Scroll to see replies
They should be paid by the amount of revenue they pull in where men clearly get more viewers/attention in most cases.
Same argument goes for why women pornstars/strippers are generally paid more than men. Because they pull in a larger audience.
Supply/Demand.
Same argument goes for why women pornstars/strippers are generally paid more than men. Because they pull in a larger audience.
Supply/Demand.
If the market allows then why not but for any other reason no.
Female tennis games are shorter yet they are paid the same as men. That is unfair on male tennis players.
Female footballers earn less. Why? They're rubbish and can't fill out stadium or get high tv viewings.
Women are generally rubbish at sport compared to men, therefore they should be paid less. For example, the williams sisters the best of womens tennis thought they could beat a male tennis player, so they picked a guy who was ranked 200, and they were beat. US/Canada female national hockey teams get wrecked by kids in highs schoolers. Sweden, England female football teams regularly get beat by boys, hence why they all earn less annually than an employee at mcdonalds who flip burgers for a living [serious].
Female footballers earn less. Why? They're rubbish and can't fill out stadium or get high tv viewings.
Women are generally rubbish at sport compared to men, therefore they should be paid less. For example, the williams sisters the best of womens tennis thought they could beat a male tennis player, so they picked a guy who was ranked 200, and they were beat. US/Canada female national hockey teams get wrecked by kids in highs schoolers. Sweden, England female football teams regularly get beat by boys, hence why they all earn less annually than an employee at mcdonalds who flip burgers for a living [serious].
Quite simply no. Most people don't really care about women's sport and it's not to the same standard as men
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
no of course not. Women's sport is awful
If you want to talk about what they 'deserve', I'd say most top sports players are paid far more than they deserve already.
Original post by ROONEY-9-MUTD
Couldn't even fill out a stadium at the 2012 olympics.
Couldn't even fill out a stadium at the 2012 olympics.
Nor could most of the men's matches. Indeed, the lowest-attended match at the 2012 Olympics was in the men's tournament, not the women's.
The 2007 Women's World Cup had roughly the same average attendance as Euro 2008 did.
(edited 9 years ago)
Yes, and it's orders of magnitude less than most of them are paid now.
Original post by anarchism101
If you want to talk about what they 'deserve', I'd say most top sports players are paid far more than they deserve already.
Supply and demand.
Original post by anarchism101
Nor could most of the men's matches. Indeed, the lowest-attended match at the 2012 Olympics was in the men's tournament, not the women's.
But the average attendance for the men's was nearly twice as high.
Original post by anarchism101
The 2007 Women's World Cup had roughly the same average attendance as Euro 2008 did.
The 2007 Women's World Cup had roughly the same average attendance as Euro 2008 did.
Ticket price difference. Also, it was held in a country with 90 times the population.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by Abdul-Karim
They should be paid by the amount of revenue they pull in where men clearly get more viewers/attention in most cases.
Same argument goes for why women pornstars/strippers are generally paid more than men. Because they pull in a larger audience.
Supply/Demand.
Same argument goes for why women pornstars/strippers are generally paid more than men. Because they pull in a larger audience.
Supply/Demand.
This.
Original post by manchesterunited15
Supply and demand.
The question isn't why they get paid what they do, but whether they deserve it.
But the average attendance for the men's was nearly twice as high.
Ticket price difference.
Ticket price difference.
I never claimed they were on a par, but if you're using attendance figures as your standard then you're painting quite a narrower gap than I suspect you actually believe exists, at least at the top level. Same with ticket prices.
Also, it was held in a country with 90 times the population.
I don't see why that makes a difference. Maybe it would if the host countries were relatively isolated and difficult for foreign fans to get to, but that's not the case here.
Original post by anarchism101
The question isn't why they get paid what they do, but whether they deserve it.
What does 'deserve' mean? They bring in the money, they should get the money. They are deserving.
I never claimed they were on a par, but if you're using attendance figures as your standard then you're painting quite a narrower gap than I suspect you actually believe exists, at least at the top level. Same with ticket prices.
As it's the Olympics, people wanted to go to whatever they could get tickets for, regardless of the standard or how much they actually wanted to see the game. If you look at the regular league attendances, it's about 1000 for women and 35,000 for men, so the gap is very wide.
I don't see why that makes a difference. Maybe it would if the host countries were relatively isolated and difficult for foreign fans to get to, but that's not the case here
Because people are more inclined to go to a world cup if it's their own country, even if it's not difficult to get to from elsewhere. You can see this in the 2011 women's world cup, in Germany, having lower attendances than the 2007 one in China, and the 2012 Euros, in Ukraine, having larger attendances than the 2008 in Austria/Switzerland.
You chose 2007 WWC vs 2008 Euros as your comparison, but if you compare 2011 vs 2012, Euro 2012 had nearly twice as large attendances. And it's a fairer comparison, although 2011 was still held in a larger country.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by anarchism101
Nor could most of the men's matches. Indeed, the lowest-attended match at the 2012 Olympics was in the men's tournament, not the women's.
The 2007 Women's World Cup had roughly the same average attendance as Euro 2008 did.
The 2007 Women's World Cup had roughly the same average attendance as Euro 2008 did.
Yes but the best female players were at the olympics. The best of the male players were away from the olympics, I think there was a rule restricting the amount of top class players that can be played. Even the average male players still attracted more supporters.
90 percent of these players won't attract high attendance levels.
If you'd ever watched a Women's football match you'd know the answer is "hell ****in' no".
Probably not but there should be equality in sport.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by lovingislosing
In what way?
Quick Reply
Latest
Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 4 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 4 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
