Systematic Sexism: Women’s Sports News in a Circle of Gatekeepers and Users on Twitter
By Bünyamin Ayhan and Yavuz Demir (2025)
Analyzed by Megan Ricketts
By Bünyamin Ayhan and Yavuz Demir (2025)
Analyzed by Megan Ricketts
Topic and Justification:
The article Systematic Sexism: Women’s Sports News in a Circle of Gatekeepers and Users on Twitter by Ayhan and Demir (2025) examines how both traditional and digital sports media in Turkey present women’s sports on Twitter, and how users respond to that coverage. The authors explore the imbalance between men’s and women’s coverage by analyzing Twitter posts from major outlets (p. 419). This topic matters because despite social progress and the expansion of women’s sports globally, the visibility and tone of coverage remain deeply imbalanced.
By focusing on Twitter, where “there are no time or space restrictions” (p. 419), the authors show that patriarchal attitudes are still prevalent (pp. 420–421). Sports coverage that should be democratized continues to reinforce hierarchies where men’s sports are the norm and women’s are the exception.
The article Systematic Sexism: Women’s Sports News in a Circle of Gatekeepers and Users on Twitter by Ayhan and Demir (2025) examines how both traditional and digital sports media in Turkey present women’s sports on Twitter, and how users respond to that coverage. The authors explore the imbalance between men’s and women’s coverage by analyzing Twitter posts from major outlets (p. 419). This topic matters because despite social progress and the expansion of women’s sports globally, the visibility and tone of coverage remain deeply imbalanced.
By focusing on Twitter, where “there are no time or space restrictions” (p. 419), the authors show that patriarchal attitudes are still prevalent (pp. 420–421). Sports coverage that should be democratized continues to reinforce hierarchies where men’s sports are the norm and women’s are the exception.
Objective/RQ/H:
Ayhan and Demir sought to identify how gatekeepers—those who have the “control [of] information, news screening and selection within mass media” (p. 423)—frame women’s sports and how audiences react.
RQ1: How much, where, when, why, and how are women’s sports covered on Twitter by gatekeepers?
RQ2: Who comments on women’s sports news, and what do they say?
To expand on these two questions, the study also addresses the following two:
RQ3: Which sports are most frequently covered for women athletes?
RQ4: Do users comment in sexist or hegemonic ways about women’s sports?
Together, these questions examine whether social media disrupts or sustains gender barriers in sports journalism.
Ayhan and Demir sought to identify how gatekeepers—those who have the “control [of] information, news screening and selection within mass media” (p. 423)—frame women’s sports and how audiences react.
RQ1: How much, where, when, why, and how are women’s sports covered on Twitter by gatekeepers?
RQ2: Who comments on women’s sports news, and what do they say?
To expand on these two questions, the study also addresses the following two:
RQ3: Which sports are most frequently covered for women athletes?
RQ4: Do users comment in sexist or hegemonic ways about women’s sports?
Together, these questions examine whether social media disrupts or sustains gender barriers in sports journalism.
Method:
Ayhan and Demir used a hybrid quantitative and qualitative approach combining content analysis and netnography (p. 425). Netnography is a research methodology “which adapts ethnographic research methods to examine the cultures and communities that form through digital interactions” (p. 425). The researchers studied tweets and comments from June 25 to July 31, 2022. This time took place during several major women’s sporting events, including UEFA Women’s European Championship, Wimbledon, and the Volleyball Nations League Finals.
They analyzed 17,938 sports tweets from six Turkish sports outlets with Twitter accounts. Two newspapers, Fanatik and Fotomaç, two TV channels, Aspor and TRT Spor, and two digital sports platforms, Sporx and Mackolik (p. 424). Using Nvivo 11 for coding, they created nodes to categorize both the tweets and the 1,038 user comments under them. Tweets were coded by content type (success, failure, personal life, informative/neutral, or sexist) while comments were coded for sexism, gender stereotypes, objectification and sarcasm, or neutrality (pp. 425–426). Two independent coders validated the categories to ensure reliability.
Ayhan and Demir used a hybrid quantitative and qualitative approach combining content analysis and netnography (p. 425). Netnography is a research methodology “which adapts ethnographic research methods to examine the cultures and communities that form through digital interactions” (p. 425). The researchers studied tweets and comments from June 25 to July 31, 2022. This time took place during several major women’s sporting events, including UEFA Women’s European Championship, Wimbledon, and the Volleyball Nations League Finals.
They analyzed 17,938 sports tweets from six Turkish sports outlets with Twitter accounts. Two newspapers, Fanatik and Fotomaç, two TV channels, Aspor and TRT Spor, and two digital sports platforms, Sporx and Mackolik (p. 424). Using Nvivo 11 for coding, they created nodes to categorize both the tweets and the 1,038 user comments under them. Tweets were coded by content type (success, failure, personal life, informative/neutral, or sexist) while comments were coded for sexism, gender stereotypes, objectification and sarcasm, or neutrality (pp. 425–426). Two independent coders validated the categories to ensure reliability.
What They Discovered:
The findings from the study expose a dramatic imbalance: only 3.41% (n=612) of all tweets were about women’s sports, while 96.59% (n=17,326) focused on men (p. 427). Within women’s coverage, the largest share (42.65%) featured volleyball, a sport culturally deemed “gender-appropriate.” Meanwhile, football dominated men’s coverage with 95.34%, underscoring that Turkish sports media still view football as inherently male territory (p. 429).
The tone of coverage also revealed bias. Failure accounted for the largest category (35.29%) of women’s sports tweets, followed by informative/neutral (24.96%), success (23.86%), personal life (11.6%), and sexist framing (2.29%) (pp. 429-430). In other words, female athletes were more often highlighted for losing or for their private lives than for their achievements (p. 431).
User engagement magnified this bias. Of 1,038 comments, 962 came from men, 52 from anonymous accounts and only 24 women contributed. Every one of the women’s comments fell into the neutral/supportive category (p. 432). As Ayhan and Demir point out, “This category contains all the tweets made by 24 women who commented on sports news on Twitter” (p. 432).
This detail is striking: women’s only visible participation in the discourse was positive and sports-focused, while men dominated the hostile, mocking, and sexualized commentary. Examples include objectifying comments like “Volleyball players have beautiful legs” (p. 433) and stereotyping comments such as “Women should not play football” (p. 434), both of which decontextualize women’s athleticism and reaffirm male ownership of sports spaces.
The findings from the study expose a dramatic imbalance: only 3.41% (n=612) of all tweets were about women’s sports, while 96.59% (n=17,326) focused on men (p. 427). Within women’s coverage, the largest share (42.65%) featured volleyball, a sport culturally deemed “gender-appropriate.” Meanwhile, football dominated men’s coverage with 95.34%, underscoring that Turkish sports media still view football as inherently male territory (p. 429).
The tone of coverage also revealed bias. Failure accounted for the largest category (35.29%) of women’s sports tweets, followed by informative/neutral (24.96%), success (23.86%), personal life (11.6%), and sexist framing (2.29%) (pp. 429-430). In other words, female athletes were more often highlighted for losing or for their private lives than for their achievements (p. 431).
User engagement magnified this bias. Of 1,038 comments, 962 came from men, 52 from anonymous accounts and only 24 women contributed. Every one of the women’s comments fell into the neutral/supportive category (p. 432). As Ayhan and Demir point out, “This category contains all the tweets made by 24 women who commented on sports news on Twitter” (p. 432).
This detail is striking: women’s only visible participation in the discourse was positive and sports-focused, while men dominated the hostile, mocking, and sexualized commentary. Examples include objectifying comments like “Volleyball players have beautiful legs” (p. 433) and stereotyping comments such as “Women should not play football” (p. 434), both of which decontextualize women’s athleticism and reaffirm male ownership of sports spaces.
Why should anyone care about this?
This study matters because of the exposure it gives to entrenched gender bias that remains in sports journalism and fan culture, even within spaces that claim to be progressive (pp. 435-436). Social media was once praised as a tool for inclusion and direct audience engagement, but Ayhan and Demir show that it can just as easily amplify voices aimed to exclude.
The gatekeepers (journalists and editors shaping the tweets) are not just passive transmitters of culture. Their choices determine who gets seen, what gets celebrated, and whose stories matter. The users, on the other hand, act as secondary gatekeepers, perpetuating sexist norms through their comments (p. 436). Together, this cycle of “systematic sexism” reproduces inequality both from the top down (in media framing) and from the bottom up (in audience discourse).
It also raises a universal question: if women’s leagues are always framed as “the other,” will sports ever truly be gender-equal? The authors indirectly point out an irony that extends beyond Turkey. For example, why is it the WNBA (Women’s National Basketball Association) but not the MNBA (Men’s National Basketball Association)? When I typed “MNBA,” my computer autocorrected it to NBA. That subtle default perfectly illustrates the study’s argument. The baseline for sports remains male. Everything else is an exception.
This study matters because of the exposure it gives to entrenched gender bias that remains in sports journalism and fan culture, even within spaces that claim to be progressive (pp. 435-436). Social media was once praised as a tool for inclusion and direct audience engagement, but Ayhan and Demir show that it can just as easily amplify voices aimed to exclude.
The gatekeepers (journalists and editors shaping the tweets) are not just passive transmitters of culture. Their choices determine who gets seen, what gets celebrated, and whose stories matter. The users, on the other hand, act as secondary gatekeepers, perpetuating sexist norms through their comments (p. 436). Together, this cycle of “systematic sexism” reproduces inequality both from the top down (in media framing) and from the bottom up (in audience discourse).
It also raises a universal question: if women’s leagues are always framed as “the other,” will sports ever truly be gender-equal? The authors indirectly point out an irony that extends beyond Turkey. For example, why is it the WNBA (Women’s National Basketball Association) but not the MNBA (Men’s National Basketball Association)? When I typed “MNBA,” my computer autocorrected it to NBA. That subtle default perfectly illustrates the study’s argument. The baseline for sports remains male. Everything else is an exception.
Comparison:
The published abstract and the Microsoft Copilot AI summary share a similar factually correct core but differ in nuance. The AI summary discusses the key statistics and correctly identifies the focus on gatekeepers and user interactions. However, it lacks the interpretive depth that defines Ayhan and Demir’s analysis. The published abstract situates findings within Gramsci’s (1971) theory of hegemony and Connell & Messerschmidt’s (2005) concept of masculine dominance, explaining why patriarchal systems endure (p. 420). The AI summary, by contrast, lists results without discussing ideology. It treats sexism as an observable outcome rather than a carefully manipulated and produced structure.
For example, while Copilot notes that “gatekeepers perpetuated patriarchal norms,” it omits how those norms emerge from institutionalized masculine discourse (p. 421). Likewise, it neglects the nuance that “gender-appropriate” coverage of volleyball and tennis functions as symbolic exclusion (p. 429). In essence, the AI captures what but not why. Ironically, that gap reinforces the study’s own thesis: automation mirrors human bias. Just as sports editors filter news through gendered lenses, AI distills complex power dynamics into surface-level summaries.
In short, the AI summary does an excellent job reporting the study’s findings, but it misses its ideological backbone. Where the human-written abstract interprets sexism as a function of cultural hegemony, the AI treats it as a data trend. This difference reinforces the article’s own argument. Automation, like journalism, reflects the systems that created it.
The published abstract and the Microsoft Copilot AI summary share a similar factually correct core but differ in nuance. The AI summary discusses the key statistics and correctly identifies the focus on gatekeepers and user interactions. However, it lacks the interpretive depth that defines Ayhan and Demir’s analysis. The published abstract situates findings within Gramsci’s (1971) theory of hegemony and Connell & Messerschmidt’s (2005) concept of masculine dominance, explaining why patriarchal systems endure (p. 420). The AI summary, by contrast, lists results without discussing ideology. It treats sexism as an observable outcome rather than a carefully manipulated and produced structure.
For example, while Copilot notes that “gatekeepers perpetuated patriarchal norms,” it omits how those norms emerge from institutionalized masculine discourse (p. 421). Likewise, it neglects the nuance that “gender-appropriate” coverage of volleyball and tennis functions as symbolic exclusion (p. 429). In essence, the AI captures what but not why. Ironically, that gap reinforces the study’s own thesis: automation mirrors human bias. Just as sports editors filter news through gendered lenses, AI distills complex power dynamics into surface-level summaries.
In short, the AI summary does an excellent job reporting the study’s findings, but it misses its ideological backbone. Where the human-written abstract interprets sexism as a function of cultural hegemony, the AI treats it as a data trend. This difference reinforces the article’s own argument. Automation, like journalism, reflects the systems that created it.
Citation
Ayhan, B., & Demir, Y. (2025). Systematic sexism: Women’s sports news in a circle of gatekeepers and
users on Twitter. Communication & Sport, 13(3), 419–441. https://doi.org/10.1177/21674795221147644
users on Twitter. Communication & Sport, 13(3), 419–441. https://doi.org/10.1177/21674795221147644
Microsoft Copilot AI Summary (from 09/14/25)
This study investigates the representation of women’s sports in Turkish sports media on Twitter, focusing on both content producers (gatekeepers) and user interactions. Analyzing 17,938 tweets from major sports outlets between June 25 and July 31, 2022, researchers found that only 3.41% of the content was dedicated to women’s sports. Coverage was skewed toward “gender-appropriate” sports like volleyball, while football dominated men's coverage (95.34%). Gatekeepers often framed women’s sports through narratives of failure, personal life, or superficial success, with limited informative or unbiased reporting.
User comments revealed entrenched sexism: 85.54% of analyzed comments objectified female athletes, reinforced gender stereotypes, or excluded women from sports discourse. Male users overwhelmingly dominated the conversation, often trivializing women’s achievements or mocking their participation. Even in the absence of space constraints on Twitter, gatekeepers perpetuated patriarchal norms by selectively amplifying content that invited sexist engagement.
The study highlights how traditional and digital media gatekeepers, through selective reporting and framing, contribute to the marginalization of women in sports. It also shows how user interactions on social media mirror and reinforce these biases, creating a feedback loop that sustains gender inequality. Despite the presence of major women’s tournaments during the study period, coverage remained minimal and often decontextualized. The findings underscore the need for more equitable media practices and challenge the notion that digital platforms inherently democratize representation.
User comments revealed entrenched sexism: 85.54% of analyzed comments objectified female athletes, reinforced gender stereotypes, or excluded women from sports discourse. Male users overwhelmingly dominated the conversation, often trivializing women’s achievements or mocking their participation. Even in the absence of space constraints on Twitter, gatekeepers perpetuated patriarchal norms by selectively amplifying content that invited sexist engagement.
The study highlights how traditional and digital media gatekeepers, through selective reporting and framing, contribute to the marginalization of women in sports. It also shows how user interactions on social media mirror and reinforce these biases, creating a feedback loop that sustains gender inequality. Despite the presence of major women’s tournaments during the study period, coverage remained minimal and often decontextualized. The findings underscore the need for more equitable media practices and challenge the notion that digital platforms inherently democratize representation.
Communciation 341, Media, Society & Sport, Dr. Joseph Blaney, Illinois State University
