Feel free to join in the chat now!
Click the reply button at the bottom of discussions to comment!
Discussion in 'Health, Fitness, and Diet' started by Mebs, May 7, 2016.
Great rebuttal about the differences in pay in sport between the sexes.
A "feminist" with so much common sense........?! And the ability to state her POV/argument so well!
Damn, I bet that the Feminazis be hatin that shit
Don't you know she gets hate mail !
Good argument! Christina Hoff Somers is one of the few feminists I like as she tends to use factual evidence. She is considered an anti feminist by feminists.
I think women's football already has benefited from men's football. When men first started playing football they had to build up their fan base, they also had to play with a very heavy ball that cost you a few brain cells when you header'd it, but women are still reaping the benefits of the evolution of the sport by men as well as directly financially from organisations like Fifa.
I know there was a tennis player who got in trouble for saying men should be paid more because they are a bigger draw than the female players, even though I don't think this is the case with tennis as I tend to not watch the men's and I do watch the women's. Okay it is in part to watch women run around in a little skirt, but I do appreciate their skill also. But the point is people should be rewarded based on their merit and how much value they bring to an organisation.
And just as she noted, in this instance it is simple economics: there is a helluva difference when the men's side is garnering $3.7 billion, while the women's side only brought in $73 million !
Yep, this is because (in my country at least) its more of a guys thing, men will happily sit in freezing conditions to support their favourite team and watch it fanatically. Women mostly hate football here and I can't see them sitting or tuning in for 90 minutes to support women's football or even just women in general if its doing something they don't like.
OK, so I just had to dig a bit more on the individual salaries for the top paid male and female soccer pro's.
I came up with some variation, depending upon where I checked, but supposedly Alex Morgan is the highest paid female, at $450,000USD annually.
The highest paid male is Christiano Ronaldo, but the numbers for his salary ranged from $30 million pounds to well over $52 million USD. If one chooses to pick the number I saw twice as being most accurate for salary (or at least a good starting place!), then that was $40 million USD.
Taking those salaries and dividing by the numbers quoted in the above vid for overall FIFA grosses for the female and male divisions, then
$450,000/$73 million yields 0.6%
$40 million/$3.7 billion yields 1.08%
So, yes, there is a discrepancy in pay, as the highest paid male player is making nearly "double" what the highest paid female player is making, if one looks at the salary as percentage of overall league income.
Is that reasonable.....? I dunno.
Is it a fecking catastrophe? Ask a feminazi
I think there are so many factors that need to be taken into account like a lot of the ones described by the video. Simply saying all females playing in the same sports as men should be paid the same is ridiculous. The amount of revenue the sport generates,viewership,popularity,time dedicated for the sport to develop,efforts required for the sport to develop and so on need to be taken into account.
Saying that a female soccer player should earn the same as Ronaldo for the sake of fairness is ludricous. Simply because they are both soccer players does not mean they are of same worth to their club,to soccer and as sports-people as a whole.
Sports where there is a far closer degree of fairness is tennis. Female and male tennis evolved together,roughly speaking,there is a close enough viewership and popularity towards both,both bring in high ratings and so on. One vital piece of info is left outof this though - men's tennis is FAR more physically challenging than women's,this is not sexist it is practical. All of the big men's competitions are played over 5 sets,while women's is over 3 sets. This is not to discredit female tennis,as someone who hasplayed many 3 setmatches can vouch for. It is just not the same as five sets though.
I think despite the lower money generation in the female soccer games, the overheads for televising, organising and paying rent on the stadiums/venues etc remain the same for male or female. For argument sake say half of the $73 million translates into fees to cover overheads, which results in $36.5 mil, if this is the same for the men's, they are still up several billion $'s. Of course this won't exactly translate this way, as as the total income goes up, managers fees are likely to as well as organisers, reserves etc.
I think it is a little unfair of the women to be complaining about this as they did sign the contract and agree to this with their clubs that gave them their chance to earn such a high wage. It seems a little like me working for a medium sized company and comparing myself to the Rockerfeller corporation and saying because the CEO of it earns X amount, I want that amount too. Doesn't work that way I'm afraid, but you try explaining this to a feminist.
Separate names with a comma.