Equal pay women’s World Cup

atypical_boro said:
Hmmm. Though we’ve seen Federer win 8 in a row, Djokovic 5, Sampras 7 etc. Is it such a bad thing if the women’s game doesn’t go that way? Even Serena didn’t dominate like that.

I was listening to someone on the radio talking about Wimbledon and how it is one of very few sporting events that seems to be just as watched by women as it is men, if not more. And not just the women’s title, the men’s too (by women).

I do actually know loads of lasses who love it who don’t seem to be interested in much other sport.
Click to expand...
I know of a number of women attending regularly, and not because they managed a ticket for the main courts. I don't know any blokes doing the same.

I was on Henman Hill for an evening, women outnumbered blokes by about ten to one. Fantastic but very high pitched noises when Murray won.
 
women’s v men’s game is very much apples and oranges, is it the same game though? Same round ball but different size, same rules but perhaps different perceptions?

As for the checkout girl v the boy — I’m sure while they get paid the same although most boys will have to pick up the slack for those things which inherently boys tasks. Will libertarianism change those perceptions perhaps 🤔 perhaps not.
 
atypical_boro said:
Hmmm. Though we’ve seen Federer win 8 in a row, Djokovic 5, Sampras 7 etc. Is it such a bad thing if the women’s game doesn’t go that way? Even Serena didn’t dominate like that.

I was listening to someone on the radio talking about Wimbledon and how it is one of very few sporting events that seems to be just as watched by women as it is men, if not more. And not just the women’s title, the men’s too (by women).

I do actually know loads of lasses who love it who don’t seem to be interested in much other sport.
Click to expand...
Serena could've done though I think. It wasn't really the short format that prevented it as much as injuries and desire.

I can see it both ways but for me you're kind of saying you want it as more of a lottery. Whereas with best of 5 the stronger player will usually triumph.

Do you want it to be the best contest possible or more about the entertainment of uncertainty? Suppose sport is about finding the balance really. Certainly spectator sport.

Alcarez's achievement would have been nowhere near as impressive if it had only been done in 3 sets.
 
festa5 said:
Serena could've done though I think. It wasn't really the short format that prevented it as much as injuries and desire.

I can see it both ways but for me you're kind of saying you want it as more of a lottery. Whereas with best of 5 the stronger player will usually triumph.

Do you want it to be the best contest possible or more about the entertainment of uncertainty? Suppose sport is about finding the balance really. Certainly spectator sport.

Alcarez's achievement would have been nowhere near as impressive if it had only been done in 3 sets.
Click to expand...
When all the men have f'd off to Saudi Arabia some of what's left will start filtering through to the women's game in the UK. Mahrez today! Good news for Foden I suppose.
 
Last edited:
festa5 said:
Serena could've done though I think. It wasn't really the short format that prevented it as much as injuries and desire.

I can see it both ways but for me you're kind of saying you want it as more of a lottery. Whereas with best of 5 the stronger player will usually triumph.

Do you want it to be the best contest possible or more about the entertainment of uncertainty? Suppose sport is about finding the balance really. Certainly spectator sport.

Alcarez's achievement would have been nowhere near as impressive if it had only been done in 3 sets.
Click to expand...
I've also just realised my stats about how many they all did in a row are wrong. :LOL:
 
Take the competitions in isolation. Add up all the money that those things generate. Then you have to factor in that the majority of that money is generated because of the players playing so the players should get a significant portion of that revenue (same argument would be made for any business that makes money).

If competition A makes £1bn and competition B makes £100m then why would the participants of B expect A's money? The problem is that B isn't generating enough revenue so they have to do something to increase it if they want to get paid more. The standard is too low and it always will be to attract as much revenue as A and overpaying B, at the expense of A, because they are women is as unfair as underpaying them would be. The fact that A are already well paid by their clubs is irrelevant.

A big equality question to answer is why should a group of people be paid more than another group because they are a different gender? Why aren't all the blokes playing League 1 football, that would be able to beat the Women's team not paid equally? Why does Messi get paid more than Akpom? Pay in sport is generally meritocratic.

It's such a hard question because it seems easy, but it isn't. It is using equality to ask for inequality. It looks like it is about fairness but it's a demand for unfairness. True equality would be to allow men and women to play together but obviously that would result in no women playing professionally so women are already getting a way better deal than they would be if we we did run things as if we had true equality. The only fair way to do it is to pay women fairly based on the revenue that women generate.
 
Incidentally, my son is really excited about seeing Messi's wife in this tournament.

Haaland's lass might actually end up playing for Norway like.
 
As above In this instance, FIFA needs to be more transparent which is a whole other problem, but in an ideal world they would pay a % of the amount they believe a competition will generate in prize and attendance fees. So for both men and women the monies paid out of the collective pot will be 10%, which is equal from that point of view and not left to unseen people deciding it behind closed doors, but the problem is FIFA doesn't like transparency.
 
atypical_boro said:
When all the men have f'd off to Saudi Arabia some of what's left will start filtering through to the women's game in the UK. Mahrez today! Good news for Foden I suppose.
Click to expand...
I was wondering about this today. If the Saudi League grows globally will the Saudis relocate the clubs they own lock, stock and barrel.
Perhaps they'll be a new housing estate behind The Strawberry with sentimental names like Shearer Street, Milburn Way and Keegan Close.
 
El Guapo said:
When the women’s sport generates the money to sustain equal pay with men then they should be paid equally. Until then they should be paid what the sport can afford. That’s equality.
Click to expand...
It'd be equality if women's sports weren't suppressed for such a long time due it it being a "mans sport".
Expat Smoggie said:
women’s v men’s game is very much apples and oranges, is it the same game though? Same round ball but different size, same rules but perhaps different perceptions?

As for the checkout girl v the boy — I’m sure while they get paid the same although most boys will have to pick up the slack for those things which inherently boys tasks. Will libertarianism change those perceptions perhaps 🤔 perhaps not.
Click to expand...
What inherent boys tasks do checkout operators do? Given that most are women?
 
Womens football is not for me, I have tried watching it but I dont enjoy it.
Despite this they should try and earn as much as they can, who wouldn't!
 
The better your product, the more you will sell, and the more you can expect to earn.

They deserve their dividend.
 
All I can say is -I thoroughly enjoy womens football. More football is played in a match- no rolling around in pretend agony- no waving imaginary cards at refs- no arguing-no cheating. It is a pleasure to watch
 
FIFA could and should be leading the way on this. They could and should be dipping into their £4bn surplus to pay for it. The amount of attention, coverage, interest, praise and joy that would generate would help grow the game - and FIFA’s future cash reserves - immeasurably IMO.

Shame there’s no will to do it.
 
Bobbygee said:
I might get completely shot down here but if a tournament doesn’t generate the amount of money that the men’s tournament generates.
Is equal pay/win bonuses right ?

What next women’s clubs teams matching the men’s wages? Bit far fetched but similar principles,m. The reason the men get paid so much is because of how lucrative the game is which also brings in foreign billions. The women’s game is very lucky that the men’s game props it up, club facilities etc etc, it’s great that clubs have taken on women’s teams but I bet it’s not financially lucrative to such clubs, is this business or sport? I’d say top level football is more business than sport (sad but true).

For me although they come under the same governing bodies just look at attendances at the women’s game (less than Rugby Union which is unable to sustain itself), and the money the woman’s game generates through TV rights that surely has to reflect the money on offer.

I’m all for equal rights but surely you earn equal rights by developing the sport it’s not like tennis where competitions, sponsorships and TV rights run concurrently.
Click to expand...
The tennis comparison is an interesting one, because in terms of football I agree with equal pay for the same amount of possible minutes played. But in tennis grand slams I still think best of 5 sets for men against best of 3 for women is wrong
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top