Should universities like USC base their coaching salaries entirely on market considerations? Or should they pay the coaches of men’s and women’s sports comparable salaries based on experience, skill, and performance?

IN BASKETBALL, TALENT PLUS HARD WORK equals success. That’s an equation that holds true for women as well as men, and in recent years, dedicated female athletes have raised women’s basketball to new heights and won the allegiance of many new fans.71 But what about their coaches? Do any obstacles stand between them and their dreams? Marianne Stanley didn’t think so when she began coaching women’s basketball for the University of Southern California, where she earned $64,000 a year—a fair sum, one might think, but less than half that of her counterpart, George Raveling, who coached the men’s team. True, Raveling had been coaching for thirty-one years, had been an assistant on the U.S. Olympic team, and was twice named coach of the year. But Stanley was no slouch.
She had been a head coach for sixteen years and won three national championships. In her last two years at USC, she had win–loss records of 23–8 and 22–7, which compared favorably with Raveling’s 19–10 and 24–6.