John McEnroe earns 10 times more than Martina Navratilova

especially when you look at their sporting histories..

I asked this question some time ago, but received no answer. Exactly how do their sporting histories affect their abilities as commentators and expert summarisers? Does the winning of a tournament somehow increase your analytical ability, or your speaking skills?

In fact, McEnroe is widely recognised as witty, informative, innovative and insightful, willing to let the tennis speak for itself, while Navratilova is commonly described as flat, boring and not knowing when to be quiet.

Here are assessments of them both:

http://www.thefanscountryclub.com/tennis-1/2017/2/18/tennis-commentators-power-rankings

McEnroe is rated among the best of the best, Navratilova among the most mediocre.

I asked this question some time ago, but received no answer. Exactly how do their sporting histories affect their abilities as commentators and expert summarisers? Does the winning of a tournament somehow increase your analytical ability, or your speaking skills?

In fact, McEnroe is widely recognised as witty, informative, innovative and insightful, willing to let the tennis speak for itself, while Navratilova is commonly described as flat, boring and not knowing when to be quiet.

Here are assessments of them both:

http://www.thefanscountryclub.com/tennis-1/2017/2/18/tennis-commentators-power-rankings

McEnroe is rated among the best of the best, Navratilova among the most mediocre.

It, at least on a level, increases your technical knowledge of the sport.

He does 3 times the amount, but I highly doubt it's of such a significantly higher quality to account for the gap, especially when you look at their sporting histories. I have already addressed the latter argument a few times, that doesn't address the sheer difference, not in any reasonable way.

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.