Women footballers demand equal pay and news coverage to men

Watch
generallee
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#41
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#41
(Original post by AnonymousNoMore)
But we can't judge the skill of both genders because there is an unequal amount of funding in grassroot football.
And even on a moral ground, doesn't matter because we live in a capitalist society and so the most money brought in = most paid.
Like comedians, you may think that one is less skilled but they may get paid more because they bring in bigger audiences.
Yes you CAN judge the skill levels. Sport is very good at that. A team which completely destroys the other in a competitive contest that requires technique, is the more skilful. Is playing at a higher, more elevated level.

This is the absurdity of feminist dogma, we are supposed to believe that women are the equal of men. Well they may be in many fields, indeed they may be far superior in lots of them. But not sport, not football. Good grief, they are even talking about making the goals smaller in women's football because the female goalkeepers are too small to protect goals designed for the male physique!

This isn't complicated.

To your other point you are just repeating your is, not making a moral case against my ought.
1
reply
Advertisement
Drewski
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#42
Report 2 weeks ago
#42
(Original post by generallee)
Yes you CAN judge the skill levels. Sport is very good at that.
...for teams that compete against one another.

And that's why the men's and women's sports are separate. As much as, yes, the men's team would win against the women's, it's irrelevant because they don't compete against each other.
0
reply
Bang Outta Order
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#43
Report 2 weeks ago
#43
(Original post by SHallowvale)
The article you've linked is from 2016 and isn't related to equal pay or equal media coverage. Do you have anything more recent, or better an official statement from them?
But it was funny
0
reply
Advertisement
generallee
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#44
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#44
(Original post by Drewski)
...for teams that compete against one another.

And that's why the men's and women's sports are separate. As much as, yes, the men's team would win against the women's, it's irrelevant because they don't compete against each other.
It is the same sport. They play on the same pitch, under exactly the same rules.

They are kept "separate" only because the difference in skill and ability is so large, such a chasm, that for them to be on the same pitch, at the same time would be utterly absurd, as a sporting contest. Muhammed Ali against a schoolboy playground bully.

In UK football terms, the US men's team is Liverpool and the women's non league Dagenham and Redbridge. In fact Dagenham and Redbridge would muller the best women's team in the world if they actually played them!

So there are no moral grounds for equality of pay, non whatsoever. If anything those boys at FC Dallas are way underpaid. THAT is the gender pay gap that should be closed...
0
reply
SHallowvale
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#45
Report 2 weeks ago
#45
(Original post by Drewski)
...for teams that compete against one another.

And that's why the men's and women's sports are separate. As much as, yes, the men's team would win against the women's, it's irrelevant because they don't compete against each other.
Indeed, that's another angle you can look at it.

OP doesn't seem to understand that you make money by how much you can sell, not by how good you are relative to others.
0
reply
Advertisement
generallee
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#46
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#46
(Original post by SHallowvale)
Indeed, that's another angle you can look at it.

OP doesn't seem to understand that you make money by how much you can sell, not by how good you are relative to others.
That isn't true in men's football.

It is actually rather Darwinian. The better you are relative to other footballers, the more you get paid.

Sure there are some who are overpaid relative to their merits and others under. But as a general rule it holds true. The best players get paid the most.

(Whether they deserve, on moral grounds, once again, the obscene amounts of money they get paid is another matter...)
0
reply
SHallowvale
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#47
Report 2 weeks ago
#47
(Original post by generallee)
That isn't true in men's football.

It is actually rather Darwinian. The better you are relative to other footballers, the more you get paid.

Sure there are some who are overpaid relative to their merits and others under. But as a general rule it holds true. The best players get paid the most.

(Whether they deserve, on moral grounds, once again, the obscene amounts of money they get paid is another matter...)
...because better players typically win more and thus earn more money for their superiors. Better players also tend to attract larger crowds and hence generate more revenue.

Do you think that people should be paid purely on how much more skill they have than other people in the same field/industry?
0
reply
Advertisement
generallee
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#48
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#48
(Original post by SHallowvale)
...because better players typically win more and thus earn more money for their superiors. Better players also tend to attract larger crowds and hence generate more revenue.

Do you think that people should be paid purely on how much more skill they have than other people in the same field/industry?
In broad terms, on moral grounds, yes.

It is a pretty imperfect payment model in men's football, though, it has to be said.

There is the malign influence of player's agents, for example. These parasites make millions from facilitating a big transfer. Then the superstar players get a massive pay off, just for signing, and have guaranteed monthly salaries, (enough to fund a score of NHS nurses) often organised offshore, whether they play or not. So often they go off the boil, and/or spend it on drugs and hot women. Slay queens.

And of course there are brilliant players in lower profile clubs who don't get transfers and get paid a fraction of someone no better, or even worse at a rich club.

I know all about the is. I am arguing the ought, as I keep on saying...
0
reply
AnonymousNoMore
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#49
Report 2 weeks ago
#49
(Original post by generallee)
Yes you CAN judge the skill levels. Sport is very good at that. A team which completely destroys the other in a competitive contest that requires technique, is the more skilful. Is playing at a higher, more elevated level.

This is the absurdity of feminist dogma, we are supposed to believe that women are the equal of men. Well they may be in many fields, indeed they may be far superior in lots of them. But not sport, not football. Good grief, they are even talking about making the goals smaller in women's football because the female goalkeepers are too small to protect goals designed for the male physique!

This isn't complicated.

To your other point you are just repeating your is, not making a moral case against my ought.
I don't understand what you're trying to prove here. We can't say the gap of the skill level, because they receive unequal level of funding to grass roots football, that's why you see the vast difference in skill level.
It's really not that complicated, we just don't know how or if men are better at football given the same funding and systemic approach.

That would be like saying women are smarter because they have a higher percentage go to university, it's just not that plain and simple because there are multitudes of reasons as to why that is.
Stop trying to make everything so black and white. And stop trying to talk in a moral form, because that's not how it works in tee real world.
1
reply
Advertisement
SHallowvale
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#50
Report 2 weeks ago
#50
(Original post by generallee)
In broad terms, on moral grounds, yes.

It is a pretty imperfect payment model in men's football, though, it has to be said.

There is the malign influence of player's agents, for example. These parasites make millions from facilitating a big transfer. Then the superstar players get a massive pay off, just for signing, and have guaranteed monthly salaries, (enough to fund a score of NHS nurses) often organised offshore, whether they play or not. So often they go off the boil, and/or spend it on drugs and hot women. Slay queens.

And of course there are brilliant players in lower profile clubs who don't get transfers and get paid a fraction of someone no better, or even worse at a rich club.

I know all about the is. I am arguing the ought, as I keep on saying...
If a record company has two musicians, Person A and Person B, of whom Person A is objectively a better musician, should Person A receive more money from the company even if their music doesn't sell nearly as well as Person B's?

If a streaming website has two video game partners, Person A and Person B, of whom Person A is far better player, should Person A receive more money from the website even if their streams don't have nearly as many viewers or subscribers as Person B's?

Why is it moral to give more money to someone whose work does not generate the most income? If anything, it's more moral to give the most money to the people/persons who generate you the most income. That's a far fairer system.
0
reply
generallee
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#51
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#51
(Original post by AnonymousNoMore)
I don't understand what you're trying to prove here. We can't say the gap of the skill level, because they receive unequal level of funding to grass roots football, that's why you see the vast difference in skill level.
It's really not that complicated, we just don't know how or if men are better at football given the same funding and systemic approach.

That would be like saying women are smarter because they have a higher percentage go to university, it's just not that plain and simple because there are multitudes of reasons as to why that is.
Stop trying to make everything so black and white. And stop trying to talk in a moral form, because that's not how it works in tee real world.
I am trying to prove that men are better at football for biological reasons. They are, on average, taller, stronger, faster and more powerful. In elite sport that is a crucial edge.

In a physical endeavour that requires players to run races against each other to assume positions, muscle opponents off the ball, kick it very hard, jump to head and catch it, men are going to be better than women. 15 year old boys at a mediocre club even are way better, let alone the best adult male players in the world.

That's all I am saying. In what way is it wrong?? And how will increased "funding to grassroots football" make women stronger, faster, taller?

But let's say I AM wrong. Let's say that women are only far weaker and inferior football players because of a lack of funding to train them when younger. Nothing to do with biology.

I don't agree, but let's allow it, for the sake of argument. You still then accept my contention that women are currently far worse at the sport, even if not the reason for it. So why then should they get the same money?

And you say that this is an abstract moral case, not for the real world. But this is the very argument being advanced by US soccer in this lawsuit. So it is very much of the real world.
0
reply
Advertisement
generallee
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#52
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#52
(Original post by SHallowvale)
If a record company has two musicians, Person A and Person B, of whom Person A is objectively a better musician, should Person A receive more money from the company even if their music doesn't sell nearly as well as Person B's?

If a streaming website has two video game partners, Person A and Person B, of whom Person A is far better player, should Person A receive more money from the website even if their streams don't have nearly as many viewers or subscribers as Person B's?

Why is it moral to give more money to someone whose work does not generate the most income? If anything, it's more moral to give the most money to the people/persons who generate you the most income. That's a far fairer system.
Because a degree of consummate brilliance in a given field ought to be better rewarded than mediocrity within it. A just moral order would reward greatness over the mundane.

I understand it often isn't, presently (and perhaps never will be) my case is simply that it should be.

Just because something is the way it currently is, and perhaps will never change, doesn't make it right.
0
reply
AnonymousNoMore
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#53
Report 2 weeks ago
#53
(Original post by generallee)
I am trying to prove that men are better at football for biological reasons. They are, on average, taller, stronger, faster and more powerful. In elite sport that is a crucial edge.

In a physical endeavour that requires players to run races against each other to assume positions, muscle opponents off the ball, kick it very hard, jump to head and catch it, men are going to be better than women. 15 year old boys at a mediocre club even are way better, let alone the best adult male players in the world.

That's all I am saying. In what way is it wrong?? And how will increased "funding to grassroots football" make women stronger, faster, taller?

But let's say I AM wrong. Let's say that women are only far weaker and inferior football players because of a lack of funding to train them when younger. Nothing to do with biology.

I don't agree, but let's allow it, for the sake of argument. You still then accept my contention that women are currently far worse at the sport, even if not the reason for it. So why then should they get the same money?

And you say that this is an abstract moral case, not for the real world. But this is the very argument being advanced by US soccer in this lawsuit. So it is very much of the real world.
The only thing correct about what you just said was that men are biological more inclined to be stronger and taller, on average at least. And the funding to grass roots might not eliminate the difference between them but it would certainly close it.
The fact is football is not only a physical game but it is also technical, what biology stops women being as technical?
Youre also forgetting that you can train to be stronger and fitter. Before arsene wenger reinvented diet and exercise in football they were weaker and less fit. So by changing your lifestly you certainly can get fitter and stronger. And so can women in football.
And I said you were placing it in an abstract world that people should be paid per skill level, which they aren't. Not anything to do with the current legal case. But let's talk about that, the case is about equal pay for equal work and so it will get thrown out end of.

Oh and I found it funny how you said if you disregard everything I said for the sake of argument and then still continued to use it as a basis for that logical analogy. Nice one dude.
Last edited by AnonymousNoMore; 2 weeks ago
0
reply
Advertisement
SHallowvale
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#54
Report 2 weeks ago
#54
(Original post by generallee)
Because a degree of consummate brilliance in a given field ought to be better rewarded than mediocrity within it. A just moral order would reward greatness over the mundane.

I understand it often isn't, presently (and perhaps never will be) my case is simply that it should be.

Just because something is the way it currently is, and perhaps will never change, doesn't make it right.
Who are you to say that something is "mundane" and "mediocre" simply because it doesn't reflect the highest skill in that field?

Why ought "a degree of consummate brilliance" be given greater reward than something that's less skilled, even if it were mediocre? Why is it "just" to reward people on skill alone?

Is it morally wrong for me to donate to a streamer who I enjoy watching, even if they're not the best at playing their game? Is it morally wrong for me to commission art from an artist I like, even if their work is not as good as others?
0
reply
BlueIndigoViolet
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#55
Report 2 weeks ago
#55
Mens football is a lot more popular why should this not be reflected in coverage and pay?
0
reply
SHallowvale
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#56
Report 2 weeks ago
#56
(Original post by BlueIndigoViolet)
Mens football is a lot more popular why should this not be reflected in coverage and pay?
Agreed, although OP seems to think it should receive more coverage/pay simply because men are more skilled, not because it's popular.
0
reply
generallee
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#57
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#57
(Original post by AnonymousNoMore)
Oh and I found it funny how you said if you disregard everything I said for the sake of argument and then still continued to use it as a basis for that logical analogy. Nice one dude.
I didn't dude.

I said that even if one accepted everything you had said about the causes of the disparity in performance being attributable to differential training programmes at an early age, you still accepted that that disparity exists.

Hard not accept a gulf in class between the sexes. when a bunch of under 15 schoolboys from a club no one has heard of can thrash the fifth best adult women's team in the world seven nil...
0
reply
Advertisement
generallee
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#58
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#58
(Original post by SHallowvale)
Agreed, although OP seems to think it should receive more coverage/pay simply because men are more skilled, not because it's popular.
Outside the US, women's football isn't remotely as popular as men's. Certainly not here.

So why should it get even more coverage than it already does? Let alone more pay?

The BBC et al constantly pump it, but few people really care. I doubt you could even name three current England women players off the top of your head. Can you?

I leave that to your intellectual honesty. Obviously you can google it and then pretend you knew all along if you want to. I'd have no way of knowing...

I bet even you take no actual interest in the game. And rightly so, it is dreadfully boring.
0
reply
generallee
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#59
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#59
(Original post by SHallowvale)
Who are you to say that something is "mundane" and "mediocre" simply because it doesn't reflect the highest skill in that field?

Why ought "a degree of consummate brilliance" be given greater reward than something that's less skilled, even if it were mediocre? Why is it "just" to reward people on skill alone?

Is it morally wrong for me to donate to a streamer who I enjoy watching, even if they're not the best at playing their game? Is it morally wrong for me to commission art from an artist I like, even if their work is not as good as others?
"Mediocre" is a comparative term to differentiate something from the highest excellence but of course it is a value judgement.

Even the best women's team in the world would be beaten by every man's team, maybe almost down to the local pub team.
Well maybe not quite that far.

Mediocre is being generous. A fairer description would be very weak or poor by men's standards.
0
reply
SHallowvale
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#60
Report 2 weeks ago
#60
(Original post by generallee)
"Mediocre" is a comparative term to differentiate something from the highest excellence but of course it is a value judgement.

Even the best women's team in the world would be beaten by every man's team, maybe almost down to the local pub team.
Well maybe not quite that far.

Mediocre is being generous. A fairer description would be very weak or poor by men's standards.
Er, sure, but you still haven't answered the main questions:

Why ought "a degree of consummate brilliance" be given greater reward than something that's less skilled, even if it were mediocre? Why is it "just" to reward people on skill alone?

Is it morally wrong for me to donate to a streamer who I enjoy watching, even if they're not the best at playing their game? Is it morally wrong for me to commission art from an artist I like, even if their work is not as good as others?

(Original post by generallee)
Outside the US, women's football isn't remotely as popular as men's. Certainly not here.

So why should it get even more coverage than it already does? Let alone more pay?

The BBC et al constantly pump it, but few people really care. I doubt you could even name three current England women players off the top of your head. Can you?

I leave that to your intellectual honesty. Obviously you can google it and then pretend you knew all along if you want to. I'd have no way of knowing...

I bet even you take no actual interest in the game. And rightly so, it is dreadfully boring.
When did I ever say that woman's football should receive more coverage? When did I say that women footballers should receive equal pay to men?

I don't think women footballers should receive equal coverage or equal pay solely because they're doing 'the same job'. I believe that pay and coverage should reflect revenue and audience, just as it should be in any other industry. In other words, if women's football generated more viewership and revenue than men's football then women should be paid more than their male counterparts. If it's not currently doing that, so be it.

What I object to is the idea that pay and coverage should only reflect skill and nothing else, which is an absurd idea.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

With HE fairs postponed, would a virtual HE fair be useful?

Yes (42)
60%
No (28)
40%

Watched Threads

View All