Women footballers demand equal pay and news coverage to men

Watch
AnonymousNoMore
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#61
Report 2 weeks ago
#61
(Original post by generallee)
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...
I'm not saying there's no gap, there quite clearly is to anyone who's watched football. But I'm saying that gap would be no where near the same if the grass root funding was the same and they were given the same oppetnutity. Therefore maybe making them like league 1 quality maybe, meaning they could get paid the same as league 1 people, which they don't.
It's all speculation I have no clue how good they could get.
0
reply
Onde
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#62
Report 2 weeks ago
#62
In the United States, the national women's football team is paid less than the men's despite not only being World Champions in their sport but generating greater revenues than the men's team.

If participation in sport is seen good for society as a whole, then funding for women's sports should be significantly increased in relation to men's to make up for their deficit in funding.

generallee engages in identity politics although has shown no evidence of skill.
1
reply
generallee
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#63
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#63
(Original post by AnonymousNoMore)
I'm not saying there's no gap, there quite clearly is to anyone who's watched football. But I'm saying that gap would be no where near the same if the grass root funding was the same and they were given the same oppetnutity. Therefore maybe making them like league 1 quality maybe, meaning they could get paid the same as league 1 people, which they don't.
It's all speculation I have no clue how good they could get.
I don't disagree with much of that actually.

Yes there is a significant physiological difference between men and women footballers, but it might be true that the huge gap in ability could be closed (somewhat) by improved training programmes from a young age.

If money can be found by the big clubs to create this, and they decided it is worth their while. Young male footballers are talent spotted from boyhood, and enrolled at football academies. There is nothing to stop them doing it on the the same scale for young girls if the market for it exists.

By all means create equality of opportunity, if you can, just don't expect equality of outcome.

My big problem with all of this (and the pun is deliberate!) is that it has become a political football. Another front in the culture war. This pretence on ideological grounds that women will ever be the equal of men in (this instance) football is wearisome.

I don't think they ever will. Just like I don't think any woman will ever run faster than the best male sprinters, or swim faster than the swiftest swimmers, or throw a javelin further. Do you??

It is just how it is. Despite all the guff that feminists spout about how gender is a social construct, there ARE biological differences between the sexes, and differential ability at football points this out in glaring neon lights.
2
reply
generallee
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#64
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#64
(Original post by Onde)
generallee engages in identity politics although has shown no evidence of skill.
I am responding to a new front emerging in the culture war, not creating it.

Women's football (indeed sport in general) became entwined with identity politics long long before I created this thread.
0
reply
AnonymousNoMore
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#65
Report 2 weeks ago
#65
(Original post by generallee)
I don't disagree with much of that actually.

Yes there is a significant physiological difference between men and women footballers, but it might be true that the huge gap in ability could be closed (somewhat) by improved training programmes from a young age.

If money can be found by the big clubs to create this, and they decided it is worth their while. Young male footballers are talent spotted from boyhood, and enrolled at football academies. There is nothing to stop them doing it on the the same scale for young girls if the market for it exists.

By all means create equality of opportunity, if you can, just don't expect equality of outcome.

My big problem with all of this (and the pun is deliberate!) is that it has become a political football. Another front in the culture war. This pretence on ideological grounds that women will ever be the equal of men in (this instance) football is wearisome.

I don't think they ever will. Just like I don't think any woman will ever run faster than the best male sprinters, or swim faster than the swiftest swimmers, or throw a javelin further. Do you??

It is just how it is. Despite all the guff that feminists spout about how gender is a social construct, there ARE biological differences between the sexes, and differential ability at football points this out in glaring neon lights.
I don't know if they will ever be on the same level I can't see the future. But maybe they will, who knows.
0
reply
SHallowvale
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#66
Report 2 weeks ago
#66
(Original post by generallee)
I am responding to a new front emerging in the culture war, not creating it.

Women's football (indeed sport in general) became entwined with identity politics long long before I created this thread.
Is it part of "the culture war" to think that people should be paid by skill alone and not how much money their work generates?

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I don't see you directing the same amount of attention to the music industry, the film industry, the competitive gaming industry, etc. Your seeming reluctance to even talk about these gives me the impression that you just want an excuse to complain about feminism and, to a lesser extent, women.
Last edited by SHallowvale; 2 weeks ago
0
reply
Ragman75
Badges: 15
#67
Report 2 weeks ago
#67
(Original post by generallee)
...apparently in Australia. The national team is ranked 5th in the world after all, way ahead of their male equivalents.

So it all sounds awfully diverse, and progressive and downright sensible to accord them absolute equality until you read news stories like this...

https://www.standard.co.uk/sport/foo...-a3257266.html

Ouch, that had to hurt!
Doesnt matter if the womens team is ranked 5th, all that matters is how many eyes they bring in. You cant look at mens and women's football as the same sport when it comes to coverage, you need to look at them as essentially separate sports and ask yourself if this was a operate sport how would i treat it.
0
reply
Ragman75
Badges: 15
#68
Report 2 weeks ago
#68
(Original post by AnonymousNoMore)
I don't know if they will ever be on the same level I can't see the future. But maybe they will, who knows.
They wont ever be outside of incredible outliers, almost all men are stronger than almost all women, and that trend carries over to almost all types of psychical activity and even most non physical competition(like gaming). The reality is that we are a sexually diamorphic species, which means that women have evolved both physically and psychologically to be better equip to giving birth and raising a child, thus key sacrifices where made in their pure ability to compete with men.
1
reply
Ragman75
Badges: 15
#69
Report 2 weeks ago
#69
(Original post by SHallowvale)
Is it part of "the culture war" to think that people should be paid by skill alone and not how much money their work generates?

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I don't see you directing the same amount of attention to the music industry, the film industry, the competitive gaming industry, etc. Your seeming reluctance to even talk about these gives me the impression that you just want an excuse to complain about feminism and, to a lesser extent, women.
Yes it is apart of the culture war because you are using a faulty socialist logic that is at the heart of one side in the culture war to make an argument for the owmens team. You do this by arguing that there is some mythical connection between "the amount of skill someone has" and "how much they should be paid" that doesn't pass through "how useful/how much money those skills can make".
0
reply
Ragman75
Badges: 15
#70
Report 2 weeks ago
#70
(Original post by Onde)
In the United States, the national women's football team is paid less than the men's despite not only being World Champions in their sport but generating greater revenues than the men's team.

If participation in sport is seen good for society as a whole, then funding for women's sports should be significantly increased in relation to men's to make up for their deficit in funding.

generallee engages in identity politics although has shown no evidence of skill.
Your logic is flawed. You cannot compare mens and womens football like this, you have to look at them as if they are different divisions or far easier different sports entirely.The women's team may generate more money but women's football as a whole doesn't, the amount they get is scaled to how much money the whole business generates. On top of that the women are paid a higher % than the men anyway so that just goes to show that women's football just doesn't make enough money to pay women "equally".
0
reply
SHallowvale
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#71
Report 2 weeks ago
#71
(Original post by Ragman75)
Yes it is apart of the culture war because you are using a faulty socialist logic that is at the heart of one side in the culture war to make an argument for the owmens team. You do this by arguing that there is some mythical connection between "the amount of skill someone has" and "how much they should be paid" that doesn't pass through "how useful/how much money those skills can make".
You've misunderstood my position. I believe that how much money someone earns should pass through "how useful/how much money their skills can make". I do not believe it should be based solely on "the amount of skill" they have.

OP is the one who believes that skill and skill alone should decide who gets the most money. In particular, they believe that women footballers should always receive less pay than men (irrespective of the money their skills generates or the audiences they have) simply because women are objectively less good at football than men.

I'm not sure what has caused this confusion. Hopefully that clarifies what I am talking about?
0
reply
generallee
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#72
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#72
(Original post by SHallowvale)
You've misunderstood my position. I believe that how much money someone earns should pass through "how useful/how much money their skills can make". I do not believe it should be based solely on "the amount of skill" they have.

OP is the one who believes that skill and skill alone should decide who gets the most money. In particular, they believe that women footballers should always receive less pay than men (irrespective of the money their skills generates or the audiences they have) simply because women are objectively less good at football than men.

I'm not sure what has caused this confusion. Hopefully that clarifies what I am talking about?
You have misrepresented my position here.

I am a free market conservative essentially. Sure I might wish that the most brilliant violinist earned more for his or her sublime musical skill than the latest, talent free rapper du jour, as a point of moral principle, but I know the market doesn't work like that.

I am comfortable for women footballers to get paid what the market determines. But I don't like the invocation of equal pay legislation through law suits brought on the grounds of social justice. Especially when (as I think I have successfully argued on this thread) women's football is not the equal of men's. Even in the US, the county where it is non plus ultra.
1
reply
SHallowvale
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#73
Report 2 weeks ago
#73
(Original post by generallee)
You have misrepresented my position here.

I am a free market conservative essentially. Sure I might wish that the most brilliant violinist earned more for his or her sublime musical skill than the latest, talent free rapper du jour, as a point of moral principle, but I know the market doesn't work like that.

I am comfortable for women footballers to get paid what the market determines. But I don't like the invocation of equal pay legislation through law suits brought on the grounds of social justice. Especially when (as I think I have successfully argued on this thread) women's football is not the equal of men's. Even in the US, the county where it is non plus ultra.
Another user said that women's football in the US provides more revenue than men's football. Assuming this were true, would you not be in favour of at least equal pay for male and female footballers, if not greater pay for female footballers because they're generating more income?
0
reply
Ragman75
Badges: 15
#74
Report 2 weeks ago
#74
(Original post by SHallowvale)
You've misunderstood my position. I believe that how much money someone earns should pass through "how useful/how much money their skills can make". I do not believe it should be based solely on "the amount of skill" they have.

OP is the one who believes that skill and skill alone should decide who gets the most money. In particular, they believe that women footballers should always receive less pay than men (irrespective of the money their skills generates or the audiences they have) simply because women are objectively less good at football than men.

I'm not sure what has caused this confusion. Hopefully that clarifies what I am talking about?
fair enough, my bad
0
reply
RogerOxon
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#75
Report 2 weeks ago
#75
(Original post by Onde)
In the United States, the national women's football team is paid less than the men's despite not only being World Champions in their sport but generating greater revenues than the men's team.

If participation in sport is seen good for society as a whole, then funding for women's sports should be significantly increased in relation to men's to make up for their deficit in funding.
(Original post by SHallowvale)
Another user said that women's football in the US provides more revenue than men's football. Assuming this were true, would you not be in favour of at least equal pay for male and female footballers, if not greater pay for female footballers because they're generating more income?
Yes. However, national teams aren't really athletes, they're entertainers, so should be paid inline with the audience that they draw. For women, there has been a bit of a chicken an egg issue, as many broadcasters didn't see the demand being there, but that has changed, to some extent.
1
reply
SHallowvale
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#76
Report 2 weeks ago
#76
(Original post by RogerOxon)
Yes. However, national teams aren't really athletes, they're entertainers, so should be paid inline with the audience that they draw. For women, there has been a bit of a chicken an egg issue, as many broadcasters didn't see the demand being there, but that has changed, to some extent.
Agreed! :P
0
reply
Ragman75
Badges: 15
#77
Report 2 weeks ago
#77
(Original post by RogerOxon)
Yes. However, national teams aren't really athletes, they're entertainers, so should be paid inline with the audience that they draw. For women, there has been a bit of a chicken an egg issue, as many broadcasters didn't see the demand being there, but that has changed, to some extent.
I think that's faulty logic, demand comes before supply always. If there was more demand for women football we would see more women football. And demand isn't created by artificial exposure.
0
reply
LiberOfLondon
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#78
Report 1 week ago
#78
More people watch men's sport than women's sport. This means that there is more demand for men's sport. The law of supply and demand therefore states that men's sport is more valuable than women's sport, and therefore sportsmen will be paid more than sportswomen. This is how free markets and capitalism work, and you can't change the laws of the free market because you want people to watch women's football.

As regards equal coverage, I'm all for women's football being shown on the BBC when the women's World Cup is on, but since about 3 people care about the women's Premier League, there's no point in showing that.
0
reply
truthnet
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#79
Report 1 week ago
#79
Womens football is rubbish u15 dallas team (LOL) beat US womens team

its one of worst u15 club teams in world vs one of the if not the best womens soccer team.
0
reply
LiberOfLondon
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#80
Report 1 week ago
#80
(Original post by truthnet)
Womens football is rubbish u15 dallas team (LOL) beat US womens team

its one of worst u15 club teams in world vs one of the if not the best womens soccer team.
It's almost as if there are biological differences between men and women, which mean that men should play in seperate competitions from women. :hmmm:
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 (45)
59.21%
No (31)
40.79%

Watched Threads

View All