The Student Room Group

Scroll to see replies



Hard to say, but she will be paid more than some male commentators. Yu also get the fact he does different amounts of work, such as six luv six, which she doesnt. At some point his time is worth more money. I dont think a direct comparison is fair or as straightforward.
Because he does ten times more work.
(If he doesn't, then the complaints are fair)
He's also 10x as famous.
It depends if she's paid the proportional amount for the work she does - if he does 10 times more work then fair enough, but if he's only doing twice the amount of work then he should only be paid twice as much.
So the highly respected, multiple title winning, legend of the game who everyone has heard of earns more than the nobody.

Nothing to see here.
I assume you're willing to elaborate?
Original post by shadowdweller
It depends if she's paid the proportional amount for the work she does - if he does 10 times more work then fair enough, but if he's only doing twice the amount of work then he should only be paid twice as much.


They're not labourers. The number of hours put on the clock is not the determiner of how they're paid. It is the quality of the work done, what your work is "doing" to add to the product -- for him, his persona and celebrity makes the BBC product entertaining and perceived to be high-quality. In contrast to Channel 5 hiring a weather man to talk about Wimbledon, here we have one of the most celebrated tennis champs. Is she adding to the quality of the product to the same extent?

Also pay depends on the type of barter you've made, if you've leveraged your position in negotiations. Suppose he's paid more because he's entered into a longer contract than her, committed himself to the BBC. Even if they did the same job perfectly (which they don't), this is a reasonable grounds for one party to be paid more than another.
Original post by Notoriety
They're not labourers. The number of hours put on the clock is not the determiner of how they're paid. It is the quality of the work done, what your work is "doing" to add to the product -- for him, his persona and celebrity makes the BBC product entertaining and perceived to be high-quality. In contrast to Channel 5 hiring a weather man to talk about Wimbledon, here we have one of the most celebrated tennis champs. Is she adding to the quality of the product to the same extent?

Also pay depends on the type of barter you've made, if you've leveraged your position in negotiations. Suppose he's paid more because he's entered into a longer contract than her, committed himself to the BBC. Even if they did the same job perfectly (which they don't), this is a reasonable grounds for one party to be paid more than another.


This.

With a lot of these cases in entertainment half of it comes down to how good your manager is
Original post by Notoriety
They're not labourers. The number of hours put on the clock is not the determiner of how they're paid. It is the quality of the work done, what your work is "doing" to add to the product -- for him, his persona and celebrity makes the BBC product entertaining and perceived to be high-quality. In contrast to Channel 5 hiring a weather man to talk about Wimbledon, here we have one of the most celebrated tennis champs. Is she adding to the quality of the product to the same extent?

Also pay depends on the type of barter you've made, if you've leveraged your position in negotiations. Suppose he's paid more because he's entered into a longer contract than her, committed himself to the BBC. Even if they did the same job perfectly (which they don't), this is a reasonable grounds for one party to be paid more than another.


It is, however, a factor when you're not building a strawman argument. Yes, quality of work done is a factor, but no, his work is certainly not 10 times better than hers, even if you take into account the differences in hours between them. Similarly, leveraging of positions is a somewhat valid reason for someone to be paid more - but certainly not for them to be paid 10 times more. If a company is paying two people doing identical work such a staggeringly different amount, there is a significant flaw in that company and how it approaches its employees.
He's achieved a hell of a lot more in the game than she has, therefore his input is more valuable. I'd imagine he's getting paid more than 10x what some of his other male counterparts are, too. Typical knee-jerk nonsense from the BBC.
(edited 6 years ago)
Cristiano Ronaldo earns more than both combined; and all three earn more than an entire NHS ward staff. So, unless you're proposing to fix capitalism itself: who ****ing cares?
Original post by It's****ingWOODY
He's achieved a hell of a lot more in the game than she has


McEnroe, grand slams won: 7

Navratilova, grand slams won: 18
Original post by Drewski
McEnroe, grand slams won: 7

Navratilova, grand slams won: 18


Quality > quantity. The male game is infinitely more competitive.
Original post by It's****ingWOODY
Quality > quantity. The male game is infinitely more competitive.


She was at the top for 20 years. He barely managed 10.

You'll have to quantify your statement that he "achieved more", as simple number of trophies and matches won says differently.
Original post by A Mysterious Lord
So the highly respected, multiple title winning, legend of the game who everyone has heard of earns more than the nobody.

Nothing to see here.


I'm not sure whether you're joking or not. Martina Navratilova has won the highest number of titles in history, for both men and women. She's also a tennis legend as well as McEnroe.
Original post by Drewski
She was at the top for 20 years. He barely managed 10.

You'll have to quantify your statement that he "achieved more", as simple number of trophies and matches won says differently.


Again, it's a different class. The male game always has, and likely always will be, more competitive.
Original post by It's****ingWOODY
Again, it's a different class. The male game always has, and likely always will be, more competitive.


It's your argument that you're failing to make.

You said he's achieved more. How?
Original post by 27FT
I'm not sure whether you're joking or not. Martina Navratilova has won the highest number of titles in history, for both men and women. She's also a tennis legend as well as McEnroe.


Ay, but the female game gives out grand slams for turning up. The male game is far more competitive and you have to fight for every game,let alone slam, at the top.
Original post by Drewski
It's your argument that you're failing to make.

You said he's achieved more. How?


The value of his wins is a lot higher because the level of the competition is a lot higher. Sure, Martina won a lot, but the standard of the competition during her day pales in comparison to what the male game has always been. The prestige of men's tournaments is a whole different league to the women's counterparts.

Quick Reply

Latest