Tennis: When the women do 5-set matches they've earned the same as the men.
You could say equal money for equal effort - if you watch womens tennis live you will see how much effort they put in to a match - it can be exceptionally high unless there is a big gap in skills (which unfortunately there is as you go down the rankings).
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.
Five sets might be an issue therefore considering the effort level. Maybe there could be some other reworking of a set structure so a match can reach a middle group between the 3 and 5 sets.
For most sports if you really want to see how it is done technically then it is best to go see women play it live - the fact that they physically can't muscle their way through technical short comings (mostly) means that they have to execute it better.
If male footballers weren't paid such idiotic, ridiculously high salaries, there might be enough left over to increase the salaries of women footballers.
vicky the tv deals and paid attendence which drive those deals are paid to watch mens football. The fact is a mens lower league team woukd thrash a ladies international side so if you want to benchmark ladies should be paid like the vauxhaul conference. Ladies football should be paid based on the economics of that part of the game.
Tennis is a good case study, I've attended numerous ladies only tournaments as well as watched many ladies matches at grand slams. Ladies tennis can actually be more interesting especially on grass where its somewhat less power orientated. Tennis is one sport where ladies prize money is comparable.
Golf, ditto been to a few mens and ladies events. Whilst ladies are very skilled their level is way below the men and crowds are minimal, this does mean you can easily follow the best players but its not surprising they receive way less money.
Cycling, the ladies Olympic road race was far shorter and went past at a snails pace in comparison to the mens. On that basis I wouldn't pay much to watch ladies only events.
Altheltics, probably here the performance difference is quite marked.
So it really is about the revenue that can be generated. Men are notorious for not watching tv. Sport does drag them in so its not surprising advertisers will pay a premium and hence the sportsmens rewards are greater.
Men are notorious for not watching tv
Tell me you're joking.
2015 mens' FA Cup final, attendance 89,283
2015 womens' FA Cup final, attendance 30,710
What was the difference in average ticket price.
Did it make the event any less exciting in the fact that they were going slightly slower ?Cycling, the ladies Olympic road race was far shorter and went past at a snails pace in comparison to the mens. On that basis I wouldn't pay much to watch ladies only events
If it did I assume you find the hill top finishes of the tour very, very boring because they are going even slower ?
Personally I find the women's road riding far more entertaining as they are always attacking - mens is really dull :
Break gets away
Break gets caught inside the last 10K
Sprinters fight it out .....
I still don't understand why the BBC doesn't bring back Grandstand promoting women's and minor sports
I still don't understand why the BBC doesn't bring back Grandstand promoting women's and minor sports
Agreed. Trans World Sport and Grandstand used to provide a far better coverage than a week's worth of Sky Sports.
I'm from a sports obsessed family and this is an often discussed topic. Mum watches netball, and England netball do market international and Super League to recreational players but don't see much effort outside that, so despite getting Sky Sports coverage it stays niche as a spectator sport.
My girlfriend plays football but had no interested in the women's world cup (which did get good coverage and promotion) because she thought the games weren't worth watching as the players simply aren't as good as the men's game. The quality certainly has improved in recent years though. We've been to a couple of international women's rugby matches and they really are a poor standard.
[quote=mark88 ]Trans World SportNow you're just getting super-niche. Lets deal with womens sports first....
Vickypea and mikewsmith +1.
I love the reasons people use to stand up for inequality. It's absolutely amazing to me how people can see huge disparity as appropriate. Probably best at this point to forget that people used economically-based arguments to support colonialism and slavery - and saw it as 100% justifiable.
People only watch women's sport when there's nothing else on telly! 😉
...and on a serious note - I don't think women 'buy' into sport as much as men. Men are armchair experts, we have to have the latest kit, even for a round on the council golf course. They need the latest footy strip to go and watch their team.
In general men are suckers who can be sold anything! So the marketing and money is aimed directly at men.
My wife has never said to me - 'we really to spend £80 a month on Sky so we can watch sport all day'.
Equality is all very well but pro sport is primarily entertainment and the amount people/teams get paid is (at least partly) dependent on how many eyeballs they attract. I don't get paid for my mediocre cycling and running.
I always wondered if women don't watch sport because there is no women's sport on TV to watch when they are young and so get into the habit of watching.
[quote=andyfla ]I always wondered if women don't watch sport because there is no women's sport on TV to watch when they are young and so get into the habit of watching.There's definitely a chicken-and-egg thing going on.
If more women watched womens sports on TV, it would be worth more to the advertisers which would mean more income into the sport which would make more women want to compete (and mean that they could be better paid). It perhaps needs some "intervention" to get that ball rolling faster than it is.
(of course it would help if more men watched womens sports too but that's still not encouraging more women to compete and upping the standards)
Is there equal pay in sport.
Do all male footballers get paid the same. Do all male cyclists get paid the same, if not on what basis are their wages defined, is it due to market forces. Could the same reasoning be behind how much woman get paid rather than they get paid what they get paid because they are woman.
To watch Arsenal ladies £6 concessions £3
To watch Arsenal men's non members if tickets are available £27- £97 depending where you sit.
Google image Arsenal ladies game, in the majority of the pictures there are lots of empty seats this despite an adult ticket costing the same as cod and chips.
Start filling the stands and the TV companies may take more of an interest.
In general men are suckers who can be sold anything! So the marketing and money is aimed directly at men.
Women can also be persuaded to pay £2500.00 for a pair of Jimmy Choo heels.
And more for a bag to go with them.
It's all about where the marketing people decide focus their energy.
It's not just men that are suckers for marketing.
It wouldn't even necessarily need to be equal pay, just less of a huge gulf would be a start.
Crack on and build up your viewing figures. If you can get the viewing figures for games, sky and bt sport will fund your sport.vickypea - Member
It wouldn't even necessarily need to be equal pay, just less of a huge gulf would be a start.
ffs, look at the tv deals english fitba gets. 5billion v 75million for scotland over 5 years.
inequality exists in the mens games. and it exists within leagues aswell, it's just the nature of the sport that the best dominate finances.
If womans football could provide the viewing figures they will get the money.
It's now over to you to promote your sport.
[url= http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-18882091 ]Explain this please.[/url]
holst - Member
Explain this please.
😆 no.
You can't fairly compare Arsenal ladies pay with Arsenal men's.
The question is do Arsenal ladies get paid the same as a men's team who generate the same money as they do. And at a gate fee of £6 i would say that team would be much lower down the leagues. And If that team on average gets paid more, you can claim sexism.
Do you think the Arsenal mens reserve/youth teams - who will be getting much lower gate receipts- possibly lower than the womens get paid more than the womens team?
Its not just the financial/support aspect though one cannot ignore this and it is a very important factor in it.Personally I think that is the primary cause though there's still some sexism at work.
you need to see both sides and also factor in it is probably harder for females to break into some sports - driving seems to be one as an example.
Ok seosamh77, I'll explain. About the same time as FIFA was spending tens of millions of dollars making [url= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Passions ]a propaganda movie that grossed $319 on its opening day[/url], the women's world cup holders had to fly economy class to compete at the Olympics. Nonsense like this happens because the administrators of major sports are corrupt old $%^@s who don't give a rat's &$#@ about the sport or the fans and they brush off criticisms with lame excuses about tv revenues and commercial concerns.
[url= http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/jan/14/female-f1-driver-bernie-ecclestone ]Here's another %@*$heel that should have been pensioned off decades ago.[/url]
Holst +1
[url= http://www.tsmplug.com/football/arsenal-players-salary-list-2014/ ]matchday and gate £93 million.[/url]
There are plenty of lower league teams that would love to see that money too. Get in the queue.
average attendance figures for Women's Super League One : 1,076
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/34447139
average attendance figures for the national leaugue (or whatever the popular term is these days): 1.906
http://european-football-statistics.co.uk/attn/aveengnl.htm
In the womans league earnings are around 15k to 25k
In the mens national the earnering are around 20k to 40k.
As you go down the leagues the men will get paid less and less, until they are paying for themselves.
seems reasonably comparable tbh.
I think we should distinguish between prize money and sponsorship when talking about sports "pay". There's a good case to be made that event organisers and governing bodies should offer the same prize money for men and women. I'm actually seeing this at a number of local bike races now. I think it encourages more women to compete and reinforces the perception that women's racing is just as serious as the men's.
Sponsorship is a commercial arrangement between a sponsor and a specific individual, usually for marketing purposes. The financial arrangement is determined by how valuable a sponsor thinks an individual athlete is, irrespective of gender. I would guess that Paula Radcliffe's appearance money and sponsorship remuneration for the London Marathon was much greater than some of the male competitors, because of her greater media value.
Youse are getting it backwards btw, it's not prize money or equal earnings is sport you should be griping about, that's irrelevant and a consequence of something else.
And that something else, is investment in grass roots, as opposed to championing the rights of individuals to earn extra cash.
Should there be extra investment in womans grass roots football, and promoting it at that level, yes absolutely imo. There needs to be more investment in the grass roots of mens football too, it's something these islands do very badly. Hence the need to import so many at the top level.
I can not get behind the idea of supplementing mediocare players wages. It's not where the focus should be at all, and it's a waste of resources. I can get behind grass roots development, in both mens, and possibly skewed in terms of womans football(in the short to medium term to give it a much needed boost). If womans football wants to get better, it'll need to invest in youth and massively expand the amount of women playing, that's down to investment to a point, but it's also a cultural change where you'll need to encourage young girls to play from a very early age.
Personally, it's a big task, and as I've mentioned, it's probably more likely to be successful in the likes of america or the scandinavian countries and their success will likely influence here, but that shouldn't mean that it shouldn't happen here..
How should it be funded? Well prize money to the top teams should be taxed for it to happen. But tbh, the greed in fitba is against you here. I think most football fans would agree, if given the choice, to take from the top and give to grass roots. But, in reality that's a difficult task.
^^ agreed - grass roots is incredibly important.
in the spirit of the above, I reckon it would be an interesting idea if there was a tax put on players wages by associations, say 2%, and that money invested directly back into grass roots.
How that money would be spent is up for debate, but I reckon it'd be a good idea.
A lady competitor in a local triathlon complained that the first ten men got prizes but only the first five women. The organiser replied that proportionally more women got prizes and that the podium prizes were identical. The war of words went on until the organiser said that he would no longer have a separate lady's category, make no distinction whatsoever on the basis of sex and would award prizes to the first fifteen whatever their sex. The top women then got involved and the original prize system retained.
Seosamh77 - fair comment but footy isn't my sport. I used to play in my 20s with men, but I don't even watch men's football any more because of the obscene amount of money the men are getting.
I do watch womens' cycling and athletics though.
To watch Arsenal ladies £6 concessions £3
To watch Arsenal men's non members if tickets are available £27- £97 depending where you sit.
This is partly where the problem lies, go to an Arsenal mens' match and they will field a team that contains maybe one Englishman and one Welshman; they've attempted to buy the best players in the world and people will pay to see them. Chicken and egg...
Arsenal ladies on the other hand will have seven English women, one Scot, one from Ireland and a couple of Spanish players. Far better for developing a national squad, but not such a crowd-puller
Men have been playing the FA Cup Final at Wembley since 1923, the women since 2015. Almost a 100 year lag in exposure for the womens' game. Rugby League and American Football have used Wembley more than womens' football
If you look at cricket and rugby significant resources have been and continue to be put into the women's game at the grass roots level. At U13 there are 400K girls compared to 700K boys in rugby so there is plenty of grass routes support. Drop off levels are higher for females, partly because the additional investment is quite recent but also participation level for females does drop off more in every sport.
We had about 20% female when my son started Rugby at under 7, now at u9 there are none - not sure why tbh - one thing that makes a fair few drop out is the fact there aren't enough playing to make a team up once they have to play on their own rather than mixes (u13 ?)Drop off levels are higher for females
Perhaps playing touch rugby alongside the full contact would keep them in ?
At the higher level
Australia's women's national football team has called off its entire tour of the United States as the pay dispute with the FFA continues to escalate.The Matildas on Tuesday confirmed their withdrawal from a Sydney training camp ahead of the tour, and have now upped the ante in calling off their tour of the world champions.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-09-09/matildas-cancel-usa-tour-over-pay-dispute/6763166
Vivian said that at $21,000 (£10,100) a year for each player, there is no question the Matildas are underpaid."They don't even have yearly contracts, they have six month contracts and those six month contracts equate to about $10,500 (£5,050)," he said.
Throw in the other stuff about flights and travel being second class to that of the men (who could easily afford to pay their own way)
I can not get behind the idea of supplementing mediocare players wages. It's not where the focus should be at all, and it's a waste of resources.
These are not mediocre players, they are some of the best at what they do. They are probably on less than the minimum wage. The men's national team could probably earn enough in 4 days to pay the womens annual salary.
Like the Equal Pay Act, it often takes intervention from the top to make change happen. When I was rowing at university, we spent years trying to get our boat race 'equal' to the men's, i.e. The same distance on the same stretch of water rather than a quarter of the distance on flat water. Never mind the other inequalities of toilets in a car park vs heated floor in the boathouse, paying for you boats rather than empacher sponsorship. The ONLY thing that changed it was when an equal opportunities employer refused to sponsor just the men's race, and made it possible for women to compete on the same terms.
[quote=seosamh77 ]If womans football wants to get better, it'll need to invest in youth and massively expand the amount of women playing, that's down to investment to a point, but it's also a cultural change where you'll need to encourage young girls to play from a very early age.
At which point we come back to media coverage for the women's game so that more girls see that it's something worth them aspiring to.
Someone earlier mentioned the quality of women's football being low. I must admit that I find the contrary. The matches I have watched have some great football being played, less acting up and better sportsmanship.
I don't even watch men's football any more because of the obscene amount of money the men are getting.
I presume you no longer watch films or listen to chart music for the same reason?
Yes, footballers get paid obscene amounts, but the top players are great at what they do.
There is without doubt more the governing bodies could and should be doing to support women's and grass root sports, but as it stands, the men are simply getting their share of what fans and sponsors are willing to pay to watch them.
For me, this means I go to less games than I used to because I don't think it's good value for money anymore. However judging by the likes of the rugby world cup ticket sales and waiting lists for Premier League season tickets this isn't a common opinion.
Tennis: When the women do 5-set matches they've earned the same as the men.
Prize money at Wimbledon is the same for men and women
[url= http://www.wimbledon.com/pdf/Wimbledon_Prize_Money_2015.pdf ]Although they do insist on referring to them as Ladies...[/url]
aracer - Member
At which point we come back to media coverage for the women's game so that more girls see that it's something worth them aspiring to
I'd think that's a logical conclusion at all, and I think there's a massive mis-understand going on as to why the likes of football has such massive followings. It's not a lot to do with prize money or wages, they are a consequence of popularity, not the cause of the popularity.
Half the reason for grass roots involvement is that it builds up audiences aswell. Tennis is a great example there, womens tennis has a long history, that's why it's so popular.
Professional sport exists on history and loyalties.
It's a slow process, and it's a process you are going have to accept. Millions of people aren't going to turn on overnight and start watching womens sport.
Mens sport in general has 150/200years head start in the organisational aspect.
As i say I'm not against womens sport, not in the slightest, i'm all for it. I'm just against supplementing wages, and believe it's entirely the wrong focus.
I think what many people are missing is that none of this money has to be provided. Someone, individual or organisation is paying for it for a reason.
It's their money and thus they have the perfect right to do what they like with it. To suggest other wise is stupid and immoral. Same reason that some choose to only buy fair trade or British or whatever your preference is.
At which point we come back to media coverage for the women's game so that more girls see that it's something worth them aspiring to.
Yes but no one really wants to watch women's sports do they? I mean the viewing figures for the Women's football world cup in Canada last year were pretty dire weren't they?
By equal measure, who want's to watch men's beach volleyball? 😉
Folks watching sport generally want to watch people pushing boundaries, and unfortunately for women, with very few exceptions, men are better at sport than women, often by quite some margin.
Men by nature are more competitive too and I'm guessing that far more men take part in and watch sport than women do. When was the last time you heard some husband complaining that their wife watched too much sport on tv?
Regarding careers outside sport then again it's generally men who are more competitive, more work obsessed than women who tend to balance work with family duties. Nothing wrong with that, but it's probably the reason why there's more men on company boards than women. The door is now 100% open to women but you'd probably find not so many that would want to walk through that door at all cost to work life balance etc.
Mark88 - you presume right! I rarely watch films and definitely don't listen to chart music 😀
Yes but no one really wants to watch women's sports do they?
Correct. Once those advocating equal pay start turning up at games and paying at the gate maybe the pay will increase.
[img] 
?w=620&q=85&auto=format&sharp=10&s=68c9c4006000c5c8291438b85ce71a18[/img]