[Closed] Equal pay in Sport

Equal pay in sports is in many cases, political correctness. That for me is disrespectful and counter productive. I work in finance and a women absolutely should be paid equally for equal work. However is sports its about performance and viewing figures / sponsorship and in the vast majority if sports its not the same.

Tennis: When the women do 5-set matches they've earned the same as the men.

Yet we have a separate category for women.

One of the key things that defines 'sport' is the idea of fair play and 'a level playing field' - in athletic and endurance events - such as cycle racing - physiologically a man will always have a better power to weight ration than a woman so a competition of that nature where men and women compete head to head wouldn't be 'fair'

Similarly we have categorisation of sports by age with junior and veteran categories for the same reason - to have fairer, closer competition, and is some sports you'll have classification by size or weight.

Fair rates of 'pay' are a different issue. Its not about a pay rate in the same way that a conventional job has a pay rate and scale. In an employment situation you get a wage for being good enough not for doing your best (all though those might be the same thing) and certainly no for [i]being[/i] the best.

Sport is about winning prizes, and the size of those prizes is dictated by the level of support that sport receives from spectators / fans / viewers, either from their ticket money of from the sponsors and advertisers that want to reach those fans. The money doesn't come from nowhere, its directly proportional to the volume of popular support that sport receives. The more fans there are the more profit motive there is to stage an event and the more prize money you can offer to attract the competitors this fans want to see.

So the big money is in being the best in the world in something that [i]everyone[/i] wants to watch you do. I remember a Ted Talk where Rodney Mullen talked about his skateboarding career and being 'the best in the world at something nobody was interested in anymore' which why he's not a multimillionaire even though there a very few people who are better at their sport than he was at his.

Keep it fair - just base the pay on the number of people who come to watch. Simples.....

Full equality

Tennis: When the women do 5-set matches they've earned the same as the men.

I suppose thats the point in a way - in tennis men and women don't compete against each other, but they compete in the same courts, in the same tournament in front of the same audience who've all paid for the same tickets. The mens matches might be longer than the womens, but competitors don't have to fill out a time sheet (although Isner and Mahut probably wish you did - [url= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isner–Mahut_match_at_the_2010_Wimbledon_Championships ]double bubble[/url] )

The value of prizes in professional sport are a surely a drop in the ocean compared to revenue. So why the use of revenue as a means to evaluate the 'fairness' of earnings...?

In terms of sponsorship,it would be interesting to compare a high-profile female female athletes earnings compared to a middle-ranking male in the same sport.

As for the 'when women play five sets' argument, when women have the choice of playing five sets that may be valid. I'm not sure they are offered the choice.

All a bit pointless though really, because even where women are shown to add equal financial value to the bottom line - they are still paid less on average. E.g. Female board members, CEO's etc...

I'd like to see a tour de france for unfit middle aged blokes

(using me as the living definition of the upper limit for admissible physiology)

All a bit pointless though really, because even where women are shown to add equal financial value to the bottom line - they are still paid less on average. E.g. Female board members, CEO's etc...

And they shouldn't be. I'm all for equal pay for everyone doing the same job but what seems to be being asked in sport is for is equal pay for people doing a lesser job in terms of actual performance/ viewing figures/revenue generated.

b0ll0cks

it's a self fulfilling prophesy - promote womens sport less, deprioritise them on the TV schedule then say 'oh no one watches it so it doesn't generate the same revenue, therefore you get less money'

pay them the same

[quote=edhornby ]b0ll0cks
it's a self fulfilling prophesy - promote womens sport less, deprioritise them on the TV schedule then say 'oh no one watches it so it doesn't generate the same revenue, therefore you get less money'
pay them the sameFootballers? Do you think the leading womens footballers should be paid as much as the leading men?

Who by?

it's a self fulfilling prophesy - promote womens sport less, deprioritise them on the TV schedule then say 'oh no one watches it so it doesn't generate the same revenue, therefore you get less money'

So these massive multinational sports and media organisations lose out on billions of pounds worth of income and profits just to spite women?

So these massive multinational sports and media organisations lose out on billions of pounds worth of income and profits just to spite women?

No. It's probably more to do with the fact they can't be arsed to support an emerging market for women's sport when they can continue to milk the male sport bandwagons they jumped on 70 odd years ago.

I'm just not convinced that the greedy buggers would pass up a money making opportunity.

I'd go as far as to say that Sky would sponsor and televise competitive daffodil growing if they thought it would turn a profit.

Its a bit of both

Men are physically stronger so when they do sport it will tend to be beter [ faster stronger not necessarily aesthetically] better so they will always attract the most fans - and i assume most sports fans are men - and therefore get the most money

That said we also do have an issue with the promotion of female sports stars and the pay they get

Even the very successful female track athletes wont be getting what their male counterparts do and this disparity does need addressing.

It's similar to what goes on in Hollywood with actors salaries. The woman are paid way less than the men, even when they have comparable box office appeal. Question is, why do they accept it?

The woman are paid way less than the men, even when they have comparable box office appeal.

Women's football top flight crowds? Last season the average crowd in the English Woman's Super League was 892. Their pay should reflect the size of crowds their game attracts.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/33501771

[quote=scotroutes ]Tennis: When the women do 5-set matches they've earned the same as the men.

I wonder how large a proportion of the total time they spend playing tennis as part of their "job" they spend playing matches, I wonder how much total time the women spend playing tennis compared to the men.

Though if you want to base pay on the amount of time they spend performing, presumably female downhill mountain bikers should be paid more than the men? Paula Radcliffe should be paid about 800 times what Usain Bolt is?

[quote=aracer ]I wonder how large a proportion of the total time they spend playing tennis as part of their "job" they spend playing matches, I wonder how much total time the women spend playing tennis compared to the menDunno. I don't watch them practising. Do the TV companies show it?

It's similar to what goes on in Hollywood with actors salaries. The woman are paid way less than the men, even when they have comparable box office appeal. Question is, why do they accept it?

Depends on what they think you will bring and what they can get away with, not always by gender.

John Travolta got only (ONLY!!!!) $150,000 for Pulp Fiction - much less than all the others including Uma Thurman.

Sean Astin (Sam Gamgee in LOTR) got only £250,000 for the 3 films; much less than Cate Blanchett.

Chris Evans (Captain America) got $300,000 for his first appearance and 3 million for Avengers. Scarlet Johanson got £6 million.

[quote=scotroutes ]I don't watch them practising. Do the TV companies show it?

You know when you see a TV newsreader perform for 30 minutes, that doesn't mean they get to snort coke for the other 23.5 hours a day.

There's a simple answer to this, keep woman specific sports, but allow any woman that fancies their chances to enter the mens event. If they're good enough they'll earn.

You can't go supplementing womans sport on the basis of equality, that's mental.

You know when you see a TV newsreader perform for 30 minutes, that doesn't mean they get to snort coke for the other 23.5 hours a day.

Not what I heard about Bill Turnbull.

I wonder how large a proportion of the total time they spend playing tennis as part of their "job" they spend playing matches, I wonder how much total time the women spend playing tennis compared to the men.

But the thing with tennis is that the women are still able to play doubles in the big tournaments whereas the men simply can't, if they are going to be competitive, enabling them to earn additional prize money.

The simple fact is sport is "eat what you kill" if people are paying to watch then you get a decent slice - people will only invest in promotion if they can see a pay back.

Its nowhere near as simple as numbers of people who come and watch, it's pretty obvious that promotion has a lot to do with. The sports that run men's and women's competitions concurrently, in the same venues and on the same broadcasts, like Tennis, and a few of the Olympic sports: Athletics, Swimming, Track cycling etc. all unsurprisingly generate a lot more interest in women's sports than those that are totally separate like football. That means that the female stars of those sports are household names, and people take an interest in their results. Consequently I suspect the prize money and pay is probably more equitable in those sports.

I bet if you had women's premier league matches played right before or after the men's fixtures, or a women's Tour de France run over similar stages, and all broadcast on the same channels you would see a very rapid growth in their followings. They might never reach the same level, but it would be a lot more even than it is now. As it is the women haven't had the chance to prove that people would want to watch them.

Drop a quick line to HoSport at he Beeb then, theyre a bit desperate for action these days. They could be the channel that satisfies the pent up craving for women's sport. Winners all round....

I bet if you had women's premier league matches played right before or after the men's fixtures, or a women's Tour de France run over similar stages

It's a reality in sport that viewing figures get you the money, women's fitba being associated with the men's wouldn't make a great deal of difference. It'd see a possibly see a very slight increase in interest, but certainly not enough to keep the TV companies interested in bidding for it regularly.

Heck if you're supplementing womens fitba, then I want scottish fitba supplemented. And by extention, I want supplemented, personally. Why should one aspect of society get a supplement and others not, after all we're all about equality are we not? If we're championing socialism for one aspect of society, then lets go the whole hog.

Plus, womens fitba is gumpff, that's just the reality. The product will need to vastly improve before the TV networks take an interest.

Also it's another reality in sport that if you want to earn you'll need to travel to earn, with the likes of womens fitba, well head off to america, they had decent viewing figures for the womens world cup just past, so there's obviously going to be a market developing there. I think you'll struggling in europe if big bucks is the aim.

surely this is best addressed by only having one category in a given sport and letting pure performance decide who wins and gets paid.

Like Formula 1? Look how that works out...

It wouldn't be very appealing to some females if it was mixed only. I think there is a place for gender specific sports if it encourages others to take part. I'm not advocating females and males shouldn't be allowed to race either I'm just saying there is a place for different categories.

They might never reach the same level, but it would be a lot more even than it is now

Have you ever watched it at club level? Viewing figures would be very low after the novelty wears off (don't think it would be cost effective) but I'm not against it being shown I just don't think it would get the exposure you reckon. Would be nice to see a match of day version though.

fitba

Equality is important and should be made to work.

it's a self fulfilling prophesy - promote womens sport less, deprioritise them on the TV schedule then say 'oh no one watches it so it doesn't generate the same revenue, therefore you get less money'

mikewsmith - Member
fitba
????
Equality is important and should be made to work.

There is no equality in sport, pretty much goes against the entire concept of it. Men don't get paid the same either.

football/fitba

Men don't get the same as?
Sport doesn't want to tackle the hard issue, one of the biggest problems is to fix pay equality is it will cost more, it will be a huge investment but as nobody is really bothering to try we won't get to see the rewards.

one of the biggest problems is to fix pay equality

They had pay equality in the 1960s when there was a max wage for footballers. Jimmy Hill fixed that though.

Equal pay in sport? Easy to say. Who is paying the money though? I'm sure the British tiddly winks team would like equal pay with male footballers as well. They don't have the audience figures or advertising pulling power either.

Even when strength and endurance are not factors I don't see campaigns to have equal competitions rather than separate male/female events. Curling or Olympic shooting events for example. Why not make those open events. Actually the shooting events were open events from 1968-1980. Were they changed because only two women were ever good enough to win medals?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_at_the_Summer_Olympics

Sport at top level is not about equality it's about measuring inequality.

You can't go supplementing womans sport on the basis of equality, that's mental.

So true. There's a huge movement going on with this one flaw, forcing equality is completely unequal.

Sport, is primarily a business not a sport in this context.

Pay per unique view is a consequence of that. If you want equality you need women's football/cycling etc to receive the same viewing levels. It's not a case of effort on the individuals part, it's about the individuals ability to generate revenue for the business. Whether women are getting paid equally per view is something I'd be interested to see more on. Tennis was mentioned earlier, would have thought viewing figures would have been pretty similar?

In an ideal world we'd all be paid for effort. But we're not.

If male footballers weren't paid such idiotic, ridiculously high salaries, there might be enough left over to increase the salaries of women footballers.

2015 mens' FA Cup final, attendance 89,283
2015 womens' FA Cup final, attendance 30,710
2014 mens' friendly v Norway had lower gate figures than the 2014 womens' friendly v Germany
I don't know the TV viewing figures, but on the Wembley gate figures alone you might expect the top women players to be paid a generous salary. But they aren't, not even close

I don't know why more women tennis players are not up in arms about not playing 5 sets. To me this is deeply patronising.

Female athletes should be permitted to take performance enhancing drugs so they can run as fast as men, and men should be made to throw underarm. We're lucky there's no shopping trolley events because we all saw how badly men performed on supermarket sweep..

Plus, womens fitba is gumpff, that's just the reality. The product will need to vastly improve before the TV networks take an interest.

So people will watch and like sports for a lot of different reasons, it's not just about athletic prowess in most cases. So a lot of women's sports would be successful and make money, IMHO, if more effort was made to develop and promote them in interesting ways.

IMHO, if more effort was made to develop and promote them in interesting ways.

So a lot of women's sports would be successful and make money, IMHO, if more effort was made to develop and promote them in interesting ways.

So enough (general) winging. Make the effort, promote the sport (as above there are TV channels starved (?) of decent live sport) and fill the latent demand. Everyone's a winner.

Either than or a nice windfall tax on all male professional sports men. That the normal answer... 😉

Firstly, as most paid sport is financed by sponsors, it's upvto them to pay what they want.
Equality. "Fair" is treating everyone the same. Women's sport is therefore unfair as in most cases the more competitive players, men , are excluded. You win some, lose some. Let's see men burning off a 14 year old Chinese girl in some gymnastics. I fail to see why women's sports are watered down. Can't they play 5 sets or do 4000 metres team pursuit?
Equal pay? Yes if those paying the bill agree and yes if the event is the same.

The governing bodies of sports are supposed to represent the interests of the players and fans. They have a responsibility to encourage kids to take up sports. Most of those kids will never become professionals, but those amateurs are the bulk of the players and fans. The revenues from sponsors and broadcasting are supposed to build the sport. Part of that is encouraging girls to take up sports. No, they won't be able to compete with men in most sports because of genetics, but that doesn't mean they try any less or are less deserving of consideration. The sponsors might have commercial interests at heart, but the governing bodies have a responsibility to treat women's sports equally. The governing bodies' responsibilities are not to make profits, but to ensure that the players and fans are treated equally and fairly. Why should women world champions have to fly economy class when their male counterparts have everything laid on by sponsors and governing bodies?