# How unequal is equality.



## Tashyboy (Mar 23, 2016)

Kicked off over the last few days re tennis with a guy saying that men should get more money than women in tennis because they attract more viewers, more TV money and play longer sets.

The world number one has supported these views, but looks like he has backed down a bit since. in the Women's defence they are saying there should be equality in prize money.

However, The cycling tour of Yorkshire chief exec is now going on record and saying how proud he is to be supporting the richest prize in women's cycling by paying Â£15k to the winner of the one day race. not got an issue with that. but he goes on to say that " even if the same bloke won the equivalent three days comp and overall classification he would still end up 40% cash Behind the woman who wins the woman's race.

Am I missing something here, how's that right? If the tennis scenario is wrong, how's the cycling issue right.


----------



## dewsweeper (Mar 23, 2016)

Tashyboy,
It is the way of the world nowadays.
As George Orwell wrote"we are all equal but some are more equal than others"or something similar.


----------



## Robster59 (Mar 23, 2016)

The issue I have with the tennis is that women play fewer games (best of 3 rather than best of 5) so even on that basis there should be a difference.


----------



## larmen (Mar 23, 2016)

I think the equality debate has nothing to do with sport. It's not about someone winning Â£1.5 million while another is 'only' winning Â£750k. Both should be really happy.

It should be about some people earning Â£9,15 an hour while their male work mates earning Â£9,45.


----------



## Papas1982 (Mar 23, 2016)

The tennis one really does get my goat. Not because of the the fact they play less tennis. I'm sure the top players are as devoted in their training. But professional sport is a business and the men's game subsidises the women's.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Mar 23, 2016)

Have no issues with equal prize money if they all play the same level of game - 

In slams 5 sets each


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Mar 23, 2016)

Robster59 said:



			The issue I have with the tennis is that women play fewer games (best of 3 rather than best of 5) so even on that basis there should be a difference.
		
Click to expand...

Totally agree. If you play the same game (number of sets) then same money...if not, no, men deserve more


----------



## FairwayDodger (Mar 23, 2016)

larmen said:



			I think the equality debate has nothing to do with sport. It's not about someone winning Â£1.5 million while another is 'only' winning Â£750k. Both should be really happy.

It should be about some people earning Â£9,15 an hour while their male work mates earning Â£9,45.
		
Click to expand...

Exactly! Amazing that the gender pay gap is a huge inequity in our society but all it takes is a whiff of a rare instance where it benefits a woman and someone needs to start a thread about it.

As for tennis, I can't even be bothered arguing the toss but here's an article that's worth a read on the subject.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/tennis/35863208


----------



## Tashyboy (Mar 23, 2016)

larmen said:



			I think the equality debate has nothing to do with sport. It's not about someone winning Â£1.5 million while another is 'only' winning Â£750k. Both should be really happy.

It should be about some people earning Â£9,15 an hour while their male work mates earning Â£9,45.
		
Click to expand...

But that's the thing about unequal equality, your not wrong that there are two differant pay rates for differant sexes, but why should it stop at  the lower pay scale.

my issue was it kicked off when A earned more than B, now B is earning more than A nothing has been said. It's an odd world.


----------



## Region3 (Mar 23, 2016)

For the tennis, I don't have an issue with the fact that the men play more sets (usually) than the women.

All sport is business nowadays, and the prize money should reflect the revenue each gender generates IMO (unless one sex is supporting the other to try to grow the sport).

Can you imagine the top women footballers asking for Â£250,000 per week because they play the same length matches as the men?
Clubs would go under in weeks because they don't generate the gate receipts and tv money that the men's clubs do.

In the normal working world, the pay for a particular job should be just that, regardless of who is doing the work.


----------



## Papas1982 (Mar 23, 2016)

FairwayDodger said:



			Exactly! Amazing that the gender pay gap is a huge inequity in our society but all it takes is a whiff of a rare instance where it benefits a woman and someone needs to start a thread about it.

As for tennis, I can't even be bothered arguing the toss but here's an article that's worth a read on the subject.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/tennis/35863208

Click to expand...

Well from that article it looks like the other events follow common sense. Less than 50% viewers and she's earned. Ore than 50% of Novak. No problem with that at all.


----------



## Crow (Mar 23, 2016)

The easy thing to do would be to have women only tournaments and men only tournaments, rather than sharing the purse of a tournament where men and women are competing.

Then each is genuinely getting a percentage of the money their tournament generates. 

Would make for a less interesting tournament but that's by the by as in most things these days, money comes first.


----------



## Imurg (Mar 24, 2016)

I'm all for equality in all walks of life but the cycling decision is strange.
For years, Men have had bigger prize money, rightly or wrongly.
Now there are calls for equality so a cycling event ups the Women's prize to 40% above the Men's....
So.......
What part of equality isn't being understood..?
How can that be described as Equality...?
2 wrongs don't make a right.
If equality is sought then equality should be found.
Not an equality where one side gets 40% more than the other for the same thing.
It adds fuel to the fire


----------



## bluewolf (Mar 24, 2016)

The ToY prize money is a bit of a red herring really. The organisers have endeavoured to provide a blue chip woman's race. They are keen to publicise the fact that Yorkshire is home to the current 1 day World champ (the ever watchable Lizzie Armitstead). They have full TV coverage and are hoping to make it one of the biggest races on the calendar. 

The men's race is somewhat small scale by comparison. There are too many big races in the calendar already, so they can't grow the race in the same way. It's a commercial decision.


----------



## irip (Mar 24, 2016)

When you look at what sports people earn it is very different to what the normal working man/woman earns which makes it impossible to compare the two.

The sports which generate the most money and are most popular normally do so because of the interest in the male side of the game, which in turn results in the men earning more money, which i believe to be correct, if there is a sport which generates more money and sponsors because of the female competitors then it is only right that the ladies get paid more.

In the normal workplace if two people are doing the same job then they should be paid the same irrespective of gender, but we all know sadly this is not always the case.


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Mar 24, 2016)

The question is do you force equality upon sport or do you allow market forces to set pay scales? If you force equal pay then one side subsidises the other. Sport is entirely different to other walks of life as you get paid purely on an ability to win or to help a team win. Win / lose, it is quite black and white. 

 Being good at a sport does not entitle you to make a living at it. People have to want to watch you, sponsors have to see there is something in it for them. The football / rugby / cricket analogies are very good ones. Should they be paid equally? No, that would be madness. Womens tennis has done better than Bob Crowe in their negotiations but if they want to get really upity then they should run their grand slams separately from the mens and keep all the revenue that they create. I suspect this will not be happening.


----------



## garyinderry (Mar 24, 2016)

I respect Novak less after the absolute tosh he came out with to cover up what he said.


----------



## Slab (Mar 24, 2016)

Iâ€™m absolutely in the camp that a salary for the same job should be the same regardless of gender but carrying this over to a prize fund in a sporting competition is a little harder to see. 

Its a prize fund not a salary so the equality question for tennis and other sports is should they have equal prizes. Its easy to answer yes they should but are your club trophies & prizes for mens & womens comps equal at your golf club and if not what have you done about it?  

For the pro's on the face of it it seems simple enough just make them equal but whatâ€™s the next stage, would the male/female comp winners then be entitled to exactly the same equal value sponsorship deal arising from that comp win regardless of personality, expected ROI, market influences etc? 

In the real world we live in salaries should be equal


----------



## Hacker Khan (Mar 24, 2016)

Tashyboy said:



			Kicked off over the last few days re tennis with a guy saying that men should get more money than women in tennis because they attract more viewers, more TV money and play longer sets.

The world number one has supported these views, but looks like he has backed down a bit since. in the Women's defence they are saying there should be equality in prize money.

However, The cycling tour of Yorkshire chief exec is now going on record and saying how proud he is to be supporting the richest prize in women's cycling by paying Â£15k to the winner of the one day race. not got an issue with that. but he goes on to say that " even if the same bloke won the equivalent three days comp and overall classification he would still end up 40% cash Behind the woman who wins the woman's race.

Am I missing something here, how's that right*? If the tennis scenario is wrong, how's the cycling issue right*.
		
Click to expand...

Because you are trying to simply what is a very nuanced and complicated argument that touches on many areas such as equal rights for women and sponsorship of sporting events?


----------



## Stuey01 (Mar 24, 2016)

Â£15k for the women's ToY and you're up in arms about it.  Are you having a laugh?

What's the prize for the men's TdF or Giro D'Italia, versus the women's equivalent?


----------



## freddielong (Mar 24, 2016)

Imurg said:



			I'm all for equality in all walks of life but the cycling decision is strange.
For years, Men have had bigger prize money, rightly or wrongly.
Now there are calls for equality so a cycling event ups the Women's prize to 40% above the Men's....
So.......
What part of equality isn't being understood..?
How can that be described as Equality...?
2 wrongs don't make a right.
If equality is sought then equality should be found.
Not an equality where one side gets 40% more than the other for the same thing.
It adds fuel to the fire
		
Click to expand...

The balance should compare to the viewing figures of a comparable event.


----------



## Tashyboy (Mar 24, 2016)

Who is up in arms. Certainly not me. The people that were up in arms have gone deafeningly quiet, now that equal women are getting more.

I am pointing out facts and am interested in people's views, and if you have read all the blog it has been quite educating re why the ToY women are getting more. For the record though my opinion is,  if it does create a "blue riband " event in women's cycling then I am all for it.


----------



## Stuey01 (Mar 24, 2016)

Tashyboy said:



			For the record though my opinion is,  if it does create a "blue riband " event in women's cycling then I am all for it.
		
Click to expand...

Fair enough.  Could do with one tbh, women's pro road cycling lags a long way behind the men's.


----------



## CheltenhamHacker (Mar 24, 2016)

Tashyboy said:



			Who is up in arms. Certainly not me. The people that were up in arms have gone deafeningly quiet, now that equal women are getting more.
		
Click to expand...

In one small event. That's it. Talk about selective choosing...


----------



## Scott W (Mar 24, 2016)

Wimbledon 2008 - Mens Final : Federer vs Nadal - absolute classic, lasted 4 hrs 48 mins of enthralling sport over 5 sets

2014 - Ladies Final - Kevitova beat Eugenie Bouchard 6-3 6-0 in 55 minutes

WTA TV deal = Â£365m over 10 years

ATP TV deal = Â£904m over the same period

I support equality in all areas of life but this is different deliverables for a different price - simple economics


----------



## CheltenhamHacker (Mar 24, 2016)

Scott W said:



			Wimbledon 2008 - Mens Final : Federer vs Nadal - absolute classic, lasted 4 hrs 48 mins of enthralling sport over 5 sets

2014 - Ladies Final - Kevitova beat Eugenie Bouchard 6-3 6-0 in 55 minutes

WTA TV deal = Â£365m over 10 years

ATP TV deal = Â£904m over the same period

I support equality in all areas of life but this is different deliverables for a different price - simple economics
		
Click to expand...

Ah ok, so they should be paid by the minute? how about if the womens final was  a 7-6, 6-7 , 6-4 thriller, while the mens was 6-0. 6-0. 6-0. Do we have to pay women more that year?


----------



## Scott W (Mar 24, 2016)

CheltenhamHacker said:



			Ah ok, so they should be paid by the minute? how about if the womens final was  a 7-6, 6-7 , 6-4 thriller, while the mens was 6-0. 6-0. 6-0. Do we have to pay women more that year?
		
Click to expand...

My point is that the men's game delivers longer matches on average over a tournament, generates more income (ticket sales, TV revenue etc) ... if one individual averaged a 30 hour week but another had to average a 40 hour week for the same earning is that right?


----------



## Hacker Khan (Mar 24, 2016)

Scott W said:



			My point is that the men's game delivers longer matches on average over a tournament, generates more income (ticket sales, TV revenue etc) ... *if one individual averaged a 30 hour week but another had to average a 40 hour week for the same earning is that right?*

Click to expand...

The slight flaw in that argument is that elite sportspeople are not getting paid on a per minute basis.  if so Usain Bolt would be skint.


----------



## Scott W (Mar 24, 2016)

Ok let me try again with a different example

Mens open golf vs Womens open golf - both over 4 x 18 holes same rules VERY different prize money...maybe not "right" but an economic fact

Mens game = big sponsors, TV exposure etc

Womens game = struggles for sponsors limited coverage and viewing figures

Should the prize money be the same?


----------



## freddielong (Mar 24, 2016)

Scott W said:



			Ok let me try again with a different example

Mens open golf vs Womens open golf - both over 4 x 18 holes same rules VERY different prize money...maybe not "right" but an economic fact

Mens game = big sponsors, TV exposure etc

Womens game = struggles for sponsors limited coverage and viewing figures

Should the prize money be the same?
		
Click to expand...

This is how it is, until any women's sport (other than beach volleyball ) pulls the same amount of viewers or the same size sponsorship deals as the Men they should not receive the same prize money.


----------



## Scott W (Mar 24, 2016)

Region3 said:



			In the normal working world, the pay for a particular job should be just that, regardless of who is doing the work.
		
Click to expand...

Wholly agree with this, my point is "prize money" in sport is linked to revenue generation by that sport for each gender


----------



## Hacker Khan (Mar 24, 2016)

Scott W said:



			Ok let me try again with a different example

Mens open golf vs Womens open golf - both over 4 x 18 holes same rules VERY different prize money...maybe not "right" but an economic fact

Mens game = big sponsors, TV exposure etc

Womens game = struggles for sponsors limited coverage and viewing figures

Should the prize money be the same?
		
Click to expand...

I can see an argument for that.  It was just the tired lazy old 'they play for 5 sets, they play for 3' argument I object to as it is a lot more complicated than that.


----------



## Hacker Khan (Mar 24, 2016)

freddielong said:



			This is how it is, until any women's sport (other than beach volleyball ) pulls the same amount of viewers or the same size sponsorship deals as the Men they should not receive the same prize money.
		
Click to expand...

I know sport has sold it's soul to corporate sponsorship, but should how an athlete earns their money should be directly and only linked to how much sponsorship/viewers they generate?  Nothing at all to do with the amount of time and effort put in to get to that point?


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Mar 24, 2016)

Hacker Khan said:



			I can see an argument for that.  It was just the tired lazy old 'they play for 5 sets, they play for 3' argument I object to as it is a lot more complicated than that.
		
Click to expand...

Why is it more complicated than that ?

There should be no reason for the ladies to not play 5 sets in the Slams.

At the moment because they only play 3 sets a lot of the lady tennis players also enter the ladies and mixed doubles so players like Williams can earn a lot more than some of the men in prize money.


----------



## Slab (Mar 24, 2016)

Hacker Khan said:



			I know sport has sold it's soul to corporate sponsorship, but should how an athlete earns their money should be directly and only linked to how much sponsorship/viewers they generate?  Nothing at all to do with the amount of time and effort put in to get to that point?
		
Click to expand...

Trouble is that time & effort needs to be split against every tournament. You cant reward the combined T&E every week unless its proportional across the players career

So maybe its only Â£10,000 that covers time & effort for one Wimbledon


----------



## hovis (Mar 24, 2016)

I think the group that get paid the most should be the group that attract the most spectators. 

Spectors including home viewing attracts more revenue thus being able to pay more money for prizes.


----------



## freddielong (Mar 24, 2016)

Hacker Khan said:



			I know sport has sold it's soul to corporate sponsorship, but should how an athlete earns their money should be directly and only linked to how much sponsorship/viewers they generate?  Nothing at all to do with the amount of time and effort put in to get to that point?
		
Click to expand...

Yes but that is why they are getting the money in the first place that enables them to train 7 days a week etc.

Without corporate sponsorship there is no prize fund


----------



## FairwayDodger (Mar 24, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Why is it more complicated than that ?

There should be no reason for the ladies to not play 5 sets in the Slams.

At the moment because they only play 3 sets a lot of the lady tennis players also enter the ladies and mixed doubles so players like Williams can earn a lot more than some of the men in prize money.
		
Click to expand...

Alright enough is enough I can't take this <whiny voice>Ooh the women only play three sets</whiny voice> crap any more.

Ask the top female players and I bet they'd love to play five sets. Ask the tournament directors and they'll have palpitations at the very thought of it. Yay an extra week for each of the slams!

I'm not a great tennis fan but it is what it is and both the men's and women's championships are a big part of the grand slam experience. Make any of them men-only and it would be greatly diminished. When I do watch tennis I have seen some really turgid men's matches and some brilliant, compelling women's ones. And vice versa! 

Make no mistake, nobody is excited about watching milos raonic vs john isner so it's not the "men's game" that is the big draw subsidising anything. It's Federer, Djokovitch, Nadal, Williams, Sharapova etc that are the big draws - the stars of the game of both genders. 

Spectators at the slams, TV and media coverage, sponsors are all there because of the slam experience in its entirety not to watch two male non-entities whacking it over the net from the baseline for 3, 4 or 5 sets. 

It really really pisses me off that one of the few areas in life where there really is gender pay equality - tennis grand slam prize money - causes so much bitterness and resentment from sad gits that don't have anything better to worry about. In the real world women are systematically discriminated against and paid less - across the board from low skilled right up to boardroom level jobs.

For example, my wife is a lawyer and she showed me this. Female solicitors earn FORTY-TWO percent less than their male counterparts.

http://www.lawscot.org.uk/news/2015...ifference-between-male-and-female-solicitors/

Where is the outrage about that, forum? I don't recall any threads about that? No, but the slightest hint that women might actually benefit from some inequity or even that it's "unfair" (boo hoo) that we have actually been treated equally in some regard and the sad gits are up in arms.

Get your heads out of your arses, gentlemen!


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Mar 24, 2016)

FairwayDodger said:



			Alright enough is enough I can't take this <whiny voice>Ooh the women only play three sets</whiny voice> crap any more.

Ask the top female players and I bet they'd love to play five sets. Ask the tournament directors and they'll have palpitations at the very thought of it. Yay an extra week for each of the slams!

I'm not a great tennis fan but it is what it is and both the men's and women's championships are a big part of the grand slam experience. Make any of them men-only and it would be greatly diminished. When I do watch tennis I have seen some really turgid men's matches and some brilliant, compelling women's ones. And vice versa! 

Make no mistake, nobody is excited about watching milos raonic vs john isner so it's not the "men's game" that is the big draw subsidising anything. It's Federer, Djokovitch, Nadal, Williams, Sharapova etc that are the big draws - the stars of the game of both genders. 

Spectators at the slams, TV and media coverage, sponsors are all there because of the slam experience in its entirety not to watch two male non-entities whacking it over the net from the baseline for 3, 4 or 5 sets. 

It really really pisses me off that one of the few areas in life where there really is gender pay equality - tennis grand slam prize money - causes so much bitterness and resentment from sad gits that don't have anything better to worry about. In the real world women are systematically discriminated against and paid less - across the board from low skilled right up to boardroom level jobs.

For example, my wife is a lawyer and she showed me this. Female solicitors earn FORTY-TWO percent less than their male counterparts.

http://www.lawscot.org.uk/news/2015...ifference-between-male-and-female-solicitors/

Where is the outrage about that, forum? I don't recall any threads about that? No, but the slightest hint that women might actually benefit from some inequity or even that it's "unfair" (boo hoo) that we have actually been treated equally in some regard and the sad gits are up in arms.

Get your heads out of your arses, gentlemen!
		
Click to expand...

Not bitter about it as it doesn't affect me 

I used to steward at Wimbledon and could see who the people wanted to see - even on the show courts for the top lady players there were lots of empty seats but the men's were solid booked with queues at return 

If ladies want to play 5 sets then I don't think it would take much to get the organisers to change it 

If the thread was about equal pay for lawyers then I would post and agree they should be paid the same for doing the same job at the same level for the quality. But I wouldn't know there was unequal pay for lawyers.

I spent 22 years working in an environment where every single person regardless of sex gets paid the same if they are the same rank and trade - I have no issues with that at all


----------



## Kellfire (Mar 24, 2016)

Would we agree that the higher the quality of the sport the higher the rewards should be?

If so, let's have a tournament of the top 16 men vs the top 16 women. See how that goes. 

No?


----------



## Hacker Khan (Mar 24, 2016)

FairwayDodger said:



			Alright enough is enough I can't take this <whiny voice>Ooh the women only play three sets</whiny voice> crap any more.

Ask the top female players and I bet they'd love to play five sets. Ask the tournament directors and they'll have palpitations at the very thought of it. Yay an extra week for each of the slams!

I'm not a great tennis fan but it is what it is and both the men's and women's championships are a big part of the grand slam experience. Make any of them men-only and it would be greatly diminished. When I do watch tennis I have seen some really turgid men's matches and some brilliant, compelling women's ones. And vice versa! 

Make no mistake, nobody is excited about watching milos raonic vs john isner so it's not the "men's game" that is the big draw subsidising anything. It's Federer, Djokovitch, Nadal, Williams, Sharapova etc that are the big draws - the stars of the game of both genders. 

Spectators at the slams, TV and media coverage, sponsors are all there because of the slam experience in its entirety not to watch two male non-entities whacking it over the net from the baseline for 3, 4 or 5 sets. 

*It really really pisses me off that one of the few areas in life where there really is gender pay equality - tennis grand slam prize money - causes so much bitterness and resentment from sad gits that don't have anything better to worry about. In the real world women are systematically discriminated against and paid less - across the board from low skilled right up to boardroom level jobs.*

For example, my wife is a lawyer and she showed me this. Female solicitors earn FORTY-TWO percent less than their male counterparts.

http://www.lawscot.org.uk/news/2015...ifference-between-male-and-female-solicitors/

Where is the outrage about that, forum? I don't recall any threads about that? No, but the slightest hint that women might actually benefit from some inequity or even that it's "unfair" (boo hoo) that we have actually been treated equally in some regard and the sad gits are up in arms.

Get your heads out of your arses, gentlemen!
		
Click to expand...

To steal a sound effect from Fighting Talk, Hallelujah,  Hallelujah.

Here here, well said, couldn't agree more.


----------



## Tashyboy (Mar 25, 2016)

CheltenhamHacker said:



			In one small event. That's it. Talk about selective choosing...
		
Click to expand...

But thats what this forum is all about selective choosing. Like you choose to select my first sentance without including the rest of my post where i actually agreed with the sum
Being paid to women in the TOY.

 It's not took me a day to think that up. I am in Vienna watching ice age in German i think whilst missis t puts her face on.


----------



## jusme (Mar 25, 2016)

Region3 said:



			For the tennis, I don't have an issue with the fact that the men play more sets (usually) than the women.

All sport is business nowadays, and the prize money should reflect the revenue each gender generates IMO (unless one sex is supporting the other to try to grow the sport).

Can you imagine the top women footballers asking for Â£250,000 per week because they play the same length matches as the men?
Clubs would go under in weeks because they don't generate the gate receipts and tv money that the men's clubs do.

In the normal working world, the pay for a particular job should be just that, regardless of who is doing the work.
		
Click to expand...

Exactly this ^


----------



## Tashyboy (Mar 31, 2016)

jusme said:



			Exactly this ^
		
Click to expand...

Nah then jusme, it seems that may well be the case with the US Women's football team. Some of them are kicking off ( sorry ) coz they get paid less than the men. 

Getting fed fed up of popcorn.


----------



## FairwayDodger (Mar 31, 2016)

Tashyboy said:



			Nah then jusme, it seems that may well be the case with the US Women's football team. Some of them are kicking off ( sorry ) coz they get paid less than the men.
Getting fed fed up of popcorn.
		
Click to expand...

This one is interesting. Do you think the US Women's team should get paid more, less or the same as the US men?


----------



## davidy233 (Mar 31, 2016)

FairwayDodger said:



			This one is interesting. Do you think the US Women's team should get paid more, less or the same as the US men?
		
Click to expand...

I'd say more - they are more successful - make more money for US Soccer and pull in at least as big TV audiences


----------



## Tashyboy (Mar 31, 2016)

FairwayDodger said:



			This one is interesting. Do you think the US Women's team should get paid more, less or the same as the US men?
		
Click to expand...

To be honest FD, am gonna sit on the fence and pull the splinters out tomorrow. As I have already said, re women's ToY. The payday is a lot but it is a chance for a blue riband event.
however re women's soccer in the US of A. I can understand there arguement. But I have not got a clue re what they get in tv revenue compared to men.


----------



## FairwayDodger (Mar 31, 2016)

Tashyboy said:



			To be honest FD, am gonna sit on the fence and pull the splinters out tomorrow. As I have already said, re women's ToY. The payday is a lot but it is a chance for a blue riband event.
however re women's soccer in the US of A. I can understand there arguement. But I have not got a clue re what they get in tv revenue compared to men.
		
Click to expand...

Poor show, Tashyboy. Should have read the article and not just the headline before going off on another rant. This one doesn't fit your agenda.

http://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/mar/31/us-soccers-wage-gap-is-americas-shame


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Mar 31, 2016)

Don't the players mainly get their wages from club football as opposed to the national team ? 

Do the US give their players a wage as well ? 

It mentions top ladies getting 70,000 and the men getting 250,000 ?


----------



## Tashyboy (Mar 31, 2016)

FairwayDodger said:



			Poor show, Tashyboy. Should have read the article and not just the headline before going off on another rant. This one doesn't fit your agenda.

http://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/mar/31/us-soccers-wage-gap-is-americas-shame

Click to expand...

Firstly FD I am not having a rant, just pointing out an issue where women are asking for equality. In this case, women's USA football where they say ( through there legal representative) they bring more money to the game in USA than the men do.
 Now for one minute, let's just say I go along with that and agree with that ( which I do ). Can someone remind me again why women are paid the same in tennis when they do not generate the same income as men. But we have already been there with that one. Hence the title "How unequal is equality".If the USA  case is based upon we generate more than you so we deserve the same if not more, I can see a big can of worms on the horizon, where sports women get paid far less because of what they generate.
re the link on the guardian the last time I read that my chips &#127839; were in it, my knowledge of this issue came via the BBC.


----------



## richart (Mar 31, 2016)

I have absolutely no problems with men and women getting equal money at grand slams. They all get paid outrageous amounts anyway. Are the men saying they should get more, or that women should get less ? If it is the former, it is just greed, and if it is the later it is none of their business. Women have negotiated equal pay, so good on them.


----------



## Papas1982 (Mar 31, 2016)

richart said:



			I have absolutely no problems with men and women getting equal money at grand slams. They all get paid outrageous amounts anyway. Are the men saying they should get more, or that women should get less ? If it is the former, it is just greed, and if it is the later it is none of their business. *Women have negotiated equal pay, so good on them*.
		
Click to expand...

I think that last bit is what Novak said. The problem now is that the men's game does generate more. So, of the men renegotiate, are they all of a sudden greedy? Or good on them for getting their worth?


----------



## richart (Mar 31, 2016)

Papas1982 said:



			I think that last bit is what Novak said. The problem now is that the men's game does generate more. So, of the men renegotiate, are they all of a sudden greedy? Or good on them for getting their worth?
		
Click to expand...

 Do the men need more money just for themselves, or could they perhaps put their support into more money all round. Bit of solidarity amonst tennis players, rather than just looking after their own sex.

In my opinion they get more than enough already !!


----------



## davidy233 (Apr 1, 2016)

Tashyboy said:



			Firstly FD I am not having a rant, just pointing out an issue where women are asking for equality. In this case, women's USA football where they say ( through there legal representative) they bring more money to the game in USA than the men do.
 Now for one minute, let's just say I go along with that and agree with that ( which I do ). Can someone remind me again why women are paid the same in tennis when they do not generate the same income as men. But we have already been there with that one. Hence the title "How unequal is equality".If the USA  case is based upon we generate more than you so we deserve the same if not more, I can see a big can of worms on the horizon, where sports women get paid far less because of what they generate.
re the link on the guardian the last time I read that my chips &#127839; were in it, my knowledge of this issue came via the BBC.
		
Click to expand...

US mens national team made a loss of $1 million last year - Women's team made a profit of circa $20 million and won the World Cup


----------



## Hacker Khan (Apr 1, 2016)

richart said:



			Do the men need more money just for themselves, or could they perhaps put their support into more money all round. Bit of solidarity amonst tennis players, rather than just looking after their own sex.

In my opinion they get more than enough already !!
		
Click to expand...

To quote Fighting talk again, Hallelujah, Hallelujah.

Multi millionaires several times over whinging on about money is a bit rich in my book.


----------



## jusme (Apr 1, 2016)

This type of equality argument really gets on my goat. The person or their bits should be totally irrelevant. I wouldn't even go as far as saying that people doing the same job should be getting equal pay. No one does the 'same' job. Everyone performs different. It should (but won't) be simple. You get paid by performance and in sport, that equates to commercial interest. Whether you have bits sticking in or out or no bits at all, whether your a monkey or a wrench, it shouldn't matter. Performance, performance performance from the bottom up. Reward skill and ability. Solely because I have a vagina I should get equal pay to you. No you shouldn't. Based on your performance you should get more or less than than the next person, regardless of bits


----------



## Snelly (Apr 1, 2016)

I have changed my view on this recently. 

I am 100% in favour of gender equality on pay in all walks of life and especially sport which is exceptional in this debate.  

I used to think sports prize money should be controlled by market forces but have changed my view as if it were left to the market, women's sport, in my opinion, would forever be in the shadow and this is a bad thing in every sense. 

I am in favour of just about all sports events having a legal requirement to offer competitions to both genders with equal prize money. Sport is so high profile that equality in this area of life can only be a good thing in terms of affecting the pay gap elsewhere.  Perhaps this means the mens prize values should come down in some cases?  Either way, if women's sport is to thrive and grow - something I would love to see happen, gender pay equality is a crucial step. 

More money in women's sport will lead to greater participation and consequently, a vast improvement in standards - something that really needs to happen to make women's sport watchable - at present, much of it generally isn't, at least for me personally.  

Good to see the BBC leading on this too with TMS placing a lot of emphasis on the Women's England cricket team and also reporting with equality on the boat races.


----------



## Deleted Member 1156 (Apr 1, 2016)

I haven't read all the replies on this but I would like to make a couple of comments....

SPORT: Pay is determined by supply and demand. If more people tune into mens tennis than womens and sponsors get more return for their investment then it is fair and understandable that men have greater prizemoney. If women stopped grunting on every shot maybe a few more people would watch!!!!!!!

SALARIES: Pretty much all big companies have rigid pay structures where any particular job has a salary band. I find it hard to believe that there are large discrepancies between men and women. I'm sure a lot of the reported cases are the exception rather than the rule. You can always find anomalies if you look hard enough.


----------



## FairwayDodger (Apr 1, 2016)

drive4show said:



			If women stopped grunting on every shot maybe a few more people would watch!!!!!!!
		
Click to expand...

You know some people would dismiss a comment like this as pure sexism but you're right this is a huge problem. Just listen to the horrendous grunting of the women in this clip....

[video=youtube;dFSOk_THvDQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFSOk_THvDQ[/video]


----------



## Deleted Member 1156 (Apr 1, 2016)

FairwayDodger said:



			You know some people would dismiss a comment like this as pure sexism but you're right this is a huge problem. Just listen to the horrendous grunting of the women in this clip....
		
Click to expand...


You have just emphasized my point, if you look hard enough you will find exceptions to the rule. I would love to watch womens tennis as they are just as skillful as the men but the grunting is ridiculous. It never used to happen until Monica Seles appeared on the scene, now it is almost a requirement. Does it make them hit the ball harder?


----------



## Rooter (Apr 1, 2016)

drive4show said:



			Does it make them hit the ball harder?
		
Click to expand...

Have you never grunted while hitting a driver? Might get you to forum average! Dare you to try it on the first this weekend...


----------



## FairwayDodger (Apr 1, 2016)

drive4show said:



			You have just emphasized my point, if you look hard enough you will find exceptions to the rule. I would love to watch womens tennis as they are just as skillful as the men but the grunting is ridiculous. It never used to happen until Monica Seles appeared on the scene, now it is almost a requirement. Does it make them hit the ball harder?
		
Click to expand...

Not really, I was trying to make a serious point in a humourous manner. Some female players grunt and some don't, some male players grunt and some don't but it's only ever the women's grunting that seems to be singled out. 

It's partly why it's difficult to have a serious discussion about the OP. It's a complicated issue, certainly not black and white in any way, but the thread is full of casual sexism and posters who automatically dismiss women's sport without any sensible consideration of the bigger picture.


----------



## Qwerty (Apr 1, 2016)

A way forward initially would be for the Worlds largest sporting events to have Ladies and Gents sides of the tournament, say in the Open for example.. the ladies Open (at the same course) would run for the 4 days before. 
Women's Football World Cup.. Same country immediately before or after, and so on.

It works in tennis so why not other Sports/Events. Gate money, Sponsors money and TV money all split = Equal pay. 
..and on the whole each event would be a better sporting spectacle for it.


----------



## harpo_72 (Apr 1, 2016)

Take the emotion of gender out of the argument. Think about the show, what gets the most viewers.
What is basically being said is movie A is better than movie B but movie B doesn't make the same gross because more people watched movie A is that unfair??


----------



## FairwayDodger (Apr 2, 2016)

harpo_72 said:



			Take the emotion of gender out of the argument. Think about the show, what gets the most viewers.
What is basically being said is movie A is better than movie B but movie B doesn't make the same gross because more people watched movie A is that unfair??
		
Click to expand...

The trouble is that everyone who tries to break it down like this takes a hugely complex situation and over simplifies it.


----------



## harpo_72 (Apr 2, 2016)

FairwayDodger said:



			The trouble is that everyone who tries to break it down like this takes a hugely complex situation and over simplifies it.
		
Click to expand...

Or somethings are simple but being made complex ..... By the way I make sure that all my employees irrespective of gender are paid on their experience and ability. Sexism works two ways, there is a generation of men coming through who do not care about gender and honestly I cringe at both sides.


----------

