The one thing nobody on here has asked is what different presenters generate through global syndication for the BBC. In that case, I could well imagine Lineker, Evans etc being more desirable to a foreign audience, so getting the BBC higher licencing payments, in turn making them more valuable and so demanding higher fees.

As someone else very wisely said, these are not people, they are tradeable commodities. The smart ones come to terms with that and leverage it at negotiation time. Maybe the men do it better, maybe they have better agents, I don’t know. But I do know that if someone makes more money for their employer (or over indexes on another performance metric like viewing figures for example) than a colleague, then they’re justified in earning more.

Until viewing figures, syndication revenues etc are all out for comparison vs respective salaries, this is an oversimplified argument.

Your ‘analysis’ of that would suggest that on average women are not as good at the same job as the man, is that what you are trying to say?

well Gary Linekar can talk about football in a much better way than Clare Balding lets just say that eh?

Do you see Nick Grimshaw complaining Vanessa Feltz is earning the same for doing the same job.

EDIT , THIS IS ALSO A THREAD ABOIUT GENDER PAY GAP IN THE BBC, just in case you hadn’t noticed so the average woman in the street isn’t a tv star is she?

The entire history of TV licensing has been based on lies… but in the past I guess broadcasting lies about detector vans was only reaching people who were actually attaching LIVE TV (and hence should have a license).

You have to have a licence to own a tv receiver, there was a time when you needed a licence just to listen to the radio as well. You need a license to go fishing in many places, fail to produce one and you can get taken to court and fined.
You need a licence to be able to drive a car, fail to produce one and you can be taken to court and fined.
It’s just that the Beeb, a public service broadcaster, derives its income from the licence fee that some seem to find so irksom; if it’s to remain a public service broadcaster, how else is it to be funded? Cant be advertising, because then, clearly it ceases to be public service, and is then at the whims of the advertisers.
As regards the gender pay gap, looking at the small list posted above of scripted drama and comedy, I’m unfamiliar with most, and I’m not entirely sure about the gender of a couple, but there appears to be a rough 50/50 split between the genders there, so I’m not seeing inequality, and I’d be interested to hear the opinions of those going on about the gender pay gap when Keaveny gets roughly half of what Lauren Laverne gets.
Although she does do other presenting jobs, which Keaveny has never managed to do.
Can’t for the life of me see why…

You have to have a licence to own a tv receiver, there was a time when you needed a licence just to listen to the radio as well. You need a license to go fishing in many places, fail to produce one and you can get taken to court and fined.

You have to have a licence to own a tv receiver

Well not quite … you need a license to USE a TV receiver to receive broadcast channels

I own several TV receivers because the damned things come built into TV’s….
I don’t use any of them…. or any digital set top boxes either…. neither do I have an ariel connected (there is one on the roof and the cable terminates inside the ‘toilet/room with consumer unit’ .. doesn’t even go into any of the rooms with a TV ….

However if you watch the link someone posted earlier this doesn’t stop them connecting up an arial and then tuning a TV that’s never been tuned if they can con you into pressing the buttons …
The vid linked to earlier actually shows them coin this – the arial wasn’t plugged in but they connected up a cable then turned it on and then tried to get the house owner to tune it in so thy could slap him with a fine…

I’ve got the same possibly of using a web browser as anyone with internet has to watch streamed TV…

The difference is no-one comes and tells lies to gain access to my house to see if I have a fishing rod … or more to the point none is publishing media saying they can drive past my house and find if I’ve been sneaking off at midnight to catch the odd trout or carp …. and then force entry and drop a goldfish on my kitchen table

The only reason I have a license is because when I didn’t renew my OH became scared …. we were not watching live TV… but the tone of the letters scared her so she went and paid …

It’s just that the Beeb, a public service broadcaster, derives its income from the licence fee that some seem to find so irksom; if it’s to remain a public service broadcaster, how else is it to be funded?

PPV would be one option but then they discounted that ….
I’m quite happy to pay for the radio usage…. (a reasonable fee) and also I watch BBC world on occasion when I’m in a hotel (and wouldn’t mind a reasonable price for that either)

But that doesn’t change the fact licensing has been based on lies and deception ….
All the way back to the pretend TV detector vans… but like I said … I guess putting scary info-ads on the BBC was a fair enough thing… as obviously you needed to be watching it

Now however they are flooding alternative media…. I don’t know if they still flood their own channels with it but what’s the point of making targeting people who have obviously chosen not to watch live TV

My whole reason for not watching is it because a while ago my ex was away at uni for 3 months…. and when she left the TV wasn’t connected (been moved for a party and arial unplugged) .. When she came back and asked why I’d unplugged it again and I realised in 3 months I’d not bothered plugging the arial back in even though I’d moved the TV back…. then I ended up with one with the OH … when we got our first proper house together and I bought a TV ….

Buying a TV just seemed like a setting up home thing… and we had a baby on the way etc.
After a couple of years it just wasn’t being used as a TV …. BIG monitor yes…. for a year we got satellite in my OH’s native language… after a year cancelled as she didn’t watch it….

Nope I’m saying the salary has no connection whatsoever with their ability or not to be presenters.

If it reflects gender for GL that would seen to be based on some perceived value of an ex-footballer not some value of a presenter.

If the BBC wrote a proper job description and advertised the job then interviewed properly I’m confident they could find someone at least a bit under the £1,750,000 – £1,799,999 (like for £50k a year .. it is after all a couple of days a week for 6 months a year) there must be thousands of retired people who are good presenters who know enough about the rules of football.. surely more than one would want the job for 50k a year?

Equally it’s unclear to me why say Victoria Derbyshire or Sue Barker earns double John Simpson…

BBC presenter Jane Garvey says she would be “delighted” if high-earning men took a pay cut – which is all well and good but then of course some of those ridiculous womens salaries need to be cut as well…

The two seem completely different statements … given they are being paid from public money I think they need to address the former before the latter ..

If they simply just paid according to a value and job description then they would find it much simpler to say if this is gender bias or not…

For the life of me I can’t see why a football presenter is intrinsically at a higher pay grade than any other sports presenter .. if they set a job pay scale then people apply and the ones most qualified and who do the best interview get the job.

When I see Gary’s salary I get the impression that was not the process … or actually the process was asking him how much he’d do the job for?

In most instances I would rather watch a male presenter than a female one. I am sure a lot of women will agree with this.

Why should the high earning men with high ratings take a pay cut to fund pay increases to women who are not as good at fronting shows with poorer ratings.

The first thing to go on the BBC should be Women’s Hour.

Who said women are not as good, you may not like women presenters but that doesn’t mean they are not as good.

Sounds like you are part of the problem to me…