability to single-handedly deliver wins, reinforcing the idea that he wasn’t built for the moment. This perception connects to deeper cultural constructs around masculinity, ones examined in Jackson Katz’s Tough Guise. The theory pushes back on the idea that masculinity is natural, arguing instead that it’s a performance, shaped and reinforced by societal expectations. In the NBA, that performance often means being aggressive, physically dominant, and emotionally stoic. By these rules, Nowitzki, despite his seven-foot frame, was found lacking. His finesse-based game, defined by footwork, jump shots, and a cerebral approach, became a target for criticism in a league that lionized raw power and intimidation, embodied by players like Shaquille O’Neal and Kevin Garnett.

 This expectation extends beyond basketball and into race. White masculinity is often centered around the "Great White Hope" narrative, while Black athletes are framed as physically superior but lacking discipline or work ethic. Meanwhile, European players like Nowitzki were seen as tactically skillful but fundamentally incapable of true dominance. Nowitzki himself acknowledged this perception, recalling the early taunts he faced: "I’d be guarding somebody on the wing in front of the opposing bench and all I hear from the bench, like, ‘Go at him, he’s soft!’" The repetition of these labels in media discourse shaped public perception of Nowitzki’s career, even as he proved time and again that he was more than capable of leading a team. The 2011 NBA Finals victory became his ultimate refutation of the "soft" label, yet it took a championship to erase years of  constructed narratives. Understand how media shapes narratives that influence societal views on race and identity, and how these narratives affect the lives and careers of athletes.The media doesn’t just report; it constructs. Allen Iverson wasn’t undone by his words, he was undone by how they were repackaged and weaponized. Dirk Nowitzki wasn’t soft, he was simply framed that way until he won enough to rewrite the script. Their careers were shaped not just by their talent but by the narratives assigned to them, narratives that reflect something deeper about race, masculinity, and power in sports. Iverson’s "practice" rant and Nowitzki’s "soft Euro" label may seem like polar opposites, but they tell the same story. 

One was too emotional; the other not emotional enough. One was too raw; the other too refined. One was ridiculed for being volatile, the other for being too controlled. Symbolic interactionism helps explain this, as the media’s repetitive use of labels like "selfish" for Iverson and "soft" for Nowitzki shaped the public’s perception of their identities. These symbols, repeatedly reinforced through media discourse, influenced how fans, analysts, and even fellow players viewed them. The way media narratives and audience reception interact shows how meaning is not still, but constantly changing through discourse. Both Iverson and Nowitzki were distorted, their complexities flattened into easily digestible stereotypes that fit into the media’s unwritten rulebook. However, if the media shapes what we think about, it also reveals what it chooses not to acknowledge. In erasing Iverson’s grief and questioning Nowitzki’s toughness, the press wasn’t just reporting; they were upholding centuries-old myths about race, power, and belonging. And that’s the real story. Not "practice." Not "softness." But the system that decides which versions of truth are worthy of being told.

Within sports media, bias in gender, race and class exists not only in what’s covered, but how a story is covered, as well. What is often seen in sports media, and therefore media in general, is that a narrative will be pushed by selecting people who fit a desired narrative or criteria to cover a story that pushes said narrative. This can also sway the prioritization of certain events or stories over another, an act that plays out as part of the Agenda Setting Theory. As 79% of sports editors are white, with 83% of that population being white men, according to a report by ESPN in 2021, the coverage of men’s sports and women’s sports and how they are covered shifts heavily in favor of men.

The same report by ESPN also states, however, that the percentage of women working in sports media has grown at a significant rate from 2018-2021. In 2018, women made up only 10% of sports editors, a figure that grew to 16.7% in 2021. Meanwhile, the percentage of sports reporters made up by women stood at only 11.5% in 2018, while it grew to 14.5% in 2021. With the growing coverage of women’s sports in recent years, the rising percentages of female media members has played out the Agenda Setting Theory as we see more women covering women’s sports in today’s news.

The growth in women’s sports coverage could also be identified as a Pseudo Event, as often times we see media consumers accusing the media of blowing the coverage of women’s sports, and sometimes lack thereof, out of proportion, while still drawing great amounts of attention and awareness toward the issue. Take the infamous Caitlin Clark vs. Angel Reese spectacle of 2023. The media, on both sides of the gender and race spectrums, shifted their attention toward the gesture made by Reese at the end of the game toward Clark, rather than the game itself and the performance from the athletes, ultimately resulting in a national championship for Reese’s LSU Tigers. A lot of media consumers make the claim that if an event such as this one happened in a men’s sports setting, it wouldn’t get nearly the amount of attention. Furthermore, a report from Rice University suggests that Angel Reese’s antics during her matches with Caitlin Clark are covered with racial bias, despite Clark making a similar gesture in her previous game and receiving next to no criticism. 

Today, the quest to solve these issues and eliminate these discrepancies is all the more present, and modern-day solutions are being used to help. One that is ever-present today is the use of AI. Companies and businesses are now putting AI to use to help promote equality and more diverse workplaces in not only media, but in the workforce in general. This can both be a blessing and a curse in the media. A study done by Penn State shows that AI has been used to make recommendations for a hire based on how a group has hired historically, based on gender or race. For example, if a company has historically hired less women, then AI, given that information, will be less likely to recommend a female candidate for an open position in said company. 

“AI is doing what it’s supposed to do, which is to identify good job candidates based on certain desirable characteristics. But since it was trained on historical, biased data, it has the potential to make unfair recommendations,” Vasant Honavar, a professor at Penn State, said. 

While AI has its own discrepancies, it can be beneficial to detecting bias in the media, as well. Dr. M.R. Leiser of Universiteit Leiden in The Netherlands claims that AI is helpful for pointing readers to more diverse, quality publications after discovering “fake news.” However, the same issues apply that AI is trained to back up the historical inaccuracies and biases it has learned over the years, an instance that backs up the Cultivation Theory. The Cultivation Theory states that long-term exposure to media, particularly television, shapes people’s perceptions of reality. It also highlights how media content, especially repetitive themes, cultivates viewers’ worldviews and social attitudes.

Sports have long been a cornerstone of society, providing a platform of competition, entertainment, and community for around a millennia. However, the world of sports is prone to societal divisions, especially in the case of class divides. Class division is most prevalent in the media’s portrayal of different types of sports, particularly the unequal spotlight given to elite versus working-class sports. The distinction between these two categories of sports isn’t just about the game but also about the athletes, the audience, and the type of coverage they receive within the media. The class divide in sports is rooted deeply in history, dating back to the early days of organized sports. The rich and the elite class were the individuals who had the money, time, and access to resources that allowed them to participate in sports like polo, tennis, and golf. These sports, which are now often viewed as symbols of privilege and wealth, have become associated with the upper class of society. 

On the other hand, sports like soccer, football, or basketball became more accessible to the working class because they didn’t require expensive equipment or memberships to participate. This divide between elite and working-class sports is perpetuated because of the way the media covers them. While elite sports are often portrayed as sophisticated, prestigious, and esteemed, working-class sports are sometimes portrayed as unpolished, rough, or raw. This bias is exacerbated by the demographics of the athletes themselves with elite sports typically being dominated by athletes from wealthy backgrounds while working-class sports tend to feature athletes from economically disadvantaged areas. 

The media plays a critical role in shaping public perception of the class divide through its coverage of sports. Athletes participating in elite sports like tennis, golf, or Formula 1 receive a focus on not only their athletic achievements but also on their personal lives and social status. Coverage of events such as the US Open or Wimbledon often feature stories about the players’ background, families, and lavish lifestyles. In contrast athletes within working-class sports are portrayed through a more utilitarian lens, with their personal lives and backgrounds given far less attention. Media outlets tend to focus on the competitive nature of the sport rather than the stories of the athletes themselves. Furthermore, in the rare cases where working-class athletes do receive coverage pertaining to their life, it comes with a heavy focus on negative aspects, such as financial problems, violence, or controversy. The harmful portrayal of working-class sports by the media has created multiple myths that are misleading and misinforming people across America. One of the most significant and detrimental of these myths is the Great Sport Myth, a term created by Jay Coakley, a professor of sports sociology at the University of Colorado. 

The Great Sport Myth is the belief that sports are pure and good by nature and by participating in sports we help to develop ourselves as individuals and the communities around us. This myth nullifies the need to critically examine sports and allows the media unlimited access to indoctrinating fans into believing that anyone can compete and excel in any sport. An example of this would be the idea that youth sports are the only pipeline out of poverty. This concept is romanticized within American culture and leads to children of low income households believing their potential in life is tied to their athleticism. Low income families across America make unbelievable sacrifices to keep their children within sports with the hope that their child will make it big in the long run through college scholarships or a career. In actuality, less than two percent of students receive athletic scholarships (Lee, 2021). 

When race is added into the equation the situation becomes much more complicated because of the types of representation shown by the media, giving a distorted view of success to children of working class families. Most Black faces that kids see in the media are either people who are in trouble or athletes with extremely successful careers. This lack of diverse representation further hammers in the harmful idea that black children from working class families' only ticket to escape poverty is through sports.

 The Great Sport Myth is perpetuated by the one athlete out of thousands that finds accomplishment. The media quickly latches on to them and pushes their story, completely ignoring the context of the thousands of failures that have come before the rare success. The media employs the framing theory; a concept that explains the way information is presented to an audience. This significantly impacts how that knowledge is perceived when the media heavily pushes stories of overcoming hardship through sports to their audience. Because the Great Sport Myth is used to blindly accept sports as inherently healthy and positive, the embracing of class division within sports will continue because of the lack of critical analysis. Coakley argues that there are basic facts we need to agree on as a society to counter the Great Sport Myth saying, “The reality is, the experience of sports for someone with money is very different than that of someone without much. 

Programs for wealthier kids are set up in connection to more resources, and the weight of sports being the “only way to a good future” is not the same for better-off kids playing purely for fun. As a result, in order for low-income communities to truly reap the whole and long term benefits of sports in a child’s life, we must first begin to “disrupt the Great Sport Myth and get people raising questions about it” (Lee, 2021). The point Coakley ultimately is making is that sports right now are not contributing toward development for people from low-income backgrounds. Luckily, this can be repaired to a degree through the process of understanding the experiences, backgrounds, and identities that need to be developed in tandem with sport participation. 

The class divide in sports and the media bias that perpetuates it have far-reaching implications for both athletes and fans. By providing equal media coverage and acknowledging and addressing the systemic problems stopping many Americans from success we can begin to level the playing field. Sports, at their core, are about unity, competition, and community and it is time that the media reflects this by giving all sports and athletes regardless of social or economic status the respect and time they deserve. Only then can we truly say that sports are fair for everyone and not just an elite few.

Media bias in sports is more than just uneven coverage it’s a reflection of deeper societal inequalities and issues of gender, race, and class. From the underrepresentation of women’s achievements in sports, the racial stereotyping of athletes like Allen Iverson, and the divide between elite and working-class sports, these biases influence how athletes are portrayed. It is clear that the stories we see that are amplified and the stories we don’t see that are overlooked are shaped and controlled by the media who are trying to create a specific narrative. While AI and data analytics have helped uncover these patterns, going forward, real progress will depend on people covering these stories in a more organic and healthier way. By continuing to challenge these biases and fight for diverse representation in the media, we can begin to reshape the way all athletes are seen, valued, and remembered.