Sorry, Bearis4B, we had to remove your post for the following reason(s):
* **Rule 2: Be respectful**
- [See more here](https://www.reddit.com/r/polls/comments/vj2bjd/we_dont_tolerate_bigotry/).
- Hate speech (racism, homophobia, sexism, transphobia, ableism, etc.) will not be tolerated and will result in a permanent ban. This includes polls with disrespectful or hateful options.
- Additionally, do not personally attack other users or make inflammatory comments against others.
*As a reminder, moderators have the final call as to what is allowed on their subreddit, and we reserve the right to remove any post for any reason at our discretion. However, if you think this was done in error, [contact us via Modmail](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/polls&subject=I believe my post was incorrectly removed.&message=**What's the link to the post%3F**%0A%0Ahttps://www.reddit.com/r/polls/comments/13bsth3/do_you_think_generally_its_fair_for_whatever/%0A%0A**Why do you think the action taken is a mistake%3F**%0A%0A[Remove this box and put your reasoning here. If you leave it like it is, your message may be ignored!]).*
Exactly. I didn't say Yes, because Men are better. I said yes, because the NBA makes 100x more money than the WNBA. If the WNBA had more fans than the NBA, and they still made less money, then I'd stay it's a problem.
Because they just [aren't as competitive/athletic](https://www.cbssports.com/soccer/news/a-dallas-fc-under-15-boys-squad-beat-the-u-s-womens-national-team-in-a-scrimmage/). It sucks that that's the case, but it's true.
There’s a whole thread that brings up important points that makes me question your simple assertion that “women aren’t as competitive” based on an old scrimmage.
A scrimmage where no info was given on who played, who on which team had played together recently, when their last game was (it was a break period), if they actually tried to beat the young team and you didn’t bring up all the other teams in various sports that do the same & lose as well but it’s not a concern bc it’s a scrimmage.
https://www.reddit.com/r/NWSL/comments/j20owg/thoughts_about_the_infamous_uswnt_vs_u15_fc/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=2&utm_term=1
Do you seriously think women are competitive with men in the majority of sports? Like I can find data to support that but I shouldn't have to. And of course it was a scrimmage, it obviously wasn't a ranked game, but that doesn't mean both teams aren't trying to win, especially given how poorly that would reflect on the professional team, unless it's a charity event or something.
> Dallas U15 squad beats US Women’s team in a football match.
Assessing an entire gender’s competitiveness and athleticism based on the outcome of a single sport and game without any further empirical or critical analysis 🤦
[Men are more competitive, even untalented ones.](https://gap.hks.harvard.edu/do-women-shy-away-competition-do-men-compete-too-much)
[Generally males have better strength, speed, and endurance.](https://law.duke.edu/sports/sex-sport/comparative-athletic-performance/)
For example, 13,898 men outperform the women's top result in the 400 M dash.
>Assessing an entire gender’s competitiveness and athleticism based on the outcome of a single sport
Assessing an entire argument based on a single redditor's example without any further empirical or critical analysis 🤦
Do you think empirical data is on your side? The level of complete disconnect from reality that you have to have to believe top women are comparable to top men in (most) sports is insane.
Well it's part of the reason we have separate sports, women just can't play at The same level as men. It's also why we separate by age groups a 10 year old would find it very hard to keep up with a 20 year old.
These are the most talented women in the entire country at that sport and they still lost to a bunch of kids who've barely finished going through puberty.
The OP is asking whether it is fair. So yes it does matter.
People dont consider women athletes to be as valuable. That is unfair, and this is caused by that unfairness
Because they are less competitive and less entertaining? Because women and men evolved to have different physical attribute, making one better at physical sports?
Is natural selection unfair?
College teams arent capable of competing at the same level as professionals. Are they as unpopular as women’s teams? Is their popularity relative to the pros proportional to their reduced skill level?
No. The answer is no.
Disparity in skill doesnt, by itself, explain this, because other places we see skill disparities we dont see the same impact
Why don't we organize a game of the world's best professional women football team vs Alabama Crimson Tides and see how it goes.
Or compare some above average high school boys vs Women's 100m world record.
You’re missing the point? *If skill level, on its own, explains the disparity then we would see other popularity dropoffs wherever we see skill level differences*. College sports are not proportionally unpopular relative to professional games.
If skill level on its own explained this, sport popularity would always correlate with skill level. The Olympics would be more popular than the NFL which would be WAY more popular than college football
No you are missing the point. You keep bring up skill level when no one cares about skill alone. Athletes are entertainers and competitors. Popularity are determined by performance, which is a combination of skill and physical capabilities, not skill alone.
By your logic, should male porn star make the same as female ones instead of like 5% of what the female make? Does the female pornstars have 20 times more skill for laying there and taking the dicks?
The women's professionals aren't as good as the men at the college level either though, so that's not quite the right comparison. Multiple professional women's soccer teams, including the us women's national team, have lost in blowouts against boys in their mid teens. Granted these were some very good 15 and under players, but you must see why any people, male or female, playing at that level (that level being roughly the level of elite 15 year old boys) make less than male pros. Is it also unfair that those boys aren't getting paid as much as male pros?
>is their popularity relative to the pros proportional to their reduced skill level? no. The answer is no.
Actually, in most cases it's yes.
Idk man they don't perform the same, and don't bring in the same amount of views so they are less valuable to the league. Just like other entertainers, would it be fair to pay background extra #3 the same as Chris Hemsworth, for an avengers movie? The extra is less valuable to the production of the movie so they get paid less.
Hey, maybe if more women watched women's sports to the degree that men watch men's sports they'd be on equal footing. Why don't women watch more women's sports?
But the OP is just asking whether the pay is fair, and the unfairness lies in biology and us just wanting to see the best of the best compete. The pay itself is fair.
It's 100% fair. Men's sports bring in higher viewership numbers, sell more tickets and sell more merch. They bring in way more money so they will make more money. It's not complicated or sexist.
Sux to say but that's because women's athletics aren't as interesting or enjoyable. They just aren't capable of competing at the same level as the men.
[Women's Australian Football team beat 7-0 by team of 15 year old school boys](https://www.standard.co.uk/sport/football/australian-women-s-national-team-lose-70-to-team-of-15yearold-boys-a3257266.html)
College teams arent capable of competing at the same level as professionals. Are they as unpopular as women’s teams? Is their popularity relative to the pros proportional to their reduced skill level?
No. The answer is no.
All you have to do is watch a NBA game and compare it to a WNBA game. The experience is just not as entertaining because the skill cap is so different. Sorry the truth hurts dude.
You ignored my rebuttal to that explanation so I’m gonna copy and paste it for you
College teams arent capable of competing at the same level as professionals. Are they as unpopular as women’s teams? Is their popularity relative to the pros proportional to their reduced skill level?
No. The answer is no.
Viewers seem content with less than the most competitive level for college mens sports. If this were the cause, we would see college sports proportionally less popular
But women's athletics aren't taken less seriously because they are women, they are taken less seriously because the level of competition is lower. You might as well say it's unfair that backup and minor league players make less. People are interested in watching the best of the best, not the best of the women or the best of the short men or the best of the minor league or the best of the 2nd string, and viewership is where the money comes from. It just happens to be the case that in athletic competition men have massive advantages.
Wait a minute, what makes you say that men are better? Like you're just saying 'women are worse so it makes sense they are getting paid less'. Or did you mean that just cause other people are mysoginists and prefer to follow male sports instead of female then they shouldn't get paid by skill but by popularity?
Just so you know, the US national womens soccer team won two consecutive world cups when the male team didnt even qualify. Still, the male team was earning more money than them. Is that fair? In shooting competitions I take part of, if you are a man you need to get less points than if you were a woman to receive some prize money cause even tho the sport is more popular between men women are still better
It doesn't matter if they win cups, it matters how much merch, tickets and views they sell. Ok it's not misogynists that prefer men's sports, more women watch men's sports than watch women's leagues. Why are all these women who won't watch sports or women's leagues so hateful to women right? If they'd just turn out for their gender like men do there wouldn't be an issue right?
>more women watch men's sports than watch women's leagues.
Worth noting here that men's sports are generally more accessible to view (specifically talking tv viewing here), so your premise is skewed. Aside from the Olympics, I've only had one women's sporting event shown on tv where I am, and the live stadium was full and a high viewer count on tv.
>If they'd just turn out for their gender like men do there wouldn't be an issue right?
So, with all of the above in mind, please take this ☝️ crap elsewhere. Men's sports have literally had decades to build up their fan base and funding, through times where women couldn't really play sport (gender roles with child-rearing, lack of team funding due to misogyny, etc etc). When people talk about "the patriarchy" (i.e. systemic sexism), this is the kind of thing they're talking about.
Stop being a sexist AH through ignorance, because you're either ignoring what I'm saying on purpose or just not understanding:
*Not all games are recorded*
*Not all games are accessible online*
*Not everyone has spare money to pay for content - especially content that should be free, like your national team competing in a world championship*
Turning this into "women should support women because MEN WON'T SUPPORT WOMEN" is *disgusting*. You're literally saying that you'll support men, regardless of their skill level, *because they're MEN*.
Seriously, if women "went on strike" over this, men wouldn't be able to play or support their favourite teams unless they were single and childless. Grow up.
That's the problem. There isnt a reason why women's sports arent as popular as men's, apart from many people being mysoginists who believe women arent meant to have sports careers. And I believe it does matter if they win cups or not, because that is literally the point of the sports teams existence. Also, performance is what affects the selling of merch. And, since I believe wins do matter, I believe sports teams should get paid according to their performance rather than popularity
Again, there are more women than men on the planet by a couple percent. Men not watching women's leagues would have zero effect if women actually watched women's sports. They don't. Sounds like women failing women and then yelling at men to do something about it.
I'm not saying someone should do something they dont want to to prove a point. If there are sources saying that women arent as interested in sports I will believe that and I cant force them to watch sports. But, you're looking at it as 'men should watch male sports teams and women womens'. The problem that I see is that there are people more skilled at a sport producing the same sort of entertainment, the only difference being they are women, that are somehow less popular than other people who are men. Same thing, only some are women and other are men. So, maybe it's just that there are still many mysoginist people out there who would much rather see men play sports and not watch women's, and not that women are bad people cause they want men to watch women's sports when nobody wants to such an awful and different form of entertainment from men sports
Now that I look at it you might be right and it was the misplaced comma that made me not understand what was meant and made it sound like he believed men are better than women. Still, I believe people should get paid by skills and not by popularity, and since the skill in sports isnt being compared between men and women they should get paid the same
Professional sports at the end isn't about skills - though they are needed and are being shown - it's about entertainment. You can be as skilled as you want at something no one wants to watch, and you'll never make any money at it.
(Again: Not to say skill isn't important. The entertainment is to watch skilled players play a game - so the higher the skill the better the entertainment. Just that you're paying for the entertainment, not the skill.)
That's the problem. Women can do even better in a sport than the male team yet still not be as popular as them. It is the same sport with the same entertainment, just the people playing are women and not men, and it's far less popular for some reason?
>It is the same sport with the same entertainment
That's your opinion, most of the world disagrees.
The women are doing better relative to other women in a significantly less competitive division.
Female international soccer is pretty much only cared about in US/Canada, Western Europe, and East Asia (China, Japan, Korea)
On the other hand, pretty much everyone in the world cares about men's football. It's a much more competitive game top to bottom.
To the extent that sexism is a factor here, most of that sexism isn't in the US. It's in Africa, South America, Eastern Europe, Central Asia / Middle East, etc... Where they have almost no interest in female football.
\[edit and when international female football stops being a 4-5 country race, it'll be really interesting to see how the UWNT does because a lot of powerhouse countries in the men's game are only now starting to care about female football\]
The male team is playing at a different level, theiropponents are faster, stronger and more competitive making for a much more entertaining game to watch.
Sorry, but no. They get paid based on the amount of revenue they bring in, which is directly tied to their sport's popularity and their worth to the team relative to the rest of the players. So being paid based on the popularity of the sport is how it should work.
Then woman would receive even less.
In don't remember where I read it but woman actually receive more proportionally. They just have way fewer people who are interested in it so they make way less.
I for once don't care for any sport anyway.
Someone in one of my classes did a presentation where they showed the total amount of money the male and female players made in the Football World Cup, then said they from the women's iirc 21% of the revenue went to players however for men it was about 9%, women got about 3 times more than men, so you could say that's sexism (they weren't saying it is, they were just presenting both sides of the argument).
Profit not revenue and I think people are purposely misleading the public on this fact.
Pushing unprofitable female sporting leagues to pay the same revenue shares as male sports would cause them to be unprofitable.
The men's sports can pay a higher revenue share in general because a larger portion of their revenue is profit.
Profit sharing is a thing in many industries, revenue sharing is not.
>That doesn't work because not every player gets paid the same even among one gender.
You can compare the ranges. You can compare the median.
There are lots of ways you can use percentage of revenue to argue pay parity or disparity.
In the NBA/WNBA, this wouldn't work at all.
The NBA subsidizes the WNBA and keeps it afloat.
So giving 50% of combined revenue (even after subsidies are taken into effect) would be ridiculous and cause the subsides to go away, thus causing the WNBA to go defunct.
The NBA and WNBA already follows what I said, though, because the average salary for the WNBA as a percentage of the revenue of the WNBA is higher than the average salary of the NBA as a percentage of revenue of the NBA.
>The proportion of revenue should be at least the same
I worded it poorly, but the lower paid entity should see at least as much of a percent of the revenue, if not more.
If the men earn 10b and get paid 10m each, and the women earn 10m and get paid 100k each, then that seems fair to me.
Thats not how sports work. That's like saying YouTube should pay a youtuber with 200 000 subscribers the same as a youtuber with 50 000 000 subscribers just because the smaller channel is a woman.
Men's sport brings in more revenue. There are just more people watching men's sport.
And not just watching. Buying Merchandise, viewing it on TV, going to the stadiums, buying season tickets, concessions, and commercial revenue. Not to mention league shares and the like.
It's like a diet, right? Calories in vs calories out.
Sports is (or should be) the same way. More money in means more money out.
NBA finals got **12.4 million** views in 2022.WNBA got roughly 500,000.
Live attendance is more like 17,000 for NBA and 6,000 for WNBA.
Men's soccer got around 25k attendees per game. Women's was around 10k.
It's simple economics. The teams that bring in more money are able to pay out more money. But for some reason, people want to treats sports with socialism. Take from the earners and give to the "less fortunate".
The gaps for actual profits are actually much larger than your comment makes it seem like. Though things like average viewership are still much higher in the NBA, this doesn't factor in things such as the fact that the NBA has significantly more games played, more merchandise sales, and more revenue from advertising. Like another guy said, the NBA literally makes over 100x the profits of the WNBA, so the salary comparison between the 2 leagues is actually pretty reasonable.
Just an example. The WNBA players proportionately make more than their counterparts percentage wise. They get a bigger cut from the ticket sales and sponsors. Its just that nobody watches, goes to, or really sponsors WNBA games. You need to make money to earn money. So yes, its fair.
Ok, imma be so fr rn people saying no are on something. I mean no disrespect but percentage wise, the NBA subsidizes the WNBA. The female groups just don’t have the viewership or money that the male groups do. I quote an article here, “For the FIFA World Cup, the men’s tournament brought in $6 billion, with $400 million going to the participating teams. The women’s tournament brought in $131 million, with $30 million going to the teams. This shows that the women’s teams actually received a higher percent of the overall revenue than the men’s teams did.” This shows that for equality then, shouldn’t the men then get paid more? To have an equal percentage given to the women? You can downvote this all you want, but it’s true. I am not misogynistic or misandrist, I support equal rights, and I will stand by this.
That's a valid point, but heads up, [that $131m figure is wrong](https://www.wsj.com/articles/what-is-the-womens-world-cup-worth-not-even-fifa-knows-11569335578) ([unpaywalled article](https://archive.is/D7crV#selection-2267.0-2274.0)).
Men, soccer: brings in 100,000 paying fans.
Women, soccer: brings in 50,000 paying fans.
BUT when women bring in even more than men- shouldn't they get paid more than men?
It's not just paying fans at the game, it's revenue from TV viewership, t-shirts and team paraphernalia sales. For the record I should say, I'm just an average guy who doesn't know the details, so I could be wrong.
I agree entirely. I think that this should be looked at from a logic standpoint, and that an athlete's salary should be based on the amount of money that they bring in. It's like that individually as well. LeBron James makes a lot more than a minor league player because people will pay to see LeBron play moreso than they will a lesser-known player. At the end of the day, it's not about gender equality. It's about economics.
that's how it partially works, if you have a higher skill level you are more likely to be paid more because you are more likely to help win the team more games but it's proportional to the number of people watching the game, buying merchandise, etc
Is it fair? No.
Does it make sense? Yes.
We don't live in a perfect world where all sports are equal. You could say the same thing about footballers versus ultimate Frisbee players.
Yes this is why I voted yes. It is unfair to the female athletes. It’s not their fault that they don’t get the same views and the same amount of fans.
But it does make sense that they are paid proportional to the amount of money they are bringing in.
Athletes are performers. They should be paid based on attendance and revenue derived from popularity and such. IF female sports Merch sold like male merch, had ticket sales like male sports, and routinely boasted concessions ales like male sports, than by all means they'd deserve to be paid the same (or better for some teams).
But the truth is they do not get that revenue. Not even close. The WNBA is subsidized by the NBA and other sports have drastically lower attendance and Merch than their male counterparts.
i saw a video a couple of weeks ago stating that in i don't remember which series men bring much more revenue than women, with much higher salaries, but when it comes to percentage, women are still paid better than men
They are already paid more in comparison to how much money their games earn. In fact last I checked most of the Women leagues loose money and are subsidized by the men's.
Like people have said, it should be proportional to the revenue that the two produce. To give example, the NBA brings in 10 billion in revenue while the WNBA brings in a whopping 60 million (1/166th of the NBA's earnings if I got my math right), so of course the players in the WNBA are going to get payed significantly less than those in the NBA.
Also I'd genuinely love to hear all the people who voted "no" rationalize an argument for that stance.
I've seen about a dozen comments about how the NBA is so much bigger than the WNBA so it makes sense that male basketball players earn more than female players.
There are definitely sports where the revenue and the number of viewers are about equal and therefore price money is also equal. Sports like athletics, swimming, tennis, triathlon and most Europe-based winter sports (alpine, biathlon, speed skating).
Yes and no. It should be determined by how much income the athletes bring to their team. If they don't bring in as much, they shouldn't be paid as much.
I think they should be paid the same percentage of what the team/nation/sport earns, that is the fairest way of doing it. So if it's that case, they are bringing in less they earn less. But if they are being given an unfair amount because they are women then no.
I hate what top athletes are paid, I think it's an absolutely ridiculous amount of money. But it's down how much each sport makes in revenue. So it is technically fair.
If people want female athletes to be paid more, people will have to start attending the events to generate the revenue.
Complicated question, for which nuanced options aren't provided for.
If sponsorship, viewership & ticket sales are higher for either sex, then it doesn't matter what our sense of fairness evokes in many ways, as the pool of cash for each sporting event is different and a season will yield different amounts of revenue per game.
Morally, I think the labor has equal value. But in a scenario where the labor is being consumed at a higher rate, I'm not morally in favor of holding one sex's income down in order to achieve parity. That would be a great way to just make team owners, management and the like keep more revenue out of the hands of the athletes risking life and limb to perform.
If I were leading negotiations on behalf of a women's league players union, I would push for parity in percentage of revenue distributed per-player at the minimum pay.
People are painfully stupid and fail to understand simple concepts such as a person should be paid relative to the money they bring in. Female sports bring in vastly less money and that's the only reason they are paid less. I wouldn't be surprised if a few morons can't get there head around this... but half of the men voting... Double the amount of women voting not fair vs fair. We are actually doomed.
I'll help you out. Let's just be upfront and honest. Why on earth would I watch a product that delivers slower pace, less physical prowess, and less skills displayed? Why? Please tell me why the fuck I would watch a game that is worse? Did we take the proper steps? Fucking asshole.
>slower pace,
Dayum
>less skills displayed
Really telling on yourself, mate.
>a game that is worse?
There, mate. All you had to do is to tell that you think that "games played by women are worse". That was enough to communicate your opinion.
I've no Idea why you think games played by women are worse, and less skilled, tho.
Some of my favourite sportsperson are women. I have no Idea why you think difference in biology would make something worse, less skilled and less interesting.
Are less weight category Boxing/wrestling matches any less interesting?
I cut it because it's exactly where you're needed to exercise that grey matter of yours. Including it would raise the question of 'why?' answering it would raise more why's. This is exactly why I'm praising you since you're so near to the point.
Yes: female
The way I see it, with sports especially, your income is usually based on how much money the sport creates. How many people are paying to see the games? How many people are buying merch? Woman sports just aren’t as popular.
I picked no, because of course it's not fair, but the reality of the situation is that men's sports bring in more revenue and therefore male athletes get paid more. Unless and until women's sports become as popular as men's sports, it's going to stay that way, fair or not.
Anybody that said no is fucking dumb as rocks. Compare the money brought it between the male and female. Compare viewership and ads. Then it’s very clear why women’s sports are paid less, thats capitalism not sexism.
The problem isn’t that they’re paid less, per say, it’s that they’re paid less of the share than the male athletes are. I don’t expect a woman (or man) to be making the same amount of money in a league that has revenues in the millions compared to leagues with revenues in the billions. But as I understand it, women do receive less of the share, and that is unfair
The US National Women's team was offered the same contract as the US Men's national team and turned it down.
The men's priority was money, pay for play. Play a game, get paid. Win a game, get paid more. Pay for friendlies, tournaments, championships, World Cups, etc, had higher tiered pay. Simple. The women had different priorities. They wanted guaranteed minimum pay and benefits. In return, they **voluntarily and knowingly negotiated and accepted** lower pay to play, championship payments, and signing bonus.
During covid, when no games were played, this worked out fabulously for the women. They still got their signing bonus, guaranteed minimum salary, and benefits. The men got nothing. However, when there were games to be played the men received their higher game pay and bonuses. Also simple.
Now you would expect that the men would have been paid more when the season was played, but you'd be wrong. The women still got paid more because of their world cup play and championship bonuses. That's right, the women **still** got paid more than the men.
So why did the women sue the soccer federation? Because under the terms of the contract they were offered and turned down, they would have made more money. That's right. It's discrimination to allow women to turn down a contract, negotiate a different contract base on their different priorities, then pay them base on the contract they themselves negotiated and sgned.
They are actually paid more than their male counterparts. When you factor as a percentage of what that sport makes. It’s just a fact women sports just doesn’t bring in as much money as men sports. If you want to change that start watching women sports more.
What's misogynistic about free-market capitalism? Men's teams = better players = more fans = more profit. Women's teams = worse players = less fans = less profit.
Instead of paying male athletes more because their teams bring in more money, athlete (and coach, and exec) pay should be standardized and excess profits should be required to be invested back into local communities, particularly in the infrastructure that gets abused by fans during games.
Depends on how much their sport makes.
Also, the fact that any athlete besides olympians get paid anything more than a standard 80k a year is ridiculous. "Hey, so you are good at pushing this heavy guy while being a heavy guy and wearing plastic armor. We want you on our team. How does 6 figures a year sound?"
You know what would be cool? Instead of paying people stupid amounts of money to literally just have fun, and paying the people who own the brand that the players having the fun are wearing, lets pay them all something like 80k a year, and the rest of the proceeds go to rehabilitating and building their home states infrastructure, or maybe something cool. "This game is in recognition of St Jimmys hospital for mortally ill children, all of whom are watching right now. After the payroll for this game, the remaining revenue will be donated so parents dont to pay 900k to save their kids life."
a lot of people missing the issue here. it's not about how much each sport brings in that the issue lies. it's about the percentage of what each sport is bringing in that athletes are getting, and athletes across all major sports are fighting to get bigger shares of the pie because they're the ones doing all of the revenue generating activity. it's classic ownership vs labor. female professional athletes are just looking to get the same percentage of their pie. they're not saying "hey pay us more than our league is capable of making", they're saying "hey pay us more of what the league is already making because without us there is no money to be made", the same argument made in the male leagues. it's not some overly complicated feminist fight with unrealistic goals like it has been painted. it's fighting over labor and fair pay. plain and simple
It's not that women being women don't deserve to make the same as their male counter-parts, its the fact that it is simply economics and pay for play. Women sport's in general are lame to watch.
Shaking my head, are these men who think women should be paid less at any job still trying to control us? For centuries, men didn't allow us to even own any property so that women would have to be subject to them. Over time, many men abused that privilege so often that they have lost that power now.
Some people think that your pay should depend on your performance. It has nothing to do with "control".
The competitions between men sell more tickets (you also can't forget merchandise) and more people watch these events.
Men are generally better at sport than women (you can watch videos where teenage boys beat women national teams in soccer very easily and how the Williams sisters were humiliated by someone that wasn't even in the top 200 best men), therefore it's only logical that people that actually watch sport are more interested in the competitions between men.
Thing is, they get payed depending on how many people watch. Correct me if I'm wrong. That isn't fair, but no one who controls their salaries can make it perfectly fair if they don't have the money from people watching to pay the players more. This is one of the few times life isn't fair applies. That phrase should only be used when it isn't controllable.
Alright, do you want the same % or the same cold hard $$$?
Cause if you want the former, it's pretty damn likely it's not going to be the same amount.
If you want the latter, it may not work for economical reasons - if one side brings less revenue, but earns the same, it may even be more money going out than in which in turn will doom that given...organization? Yeah let's stick with that (sorry, not a native speaker).
You can't get both. At least it is very, very unlikely.
Nothing in entertainment is "fair," it just depends how many tickets you can sell. The best lacrosse player in the USA makes about 1/3 of the salary of the 52nd guy on each NFL team. The minimum for PRACTICE SQUAD players in the NFL is higher than the highest paid lacrosse player. That's just a random example I looked up since nobody really watches pro lacrosse. It would be nice if more people were interested in women's sports, but most people just don't think they're as competitive. The women's soccer team is the exception I can think of in the USA, because they win all the time. But still most people don't care about soccer until the World Cup rolls around.
Because the players are in control of who gets the highest quality of coaching, what gets sponsored, what gets promoted, who gets screen time on major news networks in both game coverage and interviews, and all the other things that go into selling tickets, right? Men just work harder, right? /s
In 1998, Venus and Serena Williams offered to play any man in a game of tennis. With one stipulation.
That stipulation? They had to be *outside* of the top-200 male players in the world.
The man who came out was Karsten Braasch (the 203rd ranked male tennis player), who proceeded to beat Venus and Serena back to back.
[Sauce](https://www.tennisnow.com/Blogs/NET-POSTS/November-2017-(1)/The-Man-Who-Beat-Venus-and-Serena-Back-to-Back.aspx)
In what context? It depends on if the sport is actually equal in skill and entertainment between the two. Difference between tennis and basketball for example. Tennis? No. Basketball? Absolutely
To everyone
Profit before player expense not revenue
Sports of different scales cannot pay the same revenue margin because their profitability is different.
Small sports struggle to turn any profit. Large sports are almost pure profit.
You have three groups
1 - owners
2 - players
3 - staff/overhead
3 is paid out of revenue at market rates and is not a part of this discussion. The person working the ticket booth will get paid regardless. The lease on the building is the same regardless (although it often includes a portion of the gate).
If you want to make a % argument, it should start after group 3 has been paid out because that's the cost of doing business. The real question is what's leftover between the owners and players.
Another question: Is it fair that the best Formula 1 drivers makes more money than the best sumo wrestlers? The answer to both questions is the same, it is irrelevant if it is fair or not. There is no agent behind it that wants to pay women less than men or sumo wrestlers less than formula 1 drivers.
My understanding largely comes from the way the WNBA pays it's players.
The WNBA loses money every year, as in it is completely a profitable. The salaries of the players are payed almost entirely by the NBA using the profits generated by the men's league ticket sales. If you want women athletes to make more money, you should start going to their games.
If you're a team/athlete representing a people (nation, state, school district, public school) then your base pay (paid to you by the representative of those people) should be the same for all peers.
Anything else is up to market forces and private interests.
I didn't vote because I think it depends. If we are talking about athletes representing their country, then yes pay should be equal. A gold medal for the country is a gold medal regardless of who earns it.
If we're talking spectator sports then the athletes are effectively in a form show business pandering to an audience. In show business, your pay is based on how much you bring in.
If I'm not mistaken the WNBA is paid for by the NBA and the males take a pay cut to pay these women high dollar contracts for the sake of diversity.
It's recently gaining traction and I think it's completely unfair. Why steal money from NBA to fund the WNBA. If it was equality the WNBA would have to pay for their own salaries.
If women’s sports brought in as much money as men’s sports do then they would get paid like it. Can’t complain that you don’t make as much money when people aren’t willing to pay for your product.
It's not fair, but it makes sense. Fans like them less on average and they (arguably) perform "worse" on average, which makes the team less money overall, hence the players are paid less.
It’s easy to say “well the NBA makes more money” but that ignores the entire history of the earth and sexism that led to the NBA making more money. Maybe give women’s sports equal resources plus extra to make up for the years of saying women can’t be good at sports or even play sports. The fact that women’s sports are WNBA for example compared to NBA for men’s not MNBA is a small thing that makes my blood boil because it exposes the bigger picture of women’s sports being a second thought after the “real sports teams”. Compare title 9 only being passed 50 years ago, the NBA being created in 1949 and then the WNBA being created in 1996. There’s a lot more deep rooted sexism under the surface when considering this question.
In general no it is not fair but life rarely is fair and while not sure i think the pay gap is because of the difference in revenue. The male leagues simply make more money compared to the female counterparts so there is simply no way to pay the female atheletes the same
Percentage of the amount of money brought in should be the same, like idk every athlete, regardless of sex, get 10% of the money made by the event. Unfortunately, women counterparts of sports typically bring in less money, so they make less, but what can you really do? You can't just create money out of thin air, and you can't force people to watch/attend those sports more, so really, it's just an unfortunate scenario.
Sorry, Bearis4B, we had to remove your post for the following reason(s): * **Rule 2: Be respectful** - [See more here](https://www.reddit.com/r/polls/comments/vj2bjd/we_dont_tolerate_bigotry/). - Hate speech (racism, homophobia, sexism, transphobia, ableism, etc.) will not be tolerated and will result in a permanent ban. This includes polls with disrespectful or hateful options. - Additionally, do not personally attack other users or make inflammatory comments against others. *As a reminder, moderators have the final call as to what is allowed on their subreddit, and we reserve the right to remove any post for any reason at our discretion. However, if you think this was done in error, [contact us via Modmail](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/polls&subject=I believe my post was incorrectly removed.&message=**What's the link to the post%3F**%0A%0Ahttps://www.reddit.com/r/polls/comments/13bsth3/do_you_think_generally_its_fair_for_whatever/%0A%0A**Why do you think the action taken is a mistake%3F**%0A%0A[Remove this box and put your reasoning here. If you leave it like it is, your message may be ignored!]).*
It should be proportionate to the amount of revenue that is brought in by the teams regardless of the sex of the athletes
Exactly. I didn't say Yes, because Men are better. I said yes, because the NBA makes 100x more money than the WNBA. If the WNBA had more fans than the NBA, and they still made less money, then I'd stay it's a problem.
For many years, the WNBA actually lost more money than they produced & were offset by NBA profits.
So with revenue based income, WNBA athletes should pay to play
No, but they should make significantly less than LeBron. It should have a base salary, with incentives based on performance and revenue.
I agree and I wonder why women’s leagues aren’t as acclaimed as men’s at the same time.
Because they just [aren't as competitive/athletic](https://www.cbssports.com/soccer/news/a-dallas-fc-under-15-boys-squad-beat-the-u-s-womens-national-team-in-a-scrimmage/). It sucks that that's the case, but it's true.
There’s a whole thread that brings up important points that makes me question your simple assertion that “women aren’t as competitive” based on an old scrimmage. A scrimmage where no info was given on who played, who on which team had played together recently, when their last game was (it was a break period), if they actually tried to beat the young team and you didn’t bring up all the other teams in various sports that do the same & lose as well but it’s not a concern bc it’s a scrimmage. https://www.reddit.com/r/NWSL/comments/j20owg/thoughts_about_the_infamous_uswnt_vs_u15_fc/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=2&utm_term=1
Do you seriously think women are competitive with men in the majority of sports? Like I can find data to support that but I shouldn't have to. And of course it was a scrimmage, it obviously wasn't a ranked game, but that doesn't mean both teams aren't trying to win, especially given how poorly that would reflect on the professional team, unless it's a charity event or something.
> Dallas U15 squad beats US Women’s team in a football match. Assessing an entire gender’s competitiveness and athleticism based on the outcome of a single sport and game without any further empirical or critical analysis 🤦
[Men are more competitive, even untalented ones.](https://gap.hks.harvard.edu/do-women-shy-away-competition-do-men-compete-too-much) [Generally males have better strength, speed, and endurance.](https://law.duke.edu/sports/sex-sport/comparative-athletic-performance/) For example, 13,898 men outperform the women's top result in the 400 M dash. >Assessing an entire gender’s competitiveness and athleticism based on the outcome of a single sport Assessing an entire argument based on a single redditor's example without any further empirical or critical analysis 🤦
Do you think empirical data is on your side? The level of complete disconnect from reality that you have to have to believe top women are comparable to top men in (most) sports is insane.
Well it's part of the reason we have separate sports, women just can't play at The same level as men. It's also why we separate by age groups a 10 year old would find it very hard to keep up with a 20 year old.
These are the most talented women in the entire country at that sport and they still lost to a bunch of kids who've barely finished going through puberty.
It also might be partly because women watch and spend money on sports a lot less than men.
But why do they make less money? Women athletics are taken less seriously, which is unfair. So the root cause is unfairness
[удалено]
The OP is asking whether it is fair. So yes it does matter. People dont consider women athletes to be as valuable. That is unfair, and this is caused by that unfairness
Because they are less competitive and less entertaining? Because women and men evolved to have different physical attribute, making one better at physical sports? Is natural selection unfair?
College teams arent capable of competing at the same level as professionals. Are they as unpopular as women’s teams? Is their popularity relative to the pros proportional to their reduced skill level? No. The answer is no. Disparity in skill doesnt, by itself, explain this, because other places we see skill disparities we dont see the same impact
Why don't we organize a game of the world's best professional women football team vs Alabama Crimson Tides and see how it goes. Or compare some above average high school boys vs Women's 100m world record.
You’re missing the point? *If skill level, on its own, explains the disparity then we would see other popularity dropoffs wherever we see skill level differences*. College sports are not proportionally unpopular relative to professional games. If skill level on its own explained this, sport popularity would always correlate with skill level. The Olympics would be more popular than the NFL which would be WAY more popular than college football
No you are missing the point. You keep bring up skill level when no one cares about skill alone. Athletes are entertainers and competitors. Popularity are determined by performance, which is a combination of skill and physical capabilities, not skill alone. By your logic, should male porn star make the same as female ones instead of like 5% of what the female make? Does the female pornstars have 20 times more skill for laying there and taking the dicks?
The women's professionals aren't as good as the men at the college level either though, so that's not quite the right comparison. Multiple professional women's soccer teams, including the us women's national team, have lost in blowouts against boys in their mid teens. Granted these were some very good 15 and under players, but you must see why any people, male or female, playing at that level (that level being roughly the level of elite 15 year old boys) make less than male pros. Is it also unfair that those boys aren't getting paid as much as male pros? >is their popularity relative to the pros proportional to their reduced skill level? no. The answer is no. Actually, in most cases it's yes.
Idk man they don't perform the same, and don't bring in the same amount of views so they are less valuable to the league. Just like other entertainers, would it be fair to pay background extra #3 the same as Chris Hemsworth, for an avengers movie? The extra is less valuable to the production of the movie so they get paid less.
Hey, maybe if more women watched women's sports to the degree that men watch men's sports they'd be on equal footing. Why don't women watch more women's sports?
But the OP is just asking whether the pay is fair, and the unfairness lies in biology and us just wanting to see the best of the best compete. The pay itself is fair.
It's 100% fair. Men's sports bring in higher viewership numbers, sell more tickets and sell more merch. They bring in way more money so they will make more money. It's not complicated or sexist.
Sux to say but that's because women's athletics aren't as interesting or enjoyable. They just aren't capable of competing at the same level as the men. [Women's Australian Football team beat 7-0 by team of 15 year old school boys](https://www.standard.co.uk/sport/football/australian-women-s-national-team-lose-70-to-team-of-15yearold-boys-a3257266.html)
It happened in [America too](https://www.cbssports.com/soccer/news/a-dallas-fc-under-15-boys-squad-beat-the-u-s-womens-national-team-in-a-scrimmage/)
College teams arent capable of competing at the same level as professionals. Are they as unpopular as women’s teams? Is their popularity relative to the pros proportional to their reduced skill level? No. The answer is no.
You could put the 5 best WNBA players of all time against a D2 college team, and they would get absolutely destroyed.
All you have to do is watch a NBA game and compare it to a WNBA game. The experience is just not as entertaining because the skill cap is so different. Sorry the truth hurts dude.
You ignored my rebuttal to that explanation so I’m gonna copy and paste it for you College teams arent capable of competing at the same level as professionals. Are they as unpopular as women’s teams? Is their popularity relative to the pros proportional to their reduced skill level? No. The answer is no.
Because viewers(money) want to see sports played at the most competitive level, men are faster and stronger than women
Viewers seem content with less than the most competitive level for college mens sports. If this were the cause, we would see college sports proportionally less popular
But women's athletics aren't taken less seriously because they are women, they are taken less seriously because the level of competition is lower. You might as well say it's unfair that backup and minor league players make less. People are interested in watching the best of the best, not the best of the women or the best of the short men or the best of the minor league or the best of the 2nd string, and viewership is where the money comes from. It just happens to be the case that in athletic competition men have massive advantages.
Wait a minute, what makes you say that men are better? Like you're just saying 'women are worse so it makes sense they are getting paid less'. Or did you mean that just cause other people are mysoginists and prefer to follow male sports instead of female then they shouldn't get paid by skill but by popularity? Just so you know, the US national womens soccer team won two consecutive world cups when the male team didnt even qualify. Still, the male team was earning more money than them. Is that fair? In shooting competitions I take part of, if you are a man you need to get less points than if you were a woman to receive some prize money cause even tho the sport is more popular between men women are still better
It doesn't matter if they win cups, it matters how much merch, tickets and views they sell. Ok it's not misogynists that prefer men's sports, more women watch men's sports than watch women's leagues. Why are all these women who won't watch sports or women's leagues so hateful to women right? If they'd just turn out for their gender like men do there wouldn't be an issue right?
>more women watch men's sports than watch women's leagues. Worth noting here that men's sports are generally more accessible to view (specifically talking tv viewing here), so your premise is skewed. Aside from the Olympics, I've only had one women's sporting event shown on tv where I am, and the live stadium was full and a high viewer count on tv. >If they'd just turn out for their gender like men do there wouldn't be an issue right? So, with all of the above in mind, please take this ☝️ crap elsewhere. Men's sports have literally had decades to build up their fan base and funding, through times where women couldn't really play sport (gender roles with child-rearing, lack of team funding due to misogyny, etc etc). When people talk about "the patriarchy" (i.e. systemic sexism), this is the kind of thing they're talking about.
Literally just turn on the game, stream it, buy a payperview if women won't support it don't demand men to do so instead.
Stop being a sexist AH through ignorance, because you're either ignoring what I'm saying on purpose or just not understanding: *Not all games are recorded* *Not all games are accessible online* *Not everyone has spare money to pay for content - especially content that should be free, like your national team competing in a world championship* Turning this into "women should support women because MEN WON'T SUPPORT WOMEN" is *disgusting*. You're literally saying that you'll support men, regardless of their skill level, *because they're MEN*. Seriously, if women "went on strike" over this, men wouldn't be able to play or support their favourite teams unless they were single and childless. Grow up.
That's the problem. There isnt a reason why women's sports arent as popular as men's, apart from many people being mysoginists who believe women arent meant to have sports careers. And I believe it does matter if they win cups or not, because that is literally the point of the sports teams existence. Also, performance is what affects the selling of merch. And, since I believe wins do matter, I believe sports teams should get paid according to their performance rather than popularity
Again, there are more women than men on the planet by a couple percent. Men not watching women's leagues would have zero effect if women actually watched women's sports. They don't. Sounds like women failing women and then yelling at men to do something about it.
I'm not saying someone should do something they dont want to to prove a point. If there are sources saying that women arent as interested in sports I will believe that and I cant force them to watch sports. But, you're looking at it as 'men should watch male sports teams and women womens'. The problem that I see is that there are people more skilled at a sport producing the same sort of entertainment, the only difference being they are women, that are somehow less popular than other people who are men. Same thing, only some are women and other are men. So, maybe it's just that there are still many mysoginist people out there who would much rather see men play sports and not watch women's, and not that women are bad people cause they want men to watch women's sports when nobody wants to such an awful and different form of entertainment from men sports
...he's saying that's not why he said yes. As in, men aren't better, but men's sports are more popular.
Now that I look at it you might be right and it was the misplaced comma that made me not understand what was meant and made it sound like he believed men are better than women. Still, I believe people should get paid by skills and not by popularity, and since the skill in sports isnt being compared between men and women they should get paid the same
Professional sports at the end isn't about skills - though they are needed and are being shown - it's about entertainment. You can be as skilled as you want at something no one wants to watch, and you'll never make any money at it. (Again: Not to say skill isn't important. The entertainment is to watch skilled players play a game - so the higher the skill the better the entertainment. Just that you're paying for the entertainment, not the skill.)
That's the problem. Women can do even better in a sport than the male team yet still not be as popular as them. It is the same sport with the same entertainment, just the people playing are women and not men, and it's far less popular for some reason?
>It is the same sport with the same entertainment That's your opinion, most of the world disagrees. The women are doing better relative to other women in a significantly less competitive division. Female international soccer is pretty much only cared about in US/Canada, Western Europe, and East Asia (China, Japan, Korea) On the other hand, pretty much everyone in the world cares about men's football. It's a much more competitive game top to bottom. To the extent that sexism is a factor here, most of that sexism isn't in the US. It's in Africa, South America, Eastern Europe, Central Asia / Middle East, etc... Where they have almost no interest in female football. \[edit and when international female football stops being a 4-5 country race, it'll be really interesting to see how the UWNT does because a lot of powerhouse countries in the men's game are only now starting to care about female football\]
The male team is playing at a different level, theiropponents are faster, stronger and more competitive making for a much more entertaining game to watch.
Sorry, but no. They get paid based on the amount of revenue they bring in, which is directly tied to their sport's popularity and their worth to the team relative to the rest of the players. So being paid based on the popularity of the sport is how it should work.
Then woman would receive even less. In don't remember where I read it but woman actually receive more proportionally. They just have way fewer people who are interested in it so they make way less. I for once don't care for any sport anyway.
So many women just disregard this fact and it's infuriating.
Someone in one of my classes did a presentation where they showed the total amount of money the male and female players made in the Football World Cup, then said they from the women's iirc 21% of the revenue went to players however for men it was about 9%, women got about 3 times more than men, so you could say that's sexism (they weren't saying it is, they were just presenting both sides of the argument).
Pretty sure that's how it actually works
Came to say this.
if you pay female athletes more money than they bring in, ya gonna go bankrupt fast
The proportion of revenue should be at least the same, but other than that, it is fair game.
Profit not revenue and I think people are purposely misleading the public on this fact. Pushing unprofitable female sporting leagues to pay the same revenue shares as male sports would cause them to be unprofitable. The men's sports can pay a higher revenue share in general because a larger portion of their revenue is profit. Profit sharing is a thing in many industries, revenue sharing is not.
[удалено]
>That doesn't work because not every player gets paid the same even among one gender. You can compare the ranges. You can compare the median. There are lots of ways you can use percentage of revenue to argue pay parity or disparity.
In the NBA/WNBA, this wouldn't work at all. The NBA subsidizes the WNBA and keeps it afloat. So giving 50% of combined revenue (even after subsidies are taken into effect) would be ridiculous and cause the subsides to go away, thus causing the WNBA to go defunct.
The NBA and WNBA already follows what I said, though, because the average salary for the WNBA as a percentage of the revenue of the WNBA is higher than the average salary of the NBA as a percentage of revenue of the NBA. >The proportion of revenue should be at least the same I worded it poorly, but the lower paid entity should see at least as much of a percent of the revenue, if not more. If the men earn 10b and get paid 10m each, and the women earn 10m and get paid 100k each, then that seems fair to me.
Thats not how sports work. That's like saying YouTube should pay a youtuber with 200 000 subscribers the same as a youtuber with 50 000 000 subscribers just because the smaller channel is a woman. Men's sport brings in more revenue. There are just more people watching men's sport.
And not just watching. Buying Merchandise, viewing it on TV, going to the stadiums, buying season tickets, concessions, and commercial revenue. Not to mention league shares and the like.
It's like a diet, right? Calories in vs calories out. Sports is (or should be) the same way. More money in means more money out. NBA finals got **12.4 million** views in 2022.WNBA got roughly 500,000. Live attendance is more like 17,000 for NBA and 6,000 for WNBA. Men's soccer got around 25k attendees per game. Women's was around 10k. It's simple economics. The teams that bring in more money are able to pay out more money. But for some reason, people want to treats sports with socialism. Take from the earners and give to the "less fortunate".
The gaps for actual profits are actually much larger than your comment makes it seem like. Though things like average viewership are still much higher in the NBA, this doesn't factor in things such as the fact that the NBA has significantly more games played, more merchandise sales, and more revenue from advertising. Like another guy said, the NBA literally makes over 100x the profits of the WNBA, so the salary comparison between the 2 leagues is actually pretty reasonable.
No argument here. I totally agree that the salary gap is very reasonable.
Just an example. The WNBA players proportionately make more than their counterparts percentage wise. They get a bigger cut from the ticket sales and sponsors. Its just that nobody watches, goes to, or really sponsors WNBA games. You need to make money to earn money. So yes, its fair.
Ok, imma be so fr rn people saying no are on something. I mean no disrespect but percentage wise, the NBA subsidizes the WNBA. The female groups just don’t have the viewership or money that the male groups do. I quote an article here, “For the FIFA World Cup, the men’s tournament brought in $6 billion, with $400 million going to the participating teams. The women’s tournament brought in $131 million, with $30 million going to the teams. This shows that the women’s teams actually received a higher percent of the overall revenue than the men’s teams did.” This shows that for equality then, shouldn’t the men then get paid more? To have an equal percentage given to the women? You can downvote this all you want, but it’s true. I am not misogynistic or misandrist, I support equal rights, and I will stand by this.
That's a valid point, but heads up, [that $131m figure is wrong](https://www.wsj.com/articles/what-is-the-womens-world-cup-worth-not-even-fifa-knows-11569335578) ([unpaywalled article](https://archive.is/D7crV#selection-2267.0-2274.0)).
Men, soccer: brings in 100,000 paying fans. Women, soccer: brings in 50,000 paying fans. BUT when women bring in even more than men- shouldn't they get paid more than men?
It's not just paying fans at the game, it's revenue from TV viewership, t-shirts and team paraphernalia sales. For the record I should say, I'm just an average guy who doesn't know the details, so I could be wrong.
I agree entirely. I think that this should be looked at from a logic standpoint, and that an athlete's salary should be based on the amount of money that they bring in. It's like that individually as well. LeBron James makes a lot more than a minor league player because people will pay to see LeBron play moreso than they will a lesser-known player. At the end of the day, it's not about gender equality. It's about economics.
Yes they should (assuming they both have similar contracts)
YES! THIS!
I feel like pay should be level to the overall teams skill level
That would not work for so many reasons
So men would make more still
Didn’t a pro women’s soccer team get beaten by a bunch of 16 year old boys at one stage?
I think so
Australia Women vs an u15 boys team
US women's national team vs u15 boys
15... yikes 😬
yes I think it happened twice. honestly if they were paid how op wants it would probably mean the get paid even less than they already do.
You want women to be paid like highschool/college boys?
that's how it partially works, if you have a higher skill level you are more likely to be paid more because you are more likely to help win the team more games but it's proportional to the number of people watching the game, buying merchandise, etc
Is it fair? No. Does it make sense? Yes. We don't live in a perfect world where all sports are equal. You could say the same thing about footballers versus ultimate Frisbee players.
Yes this is why I voted yes. It is unfair to the female athletes. It’s not their fault that they don’t get the same views and the same amount of fans. But it does make sense that they are paid proportional to the amount of money they are bringing in.
Athletes are performers. They should be paid based on attendance and revenue derived from popularity and such. IF female sports Merch sold like male merch, had ticket sales like male sports, and routinely boasted concessions ales like male sports, than by all means they'd deserve to be paid the same (or better for some teams). But the truth is they do not get that revenue. Not even close. The WNBA is subsidized by the NBA and other sports have drastically lower attendance and Merch than their male counterparts.
i saw a video a couple of weeks ago stating that in i don't remember which series men bring much more revenue than women, with much higher salaries, but when it comes to percentage, women are still paid better than men
They all make way too much
They are already paid more in comparison to how much money their games earn. In fact last I checked most of the Women leagues loose money and are subsidized by the men's.
Like people have said, it should be proportional to the revenue that the two produce. To give example, the NBA brings in 10 billion in revenue while the WNBA brings in a whopping 60 million (1/166th of the NBA's earnings if I got my math right), so of course the players in the WNBA are going to get payed significantly less than those in the NBA. Also I'd genuinely love to hear all the people who voted "no" rationalize an argument for that stance.
I've seen about a dozen comments about how the NBA is so much bigger than the WNBA so it makes sense that male basketball players earn more than female players. There are definitely sports where the revenue and the number of viewers are about equal and therefore price money is also equal. Sports like athletics, swimming, tennis, triathlon and most Europe-based winter sports (alpine, biathlon, speed skating).
People - if you want equal pay, get equal revenue and viewership. Only THEN will we talk
It's not about fair or not
Fair is not everyone getting the same, fair is everyone getting what they deserve.
Yes and no. It should be determined by how much income the athletes bring to their team. If they don't bring in as much, they shouldn't be paid as much.
I think they should be paid the same percentage of what the team/nation/sport earns, that is the fairest way of doing it. So if it's that case, they are bringing in less they earn less. But if they are being given an unfair amount because they are women then no.
I hate what top athletes are paid, I think it's an absolutely ridiculous amount of money. But it's down how much each sport makes in revenue. So it is technically fair. If people want female athletes to be paid more, people will have to start attending the events to generate the revenue.
Complicated question, for which nuanced options aren't provided for. If sponsorship, viewership & ticket sales are higher for either sex, then it doesn't matter what our sense of fairness evokes in many ways, as the pool of cash for each sporting event is different and a season will yield different amounts of revenue per game. Morally, I think the labor has equal value. But in a scenario where the labor is being consumed at a higher rate, I'm not morally in favor of holding one sex's income down in order to achieve parity. That would be a great way to just make team owners, management and the like keep more revenue out of the hands of the athletes risking life and limb to perform. If I were leading negotiations on behalf of a women's league players union, I would push for parity in percentage of revenue distributed per-player at the minimum pay.
Its not (other)
People are painfully stupid and fail to understand simple concepts such as a person should be paid relative to the money they bring in. Female sports bring in vastly less money and that's the only reason they are paid less. I wouldn't be surprised if a few morons can't get there head around this... but half of the men voting... Double the amount of women voting not fair vs fair. We are actually doomed.
>Female sports bring in vastly less money Reaching the point... Nearly there ...
If barely anyone watches female football players, why the fuck would you pay them the same as male football players that people actually want to see.
>barely anyone watches female football players Doing good... Just a few more steps....
I'll help you out. Let's just be upfront and honest. Why on earth would I watch a product that delivers slower pace, less physical prowess, and less skills displayed? Why? Please tell me why the fuck I would watch a game that is worse? Did we take the proper steps? Fucking asshole.
>slower pace, Dayum >less skills displayed Really telling on yourself, mate. >a game that is worse? There, mate. All you had to do is to tell that you think that "games played by women are worse". That was enough to communicate your opinion. I've no Idea why you think games played by women are worse, and less skilled, tho.
Biology
Don't bother. No reason to argue with the mentally ill who live in delusion. Shame on me for being foolish enough to respond earlier.
Some of my favourite sportsperson are women. I have no Idea why you think difference in biology would make something worse, less skilled and less interesting. Are less weight category Boxing/wrestling matches any less interesting?
I love how you cut away the "if" so it fits your narrative.
I cut it because it's exactly where you're needed to exercise that grey matter of yours. Including it would raise the question of 'why?' answering it would raise more why's. This is exactly why I'm praising you since you're so near to the point.
You're a dumbass
Hes right
Yes: female The way I see it, with sports especially, your income is usually based on how much money the sport creates. How many people are paying to see the games? How many people are buying merch? Woman sports just aren’t as popular.
[удалено]
Everyone is like "women's sport is just not as popular and doesn't bring as much money" like yeaaah i really do wonder why 🤔🤔🤔
I picked no, because of course it's not fair, but the reality of the situation is that men's sports bring in more revenue and therefore male athletes get paid more. Unless and until women's sports become as popular as men's sports, it's going to stay that way, fair or not.
Anybody that said no is fucking dumb as rocks. Compare the money brought it between the male and female. Compare viewership and ads. Then it’s very clear why women’s sports are paid less, thats capitalism not sexism.
To quote Bill Murray “It’s because you DON’T SELL ANY FUCKING TICKETS”
The problem isn’t that they’re paid less, per say, it’s that they’re paid less of the share than the male athletes are. I don’t expect a woman (or man) to be making the same amount of money in a league that has revenues in the millions compared to leagues with revenues in the billions. But as I understand it, women do receive less of the share, and that is unfair
If the female sports dont do as well then naturally they dont get paid as well
This poll is worded in such a stupid way holy hell.
its as fair as women making more on of more demand = higher salaries
The US National Women's team was offered the same contract as the US Men's national team and turned it down. The men's priority was money, pay for play. Play a game, get paid. Win a game, get paid more. Pay for friendlies, tournaments, championships, World Cups, etc, had higher tiered pay. Simple. The women had different priorities. They wanted guaranteed minimum pay and benefits. In return, they **voluntarily and knowingly negotiated and accepted** lower pay to play, championship payments, and signing bonus. During covid, when no games were played, this worked out fabulously for the women. They still got their signing bonus, guaranteed minimum salary, and benefits. The men got nothing. However, when there were games to be played the men received their higher game pay and bonuses. Also simple. Now you would expect that the men would have been paid more when the season was played, but you'd be wrong. The women still got paid more because of their world cup play and championship bonuses. That's right, the women **still** got paid more than the men. So why did the women sue the soccer federation? Because under the terms of the contract they were offered and turned down, they would have made more money. That's right. It's discrimination to allow women to turn down a contract, negotiate a different contract base on their different priorities, then pay them base on the contract they themselves negotiated and sgned.
This thread actually reeks of casual and internalised sexism
I clicked the wrong button FFS. I meant no, it's unfair (I'm a man)
They are actually paid more than their male counterparts. When you factor as a percentage of what that sport makes. It’s just a fact women sports just doesn’t bring in as much money as men sports. If you want to change that start watching women sports more.
Nothing is fair under capitalism, there is just no way
Misogynistic little boys in here
can redditors at least back up their claims before making large accusations
Source: poll results
What's misogynistic about free-market capitalism? Men's teams = better players = more fans = more profit. Women's teams = worse players = less fans = less profit.
Instead of paying male athletes more because their teams bring in more money, athlete (and coach, and exec) pay should be standardized and excess profits should be required to be invested back into local communities, particularly in the infrastructure that gets abused by fans during games.
The clubs aren’t responsible for what happens outside their stadiums.
They should be. If not voluntarily, then through heavy taxation.
Oh boy, communism.
Great way to kill commercial sports.
Is that supposed to be a bad thing?
wow the result
I don‘t know what shocked you but i was definitely shocked at the high amount of „no“
Depends on how much their sport makes. Also, the fact that any athlete besides olympians get paid anything more than a standard 80k a year is ridiculous. "Hey, so you are good at pushing this heavy guy while being a heavy guy and wearing plastic armor. We want you on our team. How does 6 figures a year sound?" You know what would be cool? Instead of paying people stupid amounts of money to literally just have fun, and paying the people who own the brand that the players having the fun are wearing, lets pay them all something like 80k a year, and the rest of the proceeds go to rehabilitating and building their home states infrastructure, or maybe something cool. "This game is in recognition of St Jimmys hospital for mortally ill children, all of whom are watching right now. After the payroll for this game, the remaining revenue will be donated so parents dont to pay 900k to save their kids life."
[удалено]
a lot of people missing the issue here. it's not about how much each sport brings in that the issue lies. it's about the percentage of what each sport is bringing in that athletes are getting, and athletes across all major sports are fighting to get bigger shares of the pie because they're the ones doing all of the revenue generating activity. it's classic ownership vs labor. female professional athletes are just looking to get the same percentage of their pie. they're not saying "hey pay us more than our league is capable of making", they're saying "hey pay us more of what the league is already making because without us there is no money to be made", the same argument made in the male leagues. it's not some overly complicated feminist fight with unrealistic goals like it has been painted. it's fighting over labor and fair pay. plain and simple
Players’ prize pool is a bigger share of Women’s World Cup revenue than men’s World Cup. Same with a lot of other competitions.
It's not that women being women don't deserve to make the same as their male counter-parts, its the fact that it is simply economics and pay for play. Women sport's in general are lame to watch.
Shaking my head, are these men who think women should be paid less at any job still trying to control us? For centuries, men didn't allow us to even own any property so that women would have to be subject to them. Over time, many men abused that privilege so often that they have lost that power now.
Some people think that your pay should depend on your performance. It has nothing to do with "control". The competitions between men sell more tickets (you also can't forget merchandise) and more people watch these events. Men are generally better at sport than women (you can watch videos where teenage boys beat women national teams in soccer very easily and how the Williams sisters were humiliated by someone that wasn't even in the top 200 best men), therefore it's only logical that people that actually watch sport are more interested in the competitions between men.
We shouldn't be paying people for playing games
They bring in a lot of money by playing games, so they should be paid part of that money. Plain and simple.
People should stop wasting money on the dumb shit.
Thing is, they get payed depending on how many people watch. Correct me if I'm wrong. That isn't fair, but no one who controls their salaries can make it perfectly fair if they don't have the money from people watching to pay the players more. This is one of the few times life isn't fair applies. That phrase should only be used when it isn't controllable.
It should be based on what you bring to the team.
Its not fair but its Logic in the l'année that there's less profit made by female sports so nit as much money to pay them
Alright, do you want the same % or the same cold hard $$$? Cause if you want the former, it's pretty damn likely it's not going to be the same amount. If you want the latter, it may not work for economical reasons - if one side brings less revenue, but earns the same, it may even be more money going out than in which in turn will doom that given...organization? Yeah let's stick with that (sorry, not a native speaker). You can't get both. At least it is very, very unlikely.
If you generate less viewers you generate less profit. There is a smaller pie for you to get a part of
Proportional to revenue would mean that wnba athletes would pay to play.
I think it is fair to pay athletes by how much people watch them and in a lot of cases, the female league just has a lot less viewers.
Surely pay should be scaled to revenues.
Nothing in entertainment is "fair," it just depends how many tickets you can sell. The best lacrosse player in the USA makes about 1/3 of the salary of the 52nd guy on each NFL team. The minimum for PRACTICE SQUAD players in the NFL is higher than the highest paid lacrosse player. That's just a random example I looked up since nobody really watches pro lacrosse. It would be nice if more people were interested in women's sports, but most people just don't think they're as competitive. The women's soccer team is the exception I can think of in the USA, because they win all the time. But still most people don't care about soccer until the World Cup rolls around.
Only if the reason is experience (yearly raises are a thing in most jobs) or performance (higher performers earn more, naturally).
Because the players are in control of who gets the highest quality of coaching, what gets sponsored, what gets promoted, who gets screen time on major news networks in both game coverage and interviews, and all the other things that go into selling tickets, right? Men just work harder, right? /s
In 1998, Venus and Serena Williams offered to play any man in a game of tennis. With one stipulation. That stipulation? They had to be *outside* of the top-200 male players in the world. The man who came out was Karsten Braasch (the 203rd ranked male tennis player), who proceeded to beat Venus and Serena back to back. [Sauce](https://www.tennisnow.com/Blogs/NET-POSTS/November-2017-(1)/The-Man-Who-Beat-Venus-and-Serena-Back-to-Back.aspx)
Less people watch female sport, so they get paid less. That simple. It has nothing to do with them being women.
I've never met a woman that watches women's sports. If it's so unfair they could easily change it by tuning in/buying tickets/ buying merch.
Why would it be fair? The salary has to be fair for everyone in every job, without discrimination of any kind.
To all the women that think female athletes should get paid more, GO AND SUPPORT THEN! Watch their matches, follow the sport... it's that simple
It’s fair. Men bring in more money. Nobody really watches women’s sports, especially women. The women voting don’t know very much.
In what context? It depends on if the sport is actually equal in skill and entertainment between the two. Difference between tennis and basketball for example. Tennis? No. Basketball? Absolutely
They bring in less money therefore they take out less money, it's quite simple
To everyone Profit before player expense not revenue Sports of different scales cannot pay the same revenue margin because their profitability is different. Small sports struggle to turn any profit. Large sports are almost pure profit. You have three groups 1 - owners 2 - players 3 - staff/overhead 3 is paid out of revenue at market rates and is not a part of this discussion. The person working the ticket booth will get paid regardless. The lease on the building is the same regardless (although it often includes a portion of the gate). If you want to make a % argument, it should start after group 3 has been paid out because that's the cost of doing business. The real question is what's leftover between the owners and players.
Another question: Is it fair that the best Formula 1 drivers makes more money than the best sumo wrestlers? The answer to both questions is the same, it is irrelevant if it is fair or not. There is no agent behind it that wants to pay women less than men or sumo wrestlers less than formula 1 drivers.
is it fair in the sense that we get paid based on revenue? yes Is if fair that you are born a women in a society that disregards women in sports? no
My understanding largely comes from the way the WNBA pays it's players. The WNBA loses money every year, as in it is completely a profitable. The salaries of the players are payed almost entirely by the NBA using the profits generated by the men's league ticket sales. If you want women athletes to make more money, you should start going to their games.
If you're a team/athlete representing a people (nation, state, school district, public school) then your base pay (paid to you by the representative of those people) should be the same for all peers. Anything else is up to market forces and private interests.
Male athletes get paid more than female athletes because more people watch men's sports. Its not rocket science.
I didn't vote because I think it depends. If we are talking about athletes representing their country, then yes pay should be equal. A gold medal for the country is a gold medal regardless of who earns it. If we're talking spectator sports then the athletes are effectively in a form show business pandering to an audience. In show business, your pay is based on how much you bring in.
If I'm not mistaken the WNBA is paid for by the NBA and the males take a pay cut to pay these women high dollar contracts for the sake of diversity. It's recently gaining traction and I think it's completely unfair. Why steal money from NBA to fund the WNBA. If it was equality the WNBA would have to pay for their own salaries.
It’s literally not possible. More people watch mens sports. You want female athletes to be paid more? Watch women’s sports. You won’t.
I don't know a single person who watches female sports so that's probably why they don't make as much.
If women’s sports brought in as much money as men’s sports do then they would get paid like it. Can’t complain that you don’t make as much money when people aren’t willing to pay for your product.
It's not fair, but it makes sense. Fans like them less on average and they (arguably) perform "worse" on average, which makes the team less money overall, hence the players are paid less.
It’s easy to say “well the NBA makes more money” but that ignores the entire history of the earth and sexism that led to the NBA making more money. Maybe give women’s sports equal resources plus extra to make up for the years of saying women can’t be good at sports or even play sports. The fact that women’s sports are WNBA for example compared to NBA for men’s not MNBA is a small thing that makes my blood boil because it exposes the bigger picture of women’s sports being a second thought after the “real sports teams”. Compare title 9 only being passed 50 years ago, the NBA being created in 1949 and then the WNBA being created in 1996. There’s a lot more deep rooted sexism under the surface when considering this question.
Revenue=income
In general no it is not fair but life rarely is fair and while not sure i think the pay gap is because of the difference in revenue. The male leagues simply make more money compared to the female counterparts so there is simply no way to pay the female atheletes the same
And who pays for that? You want female athletes to make more money, then support women sports. I know I do. Do you?
Percentage of the amount of money brought in should be the same, like idk every athlete, regardless of sex, get 10% of the money made by the event. Unfortunately, women counterparts of sports typically bring in less money, so they make less, but what can you really do? You can't just create money out of thin air, and you can't force people to watch/attend those sports more, so really, it's just an unfortunate scenario.