Pay in the Fitness Industry

Pay in The Fitness Industry - A Pretty Place To Play, London Running and Fitness Blog

I don’t think it’ll be a shock to anyone when I say that pay in the fitness industry isn’t the highest. Depending on your source, the average fitness professional is self-employed, working for an hourly rate of (on average) either £10.51 (ONS) or £21 (emdUK). The vast majority of fitness professionals are women, and nearly a quarter of those women work part-time. So if you’re working 20 hours a week and receiving £21 per hour (let’s be ambitious) then you’re likely to be taking home around £420 a week/£1,680 before tax and any costs associated with running your businesses. That’s just over £20k per year before tax/costs. It’s not hugely surprising then that those who are looking to leave the industry cite low pay as a reason, especially when career progression (driven by professional training) is often limited due to cost, which fitness professionals have to foot themselves.

Over the weekend a friend drew my attention to job advert for a social media role at a London gym that paid £60 per month plus unlimited classes. I know it’s not specifically a fitness role, but it is in the fitness industry so I think the observations about the state of the industry apply. Admittedly, this example is at the very far end of the piss-taking spectrum, but it does illustrate how some companies value talent, time and work in an industry where low pay is already an issue.

What was particularly interesting was how the company in question defined their values and the image they wanted to communicate. They talked about clients who built life long friendships, personal transformations, community and celebrating women’s strength and capabilities. The Guilty Feminist and and Beauty Redefined were used as examples. It’s clear this company sees itself, or at least wants to be seen, as a place that champions and supports women. Which makes the low pay offered for this role perplexing.

Pay in the Fitness Industry - A Pretty Place to Play, London Running and Fitness Blog

Pay is a feminist issue. The Office of National Statistics (ONS) suggests that in 2016 the average pay of women working full-time was nearly 10% lower than men’s pay. This means that compared to men, women stopped earning on the 10th November 2016, and after this date were effectively working for free. The gender pay gap in part-time work is even greater at just over 18% in 2016. In 2012, 64% of the lowest paid workers were women. Admittedly, the ONS found that female fitness instructors are paid 22.9% more then men, but while this is promising I don’t think that negates the industry’s responsibility to pay fairly, particularly for part-time work. It is also worth noting that, while I am drawing on data from the wider fitness industry (the emdUK drew on data from people working in a rage of roles in the industry), the ONS data only considers the role of fitness instructor. When you look at the gap for marketing associate professionals women are paid 7.5% less than men.

Coupled with this is an issue is access to quality part-time work. This is work where the flexibility is not skewed in the employer’s favour (as is arguably the case in the example above), but work quality work that pays fairly with a balances power dynamic between capital and labour. Flexible working is a feminist issue, and an important social issue and can contribute to closing the gender pay gap. According to Timewise, only 6% of quality jobs are advertised with the opportunity to work flexibly, suggesting that lower value may be attributed to part-time working when no one in leadership is working flexibly. 1.5 million people are in jobs they’re overqualified for because they need flexibility (I’m one of those people), and 1.9 million aren’t meeting their full earning potential - which would most defiantly be the case for whoever takes up this poorly paid social media role.

This is why it’s so awkward that a company that positions itself as being all about lifting women up is advertising a role that is well positioned for a woman who needs flexible work, but is paying unfairly and suggesting an uneven power dynamic. This entirely contradicts the values of feminism. It undermines the work a lot of people are doing to overcome gender pay and work issues, and most importantly it totally undervalues an individual in an environment supposedly built to elevate people.

I really hope that the wage advertised was a typo, although even £60 a week or £600 a month would be a bit low for the work being advertised. I also really hope the company concerned listen to the outpouring on comments on the advert expressing dismay at the pay and take steps to apply the values they say they have to the way they work behind the scenes.

Update: the advert has now been removed from the company’s Facebook page. I have reached out to the company for comment.

Update 16 July 2019: since I wrote this post I’ve spoken with the owner of the company mentioned. The owner explained that where they had gone wrong was posting this job on an official job page on Facebook when actually they consider it a ‘skills swap’ and that they ‘absolutely did not intend to insult, exploit or cause offence to those who are looking for part time work’. They have emphasised that they are a sole-trader offering classes in public spaces serving their local community and they do not have the income to pay a marketing professional.

The owner went on to explain that they are a novice when it comes to social media and that this was compounded by dyslexia which can mean they don’t always find it easy to communicate effectively. In hindsight they can now see just how much they’ve asked for, and that these things can’t realistically be done in a few hours a week.

The ‘skills swap’ was premised on previous experience where the owner’s clients had offered to help with elements such as branding and building their website in exchange for free classes. The owner acknowledges now that this may have led them to become a little naive and that they are embarrassed and upset about this situation. They have suspended their search for support.

I do not intend to pass judgement on this statement.

* images: Alex Dixon




Striking Women:


Iron Girl

Iron Girl - A Pretty Place to Play, London Running and Fitness Blog

This is a post I found a bit hard to write, so stay with me. If you’ve ben around for awhile you’ll know I have some big thoughts on issues around women in sport. My career is built around understanding the experiences and identities of women in sport, the barriers to participation and educating others about these issues. I am outspoken, and passionate, but I am also an academic and am trained to be critical and reflective about issues and, especially, my own thoughts. Earlier this week there was an explosion of comment on social media about the introduction of an Iron Girl race as part of the IMUK weekend in Bolton. A sister event to Ironman, Iron Girl is (at least in Bolton) a woman only 5km that will run parallel to Ironman Bolton. As you can imagine this provoked a lot of feelings. People were outraged about nearly every aspect of the event, and when I first heard about it so was I. In many respects I still am, but I also want to understand WHY the event organisers made the choices they did about this event. Yes it could just be out and out sexism, but I’m willing to give them the benefit of the doubt and consider how gender ideology might be at play.

The Science Part

A quick refresher on gender ideology. Gender ideology in sport is pervasive. I would argue that modern sport is a symbol of masculinity that creates a powerful form of sexism in society. As a result women's participation is deemed inappropriate and unwelcome outside of narrow parameters designed to protect the interests of men. While historically the exclusion of women has been based on biological facts, it can be argued that social and cultural ideas around gender roles and behaviour in society play a greater role. Ideology around gender is problematic and impacts on how we think about our selves and others, creating inequalities. 

It is vital through all of this to remember how our own experiences and lens on the world. Just because we’d have no problems entering an Ironman doesn’t mean that everyone would have the same confidence. Arguably women who are already heavily involved in sport are the exception, and there are many more people who see the idea of participation in a very different light and who experience other barriers to their participation.

Now to pick apart Iron Girl…

The Name

Iron Girl.


This is probably the element that caused the most contention on my Twitter feed. Iron Girl is aimed at women over 16, yet it refers to them as girls, a phrase that is both infantilising and patronising when directed at adults. Think about it, the statement 'throwing like a girl' has become synonymous the the idea that if you're doing something like a girl, then you're doing it the wrong way. It's an insult. A slight. It emphasises the idea that for sport to be legitimate it must encompass masculine traits. Statements like this perpetuate the idea women's sports are second rate, it trivialises it and undermines steps towards equality. It can be argued that the use of negative language can also be seen as re-emphasising the repressive stereotype that women aren't as good at sports as men, thus perpetuating the idea that endurance events like an Ironman just aren’t for women because they’re not as athletic as their male peers.

So far, so fair. However my question is why isn’t the community as outraged by the idea of This Girl Can? The concerns are just the same - I’ve written about them before, and even lifted some of the arguments I’ve made above from this post. Yes the world is much more awake to this type of causal sexism than it has ever been, but This Girl Can is still praised with little thought given to its name.

Bottom line, if we’re going to criticise events and initiatives for using phrases that infinities and patronise women lets be consistent.

The Distance

Ironman is actually just a brand which offers a variety of different races, but the longest is 2.4 mile swim, followed by 112 mile cycle with a marathon as a finisher. Iron Girl is a 5km fun run. They are starkly different events and the gendered nature of Iron Girl has provoked anger at the idea the event is suggesting women aren’t up to or for the more arduous Ironman events. I can understand this, but I don’t think it’s the organiser’s intention. Iron Girl is aimed at a very different crowd to the Ironman, outside of the UK it offers sprint distance triathlons and is designed to encourage and empower women in sport, not to tell them they’re not good enough to do an Ironman. It is arguably an effort to increase the diversity of events on offer over the IMUK weekend. It is disappointing that Iron Girl aren’t offering more than a fun run, it would’ve been good to see a sprint triathlon on offer and hopefully this will be the case in future years.

Bottom line, I’d argue that we should think of the events as a gateway to an active lifestyle, after all many of us started our careers by taking part in a fluffy fun run like Race for Life, Iron Girl isn’t really that different.

Women Only

Women only events are polarising, but personally I think that women only spaces are important. Ideology is taken for granted in society. It's a form of cultural logic that we use to make sense of the world. This is especially true in relation to gender, and as a result it can be hard to transcend traditional assumptions about difference between genders and the notion that sport is a traditionally masculine domaine. We know that fewer women then men participate in sport, and Sport England has suggested that this isn’t because women don’t want to participate, but because they’re afraid of people judged when they do. This is where gender ideologies come in - while as a society we're pretty on board with the idea of women getting physical, we've still got pretty traditional ideas about what 'appropriate' behaviour looks like, and some sports are more 'appropriate' than others. As ideology is ingrained it can be hard to persuade women that they can breach the boundaries of what is perceived as appropriate, and to persuade men to allow them into these spaces. In fact, if you are a woman in sports that aren’t traditionally considered feminine then you’ve done something pretty radical by pushing against established ideology, and not everyone has the confidence or support to do that.

Ironman is a particularly macho brand (the cut offs! the tattoos! the bravado!) and arguably an event like Iron Girl which is marketed as less aggressive could introduce women who haven’t previously been active or who may have been put off by the image of events like Ironman. It has been argued that this logic is flawed because the people who would hear about Iron Girl have some sort of link to the Ironman community (perhaps a friend or partner who is participating) and therefore are less likely to be put off, but I’m not so sure. It looks like the 5km is being supported by Bolton council and marketed outside of the endurance sports world. Even then, we can’t assume that those who have connections into the Ironman world would necessarily consider these events within their grasp.

Again, we can arguably think of these events as a gateway to an active lifestyle or participation in competitions, and they could be a key stepping stone to participation in mixed events for some women. Of course there are great mixed events that are perfect for those who’ve never taken part in something like this before, but I see it as positive that a wide variety of events are available to meet everyone’s needs.

The Branding

Really no comment here other than it is shit. Pink. Insipid. With a butterfly. Grim.

Final Thoughts

I know I sound like a wonk when I say this, but the issues surrounding women in sport and participation are complex, and there are no easy answers (if there were I wouldn’t have a job. So on reflection maybe I am a bit bias). We continue to struggle against sticky ideological issues and it is right that we draw attention to and discuss these, but we also need to be balanced and from time to time work with the system to benefit our long term aims. There is a lot not to like about the way Iron Girl is presented, and I think the recent discussion across social media have made that clear to Ironman, but there is also value in events like this if they are successful in reaching women who may not have engaged in sport otherwise. I will be curious to see how Iron Girl goes in July, but for now I’ll be mindfully critical while also seeing the potential benefits.

Many thanks to the glorious Lisa for her input on this one, I couldn’t have written it without her. Read all her thoughts on all sort here.

* image: Anna Rachel Photography

Marathon Bodies

A Pretty Place to Play Marathon Bodies

What does a marathon runner look like? Do you need to be a certain shape or size to run a marathon? What does your size say about your health? How to people react when they see bodies that aren't what they associate with the bodies of marathon runners? How do people react when those bodies are female? 

These are all questions I've been pondering over the last week or so after seeing some of the comments made about writer Bryony Gordon and model Jada Sezer after they'd run London Marathon in their undies. Bryony and Jada are both women with bums and boobs. Their middles are soft and their thighs touch. When it comes to running marathons they know exactly what they're doing. Bryony ran London last year, Jada was inspired to run by Bryony and they were both coached by Tim Weeks, who's a legend. They owned those 26.2 miles and I now want them to be my running buddies, because they look like they had A LOT of fun. Which what running is all about. 

Back to my point. Bryony and Jada was running in their undies to make an important statement - movement is for everyone, irrespective of their shape, size, colour or gender, and healthy comes in a multitude of packages. While these women got a lot of support, there was also some interesting criticism, which I want to dissect. Because I'm a nerd like that. 

Scrolling absentmindedly through Instagram while waiting for a tube I noticed that a picture of Bryony and Jada (the one above) had been shared by @runningterritory, which is one of those accounts that reposts pictures of inspiring runners (who are often impossibly toned). It was the comments on the picture that caught my eye. Comments that, initially, overwhelmingly focused on Bryony and Jada's size, with suggestions that it wasn't 'healthy' for them to run a marathon, and assumptions that they must have walked (a mean feat in itself, 26.2 miles is a bloody long way to walk). The tone was nasty and judgemental. The next day I was, once again, scrolling through Instagram and I came across another picture posted to a similar profile, this time it was of a man (the image below). This man was similar in build to Bryony and Jada, and was running with no top on, but instead of being critical, the initial comments on the post were positive and encouraging. It was this difference that got me thinking - why do people respond differently to images of men and women who are, to all intents and purposes, doing the same thing? 

A Pretty Place To Play Marathon Bodies

I'm a mega nerd about cultural ideology and sport, and in particular my area of interest is around images and identities of female runners. I could talk for days on the subject. But I won't. You can read my thesis for that. However, my interpretation of this issue is that it comes down to the ideas society has about how women should behave. Bryony and Jada are radical, they're disrupting social norms by refusing to conform to traditional notions of femininity. Although more women are running longer (and longer) distances, until relatively recently the marathon was off limits, and research I carried out last year suggests that women participate in endurance running only with 'male permission', making efforts to conform to the existing culture. It's radical to run a marathon as a woman. It’s really radical to run a marathon on your own terms. Likewise, women are fed a million messages that remind them that in order to be feminine they need to be sexually appealing, and that to be sexually appealing their bodies need to conform to certain beauty standards. Bryony and Jada are both mega sexy, but they don't necessarily meet the stringent beauty standards that are imposed once radical women step out of line. Cultural ideology works hard to maintain a status quo that favours men, which is why our topless male friend didn't necessarily receive the same critical response. By disrupting the perceptions of women - showing that they cannot only run marathons, and also that they can do it without being thin - Bryony and Jada have challenged this ideology. When ideology is challenged people push back, in this case with bitchy comments. Bitchy comments that men don't receive. 

A Pretty Place To Play marathon Bodies

In the end lots of people sent support to Bryony and Jada, and there is an overwhelming sense of awe at what they've achieved (seriously, can I run with you? You look like fun!), but this imbalance goes to show just how much more work is needed. So take inspiration and get disruptive, the more Bryony and Jada's there are in the world, the sooner our culture will change.

*Photos primarily nabbed from Bryony's Instagram profile.