The Student Room Group

Do male and female sports players deserve to be paid the same?

Scroll to see replies

Let the market decide - if people want to watch sharapova as much as federer then yes , but if not then no !
Original post by EllieC130
Generally not; in certain sports maybe. I think the tennis thing is stupid; why the heck are female matches shorter? People might think they deserve the same if they were the same length.

The women dont complain as the shortergames mean that they can then play, and earn extra money, in doubles matches.
Top seeded men cant, so they play more but earn less.

Far more people want to see the mens finals than the womens. Consequently the tickets sell for more. Not just a bit more,....but 5x as much
The real killer though is the prize money is funded by ticket sales. So, the men play more sets,earn less money yet bring in waay more money for the prizes.
This is why originally mens prizes were more than the womens. They brought more money in.
Even if you increased the number of sets in the womens game the simple fact is that people arent willing to pay as much to see women play.
The whole prize system is unfair on the men. They bring in far more income, yet get payed much less.
If it were the other way round there would be uproar but the men , not being crippled with a sense of entitlement , just get on with it like they always do.
(edited 9 years ago)
Yes, to attract real talents. In football because women are not paid just as well, they can't focus entirely on the sport and often have part time jobs on the side. Also other younger generation women do not see football as rewarding career path because they will be unappreciated. I think even though the level of play between man and women is different in most sport as long as both sexes are working hard and giving their all, they should be paid the same. This would also attract more female interest in sport.
Reply 23
Original post by WitnessMO
Yes, to attract real talents. In football because women are not paid just as well, they can't focus entirely on the sport and often have part time jobs on the side. Also other younger generation women do not see football as rewarding career path because they will be unappreciated. I think even though the level of play between man and women is different in most sport as long as both sexes are working hard and giving their all, they should be paid the same. This would also attract more female interest in sport.


How is that going to work? Pay terrible players big money to play in front of empty stadia?
Well ... no. Women (on the whole) are less talented at sport than men i.e. top sportsmen are better at their chosen sport than top sportswomen it's a fact of life, and so as a result male and female sportspeople are paid differently. If you want them to be paid the same then you remove the sex division in sport and then see what happens (there are no professional sportswomen that's what happens).
In an ideal world yes. However, at the moment the market is not there for women's sport which is a shame I think as they still perform to a high level. That is definitely changing in women's cycling as it is shown a lot more now than in previous years. Women's cycling is on Eurosport quite a few days each week which is a good thing
Original post by MattBerry96
In an ideal world yes. However, at the moment the market is not there for women's sport which is a shame I think as they still perform to a high level. That is definitely changing in women's cycling as it is shown a lot more now than in previous years. Women's cycling is on Eurosport quite a few days each week which is a good thing


What do you mean by "in an ideal world yes"? It seems to me to be plainly obvious that the reason womens sport is unpopular and underpaid is very much related to the fact that top male athletes are better at their chosen sport than top female athletes. It's the reason we have sex based sports leagues.

Oh, but that's not fair that we punish these women for factors outside of their control ... or is it? I'm naturally not all that fantastic at sport ... it wouldn't matter how much I trained I would never be of the level of our top athletes. Should I a) be able to play my sport professionally and b) be paid as much as the top athletes? Because as far as I can see there is NO difference in falsely inflating the wages of top female athletes because they don't play their chosen sport as well as top male athletes due to factors outside of their control (biological sex) and myself being paid more because I'm not all that naturally talented at sport (again due to biological factors).
Original post by WitnessMO
Yes, to attract real talents. In football because women are not paid just as well, they can't focus entirely on the sport and often have part time jobs on the side. Also other younger generation women do not see football as rewarding career path because they will be unappreciated. I think even though the level of play between man and women is different in most sport as long as both sexes are working hard and giving their all, they should be paid the same. This would also attract more female interest in sport.


I've never studied any econ past AS and even I know this is a special kind of stupid
Original post by limetang
What do you mean by "in an ideal world yes"? It seems to me to be plainly obvious that the reason womens sport is unpopular and underpaid is very much related to the fact that top male athletes are better at their chosen sport than top female athletes. It's the reason we have sex based sports leagues.

Oh, but that's not fair that we punish these women for factors outside of their control ... or is it? I'm naturally not all that fantastic at sport ... it wouldn't matter how much I trained I would never be of the level of our top athletes. Should I a) be able to play my sport professionally and b) be paid as much as the top athletes? Because as far as I can see there is NO difference in falsely inflating the wages of top female athletes because they don't play their chosen sport as well as top male athletes due to factors outside of their control (biological sex) and myself being paid more because I'm not all that naturally talented at sport (again due to biological factors).


In an ideal world I mean that the pay shouldn't be discriminated based on sex. Yes, male athletes are generally stronger, not always better if we look at the sport as a whole e.g technique etc. For example, there are plenty of female cyclists who have far better technique than some of their male counterparts. However, surely it is not the best comparison to make as they never compete against each other. Yet you can still appreciate the sporting talents of the top female athletes in their own right and it is not like the female athletes don't train or work hard is it? I'd be willing to bet many female athletes work far harder than some male athletes.

Comparing yourself to a professional athlete whether male or female is a bit silly imo.

If the market is there for female sports then why should they not be paid an equal amount to men? If the popularity of men and womens football was reversed and women were getting paid as much as the men currently are would you have a problem with that based on the fact women may not be physically as strong as the men?
Original post by MattBerry96

If the market is there for female sports then why should they not be paid an equal amount to men? If the popularity of men and womens football was reversed and women were getting paid as much as the men currently are would you have a problem with that based on the fact women may not be physically as strong as the men?


But the market isn't there. People don't want to watch low quality athletes when there's higher quality available.
Original post by MattBerry96
In an ideal world I mean that the pay shouldn't be discriminated based on sex. Yes, male athletes are generally stronger, not always better if we look at the sport as a whole e.g technique etc. For example, there are plenty of female cyclists who have far better technique than some of their male counterparts. However, surely it is not the best comparison to make as they never compete against each other. Yet you can still appreciate the sporting talents of the top female athletes in their own right and it is not like the female athletes don't train or work hard is it? I'd be willing to bet many female athletes work far harder than some male athletes.

Comparing yourself to a professional athlete whether male or female is a bit silly imo.

If the market is there for female sports then why should they not be paid an equal amount to men? If the popularity of men and womens football was reversed and women were getting paid as much as the men currently are would you have a problem with that based on the fact women may not be physically as strong as the men?


"If the market is there for female sports then why should they not be paid an equal amount to men?" - Because the market is not as large

"Yes, male athletes are generally stronger, not always better if we look at the sport as a whole e.g technique etc. For example, there are plenty of female cyclists who have far better technique than some of their male counterparts. However, surely it is not the best comparison to make as they never compete against each other" - Surely the fair solution would be to make them compete against one another.

"Yet you can still appreciate the sporting talents of the top female athletes in their own right and it is not like the female athletes don't train or work hard is it? ... Comparing yourself to a professional athlete whether male or female is a bit silly imo." - What if I work hard at my chosen sport (yet due to reasons of biology that hard work doesn't equate to comparable skill of top athletes)? Seems a perfectly valid comparison to me based on the criteria you laid out.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by limetang
"If the market is there for female sports then why should they not be paid an equal amount to men?" - Because the market is not as large

"Yes, male athletes are generally stronger, not always better if we look at the sport as a whole e.g technique etc. For example, there are plenty of female cyclists who have far better technique than some of their male counterparts. However, surely it is not the best comparison to make as they never compete against each other" - Surely the fair solution would be to make them compete against one another.

"Yet you can still appreciate the sporting talents of the top female athletes in their own right and it is not like the female athletes don't train or work hard is it? ... Comparing yourself to a professional athlete whether male or female is a bit silly imo." - What if I work hard at my chosen sport (yet due to reasons of biology that hard work doesn't equate to comparable skill of top athletes)? Seems a perfectly valid comparison to me based on the criteria you laid out.


It was a hypothetical. Clearly at the minute the market is not there for female sports.

Well if they did compete against each other then the men would be at an advantage due to their superior strength. However, there have been some women getting test drives for F1 teams.

The women are the best females at the sport in the world though which makes it a silly comparison. If women are so biologically inferior to men then I'm guessing your average male tennis player could smash Maria Sharapova then? or your average club cyclist could beat Laura Trott? I don't think so
Original post by MattBerry96
It was a hypothetical. Clearly at the minute the market is not there for female sports.

Well if they did compete against each other then the men would be at an advantage due to their superior strength. However, there have been some women getting test drives for F1 teams.

The women are the best females at the sport in the world though which makes it a silly comparison. If women are so biologically inferior to men then I'm guessing your average male tennis player could smash Maria Sharapova then? or your average club cyclist could beat Laura Trott? I don't think so


I never claimed this. I did try to be clear that I was comparing top athletes with one another.

Also it doesn't make it a silly comparison, the whole point of it was to show that you're drawing an arbitrary line based on sex, and you didn't actually address my point. If we take it as being true that being a woman does put you at a disadvantage (when compared to men) in sport where is the difference when OTHER factors come into play that are no fault of your own that cause you to be at a disadvantage when it comes to sport?

My point is that if we genuinely believed men and women were of equal skill in sport we wouldn't give them separate leagues. Now ... I'm not arguing against female sports leagues at all I understand the cultural reason for them existing I just don't think you can argue this from a fairness perspective, which is why I don't actually agree with the notion of equal pay for women in sport.
Of course. Equal work should always mean equal pay.

But sports people (in some sports) get paid far too much (e.g. our crap footballers) whilst the top of the world struggle to earn decent money for other sports. All top class professional athletes should get a living wage and no more (unless they want sponsorship etc). Why should the footballers earn millions (but can't get past the World Cup group stage) when the other people who allow the games to go ahead (cleaners, caterers etc. only earn minimum wage)? They're both necessary. (And before you try saying they aren't - try going to a 30,000 football match when no-one's cleaned the stadium beforehand, when no-one's mowed the grass and there's no-one to buy your pint and burger from.)
Original post by limetang


Oh, but that's not fair that we punish these women for factors outside of their control ... or is it? I'm naturally not all that fantastic at sport ... it wouldn't matter how much I trained I would never be of the level of our top athletes. Should I a) be able to play my sport professionally and b) be paid as much as the top athletes? Because as far as I can see there is NO difference in falsely inflating the wages of top female athletes because they don't play their chosen sport as well as top male athletes due to factors outside of their control (biological sex) and myself being paid more because I'm not all that naturally talented at sport (again due to biological factors).


Absolutely.

I never really see this point getting made, and I think it's a very good one.

If one can argue that women are "doing the best they are genetically capable of, therefore deserving of equal pay", then surely a genetically non-sporty man could argue the same, as he is "doing sport to the best of his capability".
Original post by manchesterunited15
In what way?


Women and men are built differently and cannot play sports to the same capability. Therefore they should be paid the same to highlight that they're each playing to the best of their ability.
Original post by lovingislosing
Women and men are built differently and cannot play sports to the same capability. Therefore they should be paid the same to highlight that they're each playing to the best of their ability.


I also play to the best of my ability when I play football. Should I be paid £100,000 a week?
Original post by lovingislosing
Women and men are built differently and cannot play sports to the same capability. Therefore they should be paid the same to highlight that they're each playing to the best of their ability.


So if I play football to the best of my ability, I should get paid the same as a professional?

EDIT: ^wizard
Original post by lovingislosing
Women and men are built differently and cannot play sports to the same capability. Therefore they should be paid the same to highlight that they're each playing to the best of their ability.


Rofl dumbest thing I've read in a long long while
Of course women's sport is seen as inferior NOT because women are physically less capable but because women are seen as inferior.

Anyone who disagrees is just a misogynist.

Quick Reply

Latest