As the World Cup nears a close, FIFA has ordered broadcasters to stop zooming in on "hot women" in crowds at matches.
The word came from Federico Addiechi, FIFA's head of diversity, who said the organization was working to cut down on sexism at the World Cup, noting that they've warned broadcast services and will "take action against things that are wrong." Often called the "honey shot," it was likely invented by a US sports television director named Andy Sidaris, who said: "Once you've seen one huddle you've seen them all. So, you either look at the popcorn, the guys, or the ladies. The choice is clear to me."
The organization has been working on several areas regarding sexism during the 2018 World Cup, including revoking fan passes of those identified as "accosting" female fans and forcing them to leave the country. Other incidents include female reporters being touched or even kissed while broadcasting. Getty recently came under fire and issued a public apology for publishing a photo gallery of "the hottest fans at the World Cup," which consisted solely of women. Meanwhile, organizations like This Fan Girl are working to desexualize images of female fans and refocus attention on their passion for football.
Lead image by Pixabay user lcarissimi used under Creative Commons.
What a silly thing to say
"Hey, here's a thing people need to stop doing and an accompanying picture to show what I'm talking about"
"Oh now YOU'RE DOING THE SAME THING YOU HYPOCRITE"
Sounds good to me.
People find fault with anything you do now.
Every time when I hear about position like 'head of diversity' I wonder if there are no more real problems in this world that need solving.
I don't think we should put a brief shot of an attractive woman in the stands in the same category as a touched or kissed reporter or woman hounded out of the country. Attractive people will attract attention and if scanning a crowd at a game keeps the viewers paying attention while the players clean their gear or take a break, the TV director will direct attention to the interesting shot in the crowd.
It is not necessarily 'sexualizing' a woman if the choice is an attractive young woman or a middle aged guy in an undersized shirt with his gut hanging out... men and women will prefer the attractive woman.... and they won't switch channels of go to the fridge.
And what does it mean to 'sexualize' a woman in this context? We are all sexual. Some exude it, those like me ... well, there is always the next lifetime.....Definition - "Sexualize: make sexual; attribute sex or a sex role to"
How is a quick image of an attractive woman in a public place somehow adding more sexuality or assigning a sex role to her? Granted, she is attractive partly due to her sexuality. This is normal (unless we all deny our sexuality). It is not exploiting her.
I agree we shouldn't put those in the same category; I was just elaborating on what's going on in the World Cup with this issue. I didn't mean to sound as if I was conflating the two. Take a look at this example and tell me if you think this is normal camera work; I'm genuinely interested in your opinion. To me, zooming in deep into the crowd past active fans to show a single woman who's smiling but really not doing anything that adds to the idea that this is about football is at best a strange thing to do.
Yes, that shot is clearly planned, and the more relevant ( to the game) close up would have been the Nigeria banner. But I cannot see that this is such an egregious crossing of line into sexualization as defined above. I don't think we should be at a point where we see anything perhaps "sexy" ( I saw pretty, did not get anywhere near sexy for me) and pronounce it exploitation.
I certainly see where you're coming from. For me, it's the quantity. One shot like that to me is a cameraperson being weird. Doing it consistently over a multi-week worldwide event indicates it's a broader cultural trend and makes me stop and say: "ok, why is this happening?" Thanks for chatting with me about it!
Why are the majority of models women? Sex sells
Even though I understand that there is some overreaction (people find ways to complain about everything nowadays) to a minor issue, I agree that this shot, the example you provide, was really unnecessary. Maybe some middle ground, still showing beautiful girls (they like being on tv) but not only them and not in a such ostensive way. Give room to handsome guys, cute kids, funny stuff, cute couples etc and it should me all good, except for the people who want to find something to complain about; those won't be happy anyway because they chose not to. Cheers, Daniel
Soooo....what's going on in the bunch of photographs at the bottom of this page?
One could argue the difference is consent.
But then again, I think this is a bit ridiculous anyway. The media's PC hysteria has gotten out of hand imo.
I take your point that the PC hysteria is out of hand anyway, but the "sexism" issue is not about consent. This is not about the fact that the camerapersons (and some may be female) are zeroing in on people without their consent--that would apply, if it were the case, to males as well as females. The issue is that they're zooming in on women and NOT men.
That is because imagery of attractive women vastly outperforms imagery of attractive men. Take for example the photos you mentioned at the bottom of the page. They are there due to community voting. They are not curated. (other than excluding nudity) The same is true of virtually every image platform that ranks images freely based on engagement.
Broadcasters are well aware of that so choose to cater to it. Plus, they already know that there are endless zoom-ins of attractive men on the field.
It all comes down to money, if audience members choose not to go to the bathroom or grab a snack to watch during stoppages in play to maybe see someone they are attracted to, that translates to more revenue for advertisers. I don't have any hard data but I suspect that men are vastly more likely to do be influenced this way than female viewers.
Ryan Cooper, oh, yeah, certainly. That's why you see the same thing when you scan magazines in the rack--both male and female oriented magazines. Images of women sell better to both men and women.
Ugly, old, and fat fans - or some combination, need more air time? Is that the message?
Does this mean the portrait/glamour videos and photos Fstoppers posts will need a quota of homely models moving forward? :)
People fling the word "sexism" around like they do "racism" nowadays. Some people may want to brush up on the definition of sexism. Zooming in on hot chics is nowhere near it. People use that term just to make their stories or agenda a little more dramatic and serious than it really is.
Alex I wouldn't exactly call your portrait section of your website diverse. I think fifa (lower case on purpose) might have a problem with it frankly.
This whole thing is so bizarre in so many levels!!!!
First of all, 99% of cameras in the stadiums are run by a production company in charge of providing the world feed pool. There are extremely few exceptions given to individual countries to ad one or two cameras during the games. That’s done usually to show their sportscasters, reporters and announcers.
The fact that FIFA is using the term “hot women” to describe some attractive women is in itself OBJECTIFICATION ana SEXUALIZATION of those women. If I’m in the stadium with my wife and some FIFA burocrat describes her as “hot” therefore not to be on camera, it would be a huge disrespect, to say the least.
And if FIFA wants to censor who can or cannot be shown on camera, who is to criticize a racist broadcaster when it refuses to show black people on the stadium, or the Russian TV refusing to show homosexual fans?
So lets put full body burkas on the football players as well, who wants to see tight muscles and asses running on the field. :(
Who has the time to sexualize things when there’s a gripping game on?
I am glad to see a female commenting in this issue or non-issue ( per individual perspective). Would you care to expand? ( I won't ask you to speak for all women of the world, haha ).
Where is the difference between sexualising and showing a nice and interesting woman or girl face in the crowd? Going this path the next statement of whatever institution or group will be that models are prostitutes, because receive money for posing eventually taking street pictures will be an sexual offence.
EDIT:
I'm not defending in any case SEXUAL MISCONDUCT but there are also women voices against this drift to absurdity.
Catherine Deneuve: "Time's Up movement is a witch-hunt against men".
Brigitte Bardot: "The vast majority [of #MeToo accusers] are being hypocritical and ridiculous."
sexism: noun: prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex.
So its ok for broadcasters to zoom in on distraught children crying their eyes out because their team is losing, but its not ok to zoom in on pretty girls. I think FIFA need to get their priorities straight.
Well i think we need to take a harder approach and we should prohibit atractive people all together ...
How come nobody’s talking about an event organization like FIFA telling a national broadcast company how to do their job and how to sell their content.
Last time I went to a baseball game, Dodger's game, they were panning on the fans. All kinds of fans. From kids, to young and old couples, to groups of friends and the occasional good looking girl. They should just do that and call it a day.
90% of the time, thats exactly what happens. This article is throwing this non-issue incredibly out of proportion, but after all it is 2018, seems to be the norm these days.
This is what happens when bored people have too much time to sit around and decide what to be offended by next.
oh may god. I'm from Iran (Muslim extremist religious missionaries, of course governors, they have been censoring before fifa) I don't know what to say. fifa want to censor the beauty. really I don't know what to say. that is shamefull. Maybe next step is preventing of women for entering to stadium like to Iran ... ha ha ha
Can you provide a link to these statements please. Id like to read your source...