El Guapo
Well-known member
That is an entirely different argumentIt'd be equality if women's sports weren't suppressed for such a long time due it it being a "mans sport".
That is an entirely different argumentIt'd be equality if women's sports weren't suppressed for such a long time due it it being a "mans sport".
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.
Why? Everyone involved makes money from these tournaments. FIFA, the FAs, all of the comoanies who supply drinks/food, the companies who make the kits/other merchandise, the clubs who own the stadiums - why should the players not make money? If it wasn't for the players, there's no tournament.There should be a set expense for playing for your country, men and women, nothing else.
Are they in the entertainment business thoughIf a checkout operator is male or female they get paid the same regardless of the amount of money they take.
Just saying
This whole argument is very subjective because of the fact of level of quality perhaps that we’re (really) looking at. In the end however it’s all about who is willing to pay to see the sport and the players and support it with season ticket subscriptions— single tickets purchases might not cut it.That is an entirely different argument
Agree with the above, there should be an equal split based on % of tournament revenue.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.
Most mens tennis is best of 3. Its only the slams where it is 5. Given the scheduling nightmares they have had this last fortnight some people are proposing to do away with 5 set matches.And even Wimbledon isn't perfect because the men play best of 5 so it's now arguably unfair the other way.
Going off topic a bit but I'd absolutely love the women to have to play best of 5. I assume the issue would be scheduling. But no reason they can't from a physical perspective and it'd really separate the wheat from the chaff. Would be fascinating to see who comes to the fore if it happened. (Which it won't).
yes and it should be distributed equally between all the teams but I’m sure the likes of the US will argue they only come to see us lol and then there will be a legal challenge and so on. The game gotten so corruptible with corporate factions weighing in with a their brands I don’t think we’ll ever see a fair outcome.Agree with the above, there should be an equal split based on % of tournament revenue.
If fifa come out and state both men and women will have a prize pool of 50% of the revenue created from each tournament then surely that is fair? If the men’s tournament generates 500 mill then their prize pot is 250 mill. If the women’s tournament then generates 750 mill then their prize put such be 375 mill.
Although actually then there is the argument that women’s football was banned for however long and therefore they have been put at a disadvantage so deserve reparations and should get a percentage of the men’s tournament also to make up for previous historical wrongs in stifling the development of the women’s game. Perhaps that would be fairier.
Either that or amalgamate the prize pots from both tournaments and share the split equally between them all, that seems reasonably fair.
In conclusion I have no idea what would be the best solution and I’m seriously dreading the day the bum faced population start their world cups and I get lost trying to come up with even further solutions for equality.
That's what makes the slams special. They should be harder to win.Most mens tennis is best of 3. Its only the slams where it is 5. Given the scheduling nightmares they have had this last fortnight some people are proposing to do away with 5 set matches.
I think there's a case for it in international tournaments.
Yes the tournaments attract sponsorship, gate receipts etc etc but what the men get isn't that tightly linked to how much is generated. It's not like they can go and sign for another team.
It's essentially an allowance for representing your country. You become one of the best players and get selected you get that allowance.
Very different at club level where it's very much a business and wages are more reflective of how much money is being generated (and indeed not all players are paid remotely the same, even those at the same level).
And then clubs go and spend more than that anyway and get into debt.
Reminds me of this from a while ago regarding equal pay and the NBAI 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.