A female body playing for 2.25 hours is comparable to a male body playing for 3.25 hours. Not identical, but comparable.
US Soccer: No equal pay “because men have more responsibility”
- Thread starter Carolina Red
- Start date
Who brings in more revenue? Whoever that is deserves more money.
Like every other job.
Doesn't matter who works more, less etc etc etc.
Whoever makes the most money should get paid the most
Like every other job.
Doesn't matter who works more, less etc etc etc.
Whoever makes the most money should get paid the most
Ok, so arent you just admitting there is a difference in the output, arguing for males being paid more in this instance?
I can't see us agreeing on this and I dont want to get into a complete pissing match here i just think pay should be based on output level, quality, and financial returns etc which in most sports, isnt equal unfortunately.
Agree with the sentiment. But that isn't what uswnt are fighting over for most part, they had 2 options, they of their own volition picked the safer option, you can't complain about equal pay when you reject the terms the men are on. This is more a case of having your cake and eating it too.
Then pick a different sport. Because in Tennis you have all of those things you’re looking for.
Women do not throw the same weight discus, javelin, shot put. They don’t jump the same amount or height of hurdles. There are a litany of examples of women’s sport having slightly different criteria they compete to. Taking exception to 3 sets versus 5 is chronically stupid.
Tennis tournaments do not have equal pay.
A women’s only tournament attracts a sponsor and awards prize money.
A male only tournament attracts a sponsor and awards prize money.
Male tournaments generally pay more in that scenario.
When they have men and women competing in the same stadia, at the same time, for the equivalent titles... they earn the same.
Objecting to that marks you out as misinformed, or sexist. Pick one. There’s no third option.
Sadly this is the truth. Monetary remuneration is directly linked to how much revenue a business generates. Traders work less than a lot of middle office/back office workers and earn multiple times more, because they are the ones who bring in the revenue. If womens football was as equally followed and had equal commercial success, of course women would be paid the same.
A woman can win a grand slam match by scoring 48 points (if she wins every point). If a man scores every point he has to score 72 points to win a match and you're trying to say that's the same job? The man has clearly had to work longer to achieve the same goal which does not amount to equal.
I think tennis is a perfect example because before you even get into an argument of opinions on quality, you have the facts that the mens and womens game are entirely different.
Even if you look purely at one sport, the NFL, they want an extra game a season and as a compromise the nfl salary cap will need increased to pay the players more forthe extra game.
Also, im neither of the two options you listed. So we'll just agree to disagree
Last edited:
Careful now, thats sexist or mis informed
The problem women's sport principally has is that it is inferior to mens sport due to the physical advantages men have over women.
Now, I do not want to come across as sexist but sport is a industry that is primarily based upon spectacle, athletic ability and competition and there is no way around that. I mean if we're being serious the best women's national teams are equivalent to very low non-league/high level Sunday league football as there have been multiple cases of top womens teams losing heavily to U15 sides i.e. 14 year olds;
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.da...team-suffer-5-2-loss-FC-Dallas-U-15-boys.html
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.da...-Newcastle-Jets-15s-Rio-Olympics-warm-up.html
Now I know that those games listed above were friendlies but it does give an indication of where the level of elite level womens football is at. This is also why womens sport does not receive the same viewers as Men's sport as it is simply not as good, which is also why the lower you go down the leagues in men's football, the lower the attendances.
There are of course some sports in which women can compete with men, motorsports/horse racing etc and of course women should get the same pay based on their achievements in these sports. However, to say that women sport should get the same money isn't really fair as the quality level is clearly different which in turn affects the revenue levels that they are able to generate.
Now, I do not want to come across as sexist but sport is a industry that is primarily based upon spectacle, athletic ability and competition and there is no way around that. I mean if we're being serious the best women's national teams are equivalent to very low non-league/high level Sunday league football as there have been multiple cases of top womens teams losing heavily to U15 sides i.e. 14 year olds;
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.da...team-suffer-5-2-loss-FC-Dallas-U-15-boys.html
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.da...-Newcastle-Jets-15s-Rio-Olympics-warm-up.html
Now I know that those games listed above were friendlies but it does give an indication of where the level of elite level womens football is at. This is also why womens sport does not receive the same viewers as Men's sport as it is simply not as good, which is also why the lower you go down the leagues in men's football, the lower the attendances.
There are of course some sports in which women can compete with men, motorsports/horse racing etc and of course women should get the same pay based on their achievements in these sports. However, to say that women sport should get the same money isn't really fair as the quality level is clearly different which in turn affects the revenue levels that they are able to generate.
Stupid it is. What are prattling on about the NFL for?
For women to play 5 sets makes Women’s Tennis worse. Women’s Tennis is set up for women. Mens Tennis is set up for Men.
Because your little brain looks a 5 being a bigger number than 3 you think you’ve got it all figured out.
Women’s events pay less than mens events.
When they play at the same event they get paid the same.
Why is that a problem for you?
I dont think you understand what you’re saying. Equality in sport doesn’t mean equal work for equal pay, as it would on a dockers picket line
It’s possible to acknowledge differences between physical ability, without being punitive.
At Major Tennis events you have circa 500,000 people gathered to watch Tennis. The show courts are close to capacity for most matches. The revenues of that tournament should be shared equally.
Why do you object to that?
Because a massive portion of their revenue comes from TV numbers and the TV numbers for men's and women's matches are very different.
Nothing to do with sexism, I couldn’t care if it’s a man, woman or robot kicking a ball around but the women’s game is generally of a piss poor standard that draws pennies in comparison with the men.
Most of it even at the highest international level is so laughable it’s cringe.
Most of it even at the highest international level is so laughable it’s cringe.
You think it takes the same amount of work to play 3 sets as it does to play 5?
To the extent that it takes the same amount of work for a woman to throw a 4kg shotput as a man to throw 7kg. Yes.
Stop focusing on a number. It’s irrelevant and doesn’t make the point you think it does. It marks you out as stunted in thought.
Again : I fully support an all mens tournament paying more than an all womens tournament, if revenues are higher. But when they play in Front of the same crowd, drinking the same £10 Pimms, in the same stadia, on the same day, for the same ticket cost... they should earn the same.
Why is that a problem?
Negotiated a different package but overall were paid more on average per game. Still file a lawsuit for pay discrimination. Maths probably a bit beyond them to be fair.
The more general argument is obvious. If you produce a better product that brings in substantially more viewing numbers and commercial revenue, you get paid more. That's what fair looks like. Women's football in America is much more globally successful than the men's and they're getting paid more because of it.
The more general argument is obvious. If you produce a better product that brings in substantially more viewing numbers and commercial revenue, you get paid more. That's what fair looks like. Women's football in America is much more globally successful than the men's and they're getting paid more because of it.
You could of just apologized.Okay, I was grammatically incorrect, don't shoot me! I know you guys like to do that sort of thing
With the way that events like the Olympics/athletics and tennis are held, I think equal pay is fine and fair. However, there is the arguement that, if you had Tennis grand slams/Olympics on different weeks for men and women, then the women would see a drop in figures. However, this point is moot as it cannot be proved and is not going to happen.
I completely agree with you. I’m fully supportive of common sense measures.
But anyone suggesting women should get less at slams, and large tour events, with MILLIONS in the table... is sexist. Plain and simple.
men's football -- higher level, rewards more
women's football -- lower level, rewards less
Generally, it's two different fields of "competitions".
Why should there be equal pay?
"Jobs" that are more difficult with more potential rewards should be paid more.
Actual "revenue gain" matters less.
Achievements should be rewarded of course.
But then isn't the US women footballers already gained a lot more pay than the average which normally women footballers at the top level gets? This movement is just to get an increase in pay. I don't know the exact numbers, so if it's too low then it should be increase, however I don't see why it needs to be equal or even more. Once the decision for equal pay is approved, next there will be demands to get more pay isn't it.
If the competition is the same thing competed by both, then clearly there should be equal pay, irrespective of gender.
women's football -- lower level, rewards less
Generally, it's two different fields of "competitions".
Why should there be equal pay?
"Jobs" that are more difficult with more potential rewards should be paid more.
Actual "revenue gain" matters less.
Achievements should be rewarded of course.
But then isn't the US women footballers already gained a lot more pay than the average which normally women footballers at the top level gets? This movement is just to get an increase in pay. I don't know the exact numbers, so if it's too low then it should be increase, however I don't see why it needs to be equal or even more. Once the decision for equal pay is approved, next there will be demands to get more pay isn't it.
If the competition is the same thing competed by both, then clearly there should be equal pay, irrespective of gender.
Basically anyone who doesn't share your opinion on the issue is sexist right?
Without even talking about the fact that there's a difference between 3 sets and 5 which you seem to want to overlook and also the quality of play which is way higher in the men's game, the ticket prices for the male games are higher too...
I thought the same with regards to physicality, previously.
However I actually think the lack of physicality actually sees some benefit in the women’s Game. I watched the World Cup closely and was very very surprised at the great technique In the women’s game.
I actually ended up thinking, I’ve switched onto a random game here and I’ve enjoyed it much more than switching onto a random men’s game and the lack of physicality actually enabled technique to come to the fore and I thoroughly enjoyed it.
Haha what?
You’re going to have to read the rest of the posts. It’s explained.
I assume you can be happy with a loose wrap around comment of: “Men are physically stronger and have higher outputs in almost all sporting endeavours”
Women’s football can be of a high technical standard. It can be great to watch at times.
Why they insist on having identical sizes pitches, with identical sized goals, with far smaller Goalkeepers is beyond me.
It remains women’s footballs biggest failing. Scoring goals is one of the hardest things to do in any sport. You see goals from distance in women’s football weekly that would be goal of the season contenders if they were beating a professional guy who was 6’ 4”. As it is, all impact is lost as goalkeepers are in massively oversized goals.
What are you even talking about throughout this thread?
Tickets to mens tennis at the opens sre more expensive than the womens.
Look
https://m.tennistours.com/australian-open/
https://m.tennistours.com/wimbledon/
Technique is the one area of womens football where there is a very good level of play. I wouldn't disagree on that point. However, the overall play is a serious notch below men's football.
In my opinion, I have never got why women play on the same size pitch with the same sized goals as men. In a lot of other sports, there is some adaptation i.e. shot put/discus/golf/archery they use different equipment and/or shorten the length of the playing areas. In my opinion, if they reduced the size of the pitch and goals by 20% then the technical aspect of the game would be much improved and would play to the strengthsof women players. Further, it would also benefit the GK's who get a lot of stick for essentially not being able to cover the area/space quickly enough on shots even though they are typically a lot smaller.
I agree men are physically superior in strenght, speed and resistance but I dont think it can be compared as 2.5 hours equals 3.5.
wow this really put things into perspective, the world champions humilliated by the U-15 of an MLS team wtf.
How can you possibly think that helps your argument?
3 matches out of around 600 have a higher ticket price for men.
594 matches have people watching that paid to watch men’s AND women’s Tennis.
The issue isn’t what’s ‘Better’ or what people may prefer. It’s 3 weeks of close to a million visitors watching Tennis. It’s a huge pot of money and it’s split fairly.
I can’t see why someone just hasn’t told this to the women’s team to be honest. Their job earnings is based on advertising revenue. They don’t attract as much as the men’s game. Simple as that.
But do you OBJECT to that difference? Because nobody says shit about Shot Put. Or Golf Tees.
It’s arbitrary. Best of 5 can’t be best of 4 for women. Maybe Best of 5 could be retained and sets could be shortened.
But would it really matter?
Women fly the same tour routes. They stay in the same hotels and commit to the same training regimes. They see their families at the same frequency. AND THEY HAVE PERIODS AND BABIES.
The time per game difference is not that different. Why do we need it to be closer or the same to be credited as worthy? It’s pathetic.
In America, the US Women's team bring in more revenue, they have a much higher viewing rating and are immensely popular.
Other than that I don't actually know anything about this case since I havent read up on it so I wont say who's right or wrong. The US Men's and Women's national teams are not state, but privately owned, which undoubtedly plays into it.
I don’t have an issue with them being paid the same or more regardless.
But unless you show me the science that playing 3 sets instead of 5 is comparable, I just don’t believe it’s “more time” rather than work.
Tennis is odd women’s events pay less even if they are held at the same place as they have different organisers, Wta vs atp. Despite them both playing best of three set matches. At grand slams everyone gets paid the same despite the men playing more tennis, it would really be fairer if they flipped the prize system
Does women’s football actually draw as claimed? Similar to the US our Canadian Women’s team has been more successful than the men’s team but if I wanted to see them play I could get in for $10 or free because they give tickets away to kids in that play recreationally. The stadium has a healthy attendance number but if tickets are free or for little money it’s hollow.
It seems like everyone wants to pump up the women’s game but if they were as popular or profitable as people claim one of the major networks would’ve picked up the domestic league which has all the big names playing in it. Since their existence they’ve had to stream games themselves or been on random cable channels.
It seems like everyone wants to pump up the women’s game but if they were as popular or profitable as people claim one of the major networks would’ve picked up the domestic league which has all the big names playing in it. Since their existence they’ve had to stream games themselves or been on random cable channels.
IF the women are getting paid comparatively less when they are bringing in more money then they sure have a case, but I heard on a radio show today that they get paid mor
If they bring in more they should be paid more. THats a no brainer for me.