EARLIER this week, the BBC published the results of a study into prize money, which found that 30 per cent of sports reward men more highly than women.

The good news is that 70 per cent of sports are paying men and women equally, a massive improvement on the situation 20 or 30 years ago, but I’m not sure that we will ever see parity in some of the others.

I’m not sure we should either, but before I’m shouted down as a misogynistic dinosaur, let me explain why.

As with so many other things in sport, it all comes down to money.

Of course, the sexes should be rewarded equally when it comes to sports where they compete together, and in general, that seems to be the case.

Athletics, skiing, cycling, gymnastics, swimming and triathlon all offer equal prize money for the major events, where television companies and spectators pay to see sportspeople of both genders in action.

Even tennis’ grand slams pay equally, despite the men having to play longer matches. On the face of it, that sounds unfair, but it would be very hard to say that men’s or women’s matches attract more spectators and television viewers, because both sexes are on the same bill.

That is the crux of my argument.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, football has been picked out as one of the sports lagging behind when it comes to paying the sexes equally.

Germany picked up an amazing £22million for winning the World Cup in the summer, while Japan received just £630,000 when they won the women’s equivalent three years ago.

That sounds horrendously unbalanced, but there is simply no way that FIFA, which organises both tournaments, could pay the winners of the women’s event the same amount.

Attendances over the course of the respective World Cups were poles apart, and while an estimated 62.8 million people around the world tuned into the women’s final, that pales into insignificance compared to the audience of one billion thought to have watched the men’s final.

In short, the men’s event brings in more money, so there is more available to give out in prizes.

It’s the same story for most of the sports that don’t give out equal prizes, like cricket and golf. The men’s events bring in more money, so there is more available for the prize funds.

That raises a question. Should sports look to take some money from the men’s prize pots to put into women’s events, if not redressing the balance, at least closing the gap between the two?

I’m not sure. For the moment, I don’t think it’s fair to compare men’s and women’s football, cricket or golf. The gulf in interest and finance is just too big.

This prize money argument is something of a red herring. The real issue is a lack of exposure and understanding of the quality of women’s sport. That’s what we should be focusing on.