Equal pay in sport

[ControvertialYeti]

AIBU to entertain the idea that women and men should NOT be paid equally in sport.

I really hope this doesn’t come across like I am trying to trigger hate, i am genuinely trying to explore my personal thoughts on feminism in this area in an effort to identify and change any prejudices I have or that I was unaware of.

People often say I am a poor feminist. Currently, I do not believe female and male athletes should be paid equally in sport and am honestly very happy to be convinced otherwise (so long as no-one is rude of obnoxious in their replies)

What is a fair way to gauge funding in sport?

A-If you are paying athletes wages based on effort, the top female and top male athletes must get paid the same because they are equally putting in as much effort to get to that level? right? But then if you are paying athletes based on effort? how can one say that the bottom female and male athletes shouldn’t get paid as much as the top ones? because they are equally putting in as much effort? they are working just as hard? For a low ranking football team to win anything you might even say they have to put in more effort as they don’t have access to the equipment, training facilities or coaches? should they be paid more? That doesn’t seem quite fair I suppose?

B-If we are paying our athletes based on performance? (i.e. who runs the fastest or who scores the most goals?) then shouldn’t the pay equate to the performance? In which case top male 100m sprinters should probably get more (probably proportionately) if they sprint faster than a) top women 100m sprinters and b) bottom male 100m sprinters? However, I’m not really sure that sounds fair either?

C-If we pay athletes based on the level of entertainment it provides (as it stands in most elite sports the whole industry is mostly funded through spectators either directly or indirectly) so surely if more people want to watch women’s 100m hurdles than mens rugby league, the money should reflect that? but that doesn’t actually seem that fair either as just because a sport isn’t popular (like BMX riding shouldn’t mean it gets discriminated against?

D- We could pay all athletes the same amount. Ie any gender, any sport, every level capped? I think that is probably the most fair but its likely to mean the prize money in all sport takes a significant hit, and consequentially the quality is likely to take a big hit, which I can’t see anyone getting on board with.

At the moment (for me personally) the most sensible and fair approach seems to be a mixture of B and C. Performance should be rewarded but only to the extent that spectators value seeing it. Which i believe is somewhere close to what we have at present. Seeing Lewis Hamilton wizz round the track might be worth a £400 ticket at Silverstone but Plymouth Argyle women’s team might only be worth £5.50 on a Sunday?
However, with this approach, its likely that less popular sports or athletes of not as objectively high individual performance, will face financial discrimination. But while I find it hard to rationalise this as it does prejudices against female athletes or sports people don’t want to watch. However, I’m
not sure it’s necessarily wrong as I find it hard to appreciate any alternatives without de-incentivising quality in sport or under rewarding sports that spectators have more desire to watch?

The argument about paying women less in sport always goes: but the men are better, bigger audience yadda yadda yadda

And yet. The USA Women's Soccer team are wildly more successful than the men. Women's soccer there is hugely popular etc. They don't get paid when they lose an international (the men get $5,000) they travel economy the men travel business, they get paid less when they win and their winning bonus is less.

In terms of recognition do you know who the captain of the men's team is? the women`s? I'd guess you are more likely, by a large margin, to know who the captain of the women's team is.

Who should get paid more there? Yeah.

Equal pay may not be necessary/possible in a lot of sports now. I'd argue the tennis is one where it should be done immediately. But there should be steps taken to put more women's sport where people can see it (TV for eg) and eventually level up (or down for the men).

Personally I enjoy the skill of women's tennis as much, if not more than, men's tennis. The shorter game thing is no argument for less prize money, as elite male and female tennis players train the same. (All the time!)

I loved watching the women's World Cup football and found the players really skilful. But I'm not that interested in sport anyway. The US women's soccer team are more successful AND more popular than the men's team, but still get paid less.

Premier league make football players are massively overpaid. It's obscene.

Yes. The USA women's team are more successful but at women's football. It doesn't generate the cash.

The men's team aren't successful but they take part in a much more paid for sport.

My local under 9 team has won the league 3 years in a row. Should they be paid more than man it's players who haven't won the league for years?

One of many reasons I love equestrian Olympic disciplines. The prize money is the same for men and women as they compete on equal terms.

@Lantern156
I absolutely agree 100% with everything you have written!

You haven't written this very well as there's too much waffle and you're biased, but anyway, as a former competitive athlete in a sport with equal prize money, I'll bite.

You have focused on the spectator element of sports which have a largely male following. In my sport, it started out make dominated but there is a growing problem with young men not wishing to put the time and effort into training, so that now we have some races where the women's fields are larger than the men's.

Sometimes women win the race overall, or at least place 2nd or 3rd, but I've never seen them awarded both make and dental prizes, only female.

But most importantly if all, when I was at my peak 15 years ago and prize money was not equal, I would regularly place 3rd, 4th or 5th in national races behind elite level, international athletes. Whereas the men's races would be won by athletes with no international ranking. Yet at that time mens ieoxe money would go duwn to 5th because they had more competitors. That situation is nowadays often reversed but prize money is now equal.

The problems occur when non sports persons such as yourself start making judgements based on inadequate information from a position of bias.

It's a ridiculously old fashioned attitude that offers nothing in a modern world, and which perpetuates bias against women - lack of changing facilities, even in newly built facilities women will regularly be left with 1/3 the caiacity of men, and general discouragement.

To take another sport which was male dominated for years - horse racing. Now women jockeys are beginning to win a lot despite having lower numbers, and trainers recognise that women jockeys (who nearly all have a much higher % winner to runner ratio) can get better results out of many horses.

My sport was triathlon. But even in athletics, for years now, British women have been getting much better international results than men. Only in recent years have a few male 1500m runners developed at true international level. Yet I don't see calls for make athlete prize money or funding to be cut.

Serena Williams has been outspoken about the fact that she would happily pay 5 sets. It’s offensive to women the idea that they’re just so weak that they can’t stand a whole five sets. Nonsense, they can, it’s just that Wimbledon has to fit in to 2 weeks and increasing the length of the women’s games would cause a scheduling nightmare. I see absolutely no other reason why it’s not equal in tennis. In squash it is equal sets between the men and women, and squash in many ways is harder on the body than tennis.

Yes. The USA women's team are more successful but at women's football. It doesn't generate the cash.

not actually true in the States, though, i think. So it's just a feeble excuse. Actually i think they've recently announced (as have England IIRC) that they will be paying the men and women equally

I think this is one of the few cases where you can let free market economics decide the pay levels.

I vaguely recall the USA football sexism was relatively clear as the payments and travel discrepancies couldn't be tracked back to differences in revenue. The tournament and broadcast fees between the successful women's team and relatively less successful men's team were broadly equal or possibly the women's team 'earned' more hence decisions about travel policies and payments appeared discriminatory.

Also, it's been widely debated that there needs to be a shake up anyway as the average viewer, doesn't have the attention span anymore for a long 3+ hour match.

Well sod the 'average viewer' then. The most epic tennis matches I have seen have been plus five hours of riveting sport.

A quick straw poll on here.

How many of you have paid to go and watch a women's sports team play?

I ask as there was a lot of talk a few years ago about women's rugby players not getting the exposure or the money they supposedly deserve. There was an international match on at the Stoop in London between England and Scotland. Tickets were just £15, the small stadium was probably about 50% full at best, and that was mostly male spectators. The second half of the match was actually free, they opened the gates and let anyone in. They still could not fill the place. It was advertised heavily locally and was being tracked on BBC Sports and televised.

Where were all the women supporters?

Most tennis matches are 3 sets for both men and women anyway! It's only a few large tournaments where its otherwise, and why not frame in terms of women tennis players being denied the opportunity to compete on equal terms?

It's only since the early 80s that women were "allowed" to compete in marathons, yey Paula Radcliffe had the fastest British time for men or women one year.

Women's steeplechase and pole vault are also "newish" events but are already extremely competitive. It's ridiculous that it's taken this long and not a justify action for criticising women for years of discoragement.

Anyway, I must go out and train...

Where were all the women supporters?

Here. I go as does my husband. We also go to men's sport. But if they don't get the exposure - and TV comes in here - people don't know it's on or it's worth watching half the time.

And it's not just women watching women's sport any more than it is just men watching men's sport - going in that direction is completely wrong IMO.

When the women's (football) world cup was on TV there were a lot of men saying "blimey, i didn't know it was that good". When the netball world cup (? or was it olympics?) was on TV many many people, men as well as women, found it really exciting and worth watching. But since then? zip.

There are a billion Satellite channels - Sky has one for each of the premier league games for eg - so why not just add a few more and put women's sport on? There is no reason ot to promote it.

To respond to your question I really don't think that male and female tennis players should be paid equally until they all play 5 sets! That's a red herring, a media hyped difference. Most tournaments are 3 sets (grand slams are 5, Davis cup 3); women have campaigned for 5 set matches; men have campaigned for 3 sets, etc etc

Football - how long has the FA consistently etc allowed women to play? Banned in 1921 despite many years prior to that having lots of teams, it was late 60s when the WFA was formed and took until the mod 80s befre the FA begrudgingly allowed that maybe women could play and the 90s vefore it took womens football in house fully; no provision of training in schools until very recently; televising even less available.

Basically, football has properly supported womens football for about 20 years! Rugby is about 10 years ahead of it.

That all sounds liek a reason for paying women less, doesn't it? And is why they are! Because men see it that way, and many women agree - possibly because they only have their menfolk's opinion to go by, given the lack of exposure in schools etc.

But those who go to see female sports almost always come away wondering why they haven't done it before. The womens game in many sports is far more technically played, skilled and exciting that they thought. But the old patronising opinion sticks when it comes to television coverage, salary, etc.

It's crap. Patriarchal crap!

Women's football is great. I don't know many people who bothered to watch the women's World Cup last time round, but those who did really enjoyed it. It was disappointing that so many of my friends who make token statements that the disparity in coverage and money between male and female sport didn't watch it themselves- if everyone who claims to be annoyed by this made the effort to watch women's football when it was televised, it would really help.

Women's tennis would definitely benefit from women having the same opportunities as men to play best of 5. As many pp have pointed out, men play best of 3 a lot most of the time and best of 5 tends to be for the really big tournaments, but whenever anyone complains that women's tennis attracts far less money and attention the "but men play more" response is always going to be trotted out, so take that excuse away.

If you want women's sport to have equal prestige, support it. Watch televised events. When live events can be attended again, attend them if you can. A lot of older relatives won't watch women's football because "there's not the same atmosphere"- well, they're still watching men's football in the covid 19, no crowds, very different atmosphere era, so that doesn't hold up as a reason.

On the subject of the US women's football team, it's worth pointing out, their pay was negotiated collectively. By all accounts the women's team were offered the same terms as the men's national team, but ultimately rejected it, and negotiated for the one they currently have. The men's national team operate on pay as you play agreement with no guaranteed salary, whereas the women's team, do not and have a guaranteed salary regardless how much they play or how far they progress in tournaments ontop of progression bonuses. The women's team also has such things as; injury protection, health and dental insurance, and minimum number of games in their contract, all of which the men's team do not have.

It was actually pointed out in the case that technically the women's team were paid more than the men's both cumulatively on a game-by-game basis in recent times. Ironically, had they taken the same deal as the men, and worked on a pay as you play deal, they would have been paid more than they ultimately did end up earning, in recent times, which was the crux of their lawsuit.

Brefugee

The point being that outside of the big ticket events (world Cups and Olympics) women's sports are simply not watched in great numbers at domestic level, even when staged for free. My shit local non league football team will get 400 odd people a week paying a tenner to watch them play. The women's international rugby game I mentioned above that was being played in a rugby mad part of London could barely fill half the stadium despite months of advertising. The commercial sports channels are not going to touch it as there is nothing in it for their sponsors. Teh reason I raise the question of where the women supporters is that when these discussions come up there is always the outrage about lack of parity in wages and exposure yet people often go quiet when it comes to putting their money where their mouth is and actually paying to watch a women's team play. At the end of the day it is about product, if there is no demand for it there is not going to much in the way of money. The Premier League is awash with money and it's stars being paid eye-watering sums is because millions of (mostly men) are willing to spend £50 a month buying TV subscriptions, thousands a year on a season ticket and hundreds on a polyester replica shirt.

It's completely based on how much income is generated. Every male football team pre covid generated millions and had full stadiums every week. I can bet my life 95% of people on here alone never went to watch the women's game, even though tickets are easy to get hold of and cost peanuts. That's the same with my most sport. Put your money into it and the cash will follow.

@Brefugee

The argument about paying women less in sport always goes: but the men are better, bigger audience yadda yadda yadda

And yet. The USA Women's Soccer team are wildly more successful than the men. Women's soccer there is hugely popular etc. They don't get paid when they lose an international (the men get $5,000) they travel economy the men travel business, they get paid less when they win and their winning bonus is less.

In terms of recognition do you know who the captain of the men's team is? the women`s? I'd guess you are more likely, by a large margin, to know who the captain of the women's team is.

Who should get paid more there? Yeah.

Equal pay may not be necessary/possible in a lot of sports now. I'd argue the tennis is one where it should be done immediately. But there should be steps taken to put more women's sport where people can see it (TV for eg) and eventually level up (or down for the men).

Really poor example. The USA womans soccer team got beat 5-2 by an under 15s male school team.

Which only proves that males are by nature bigger, faster, stronger. Not that they are innately more skilled or interesting to watch... or worth more!

Take that to your nearest TRA meeting!

really poor example. The USA womans soccer team got beat 5-2 by an under 15s male school team.

Nope. Women play against their peers as do the men. It's not about are they on the same skill level as the men - they play against women.

Against women they are the best in the world.

One of the reasons people don't watch women's sport is because it is seen as a poor alternative to men's sport. It isn't. It is women's sport. And if only it would get the column inches that, say, 4th division men's football got, a lot more people would know it's going on.

Do you mean pay or prize money op?

I do think that saying eg the man who wins the men's thing gets a prize of £100 and the woman who wins gets £50 does shout that men are more important.

Football pay and sponsorship etc is more market driven so a different conversation.

If it was school sports day and the boy who ran the 100m got a £20 voucher and the girl who won the 100m got a £10 voucher for eg would that work for you.

Sport is watchable when there is theatre and skill on display. Can you imagine women’s game recreating Cricket World Cup final 2019. Or a grand slam final between Federer and Nadal. As for football, not sure where to begin, women’s game is so mind numbingly boring. I wish it wasn’t, but it is.

I think a lot of it is about the lack of exposure and publicity that women's sport currently gets - which seems to be slowly changing.

For the sports where it's about skill and agility (or equestrianism, as has been mentioned, where the horse quite literally does the heavy lifting), it makes no sense for audiences to show less interest.

However, for the sports where it is about strength and/or speed, spectators will want to see THE strongest and THE fastest, which is always going to be a man. It's the same within single-sex sport as well. Take men's boxing for probably the clearest example: how many people are desperate to watch the match to determine who is the world flyweight, bantamweight, middleweight champion, when everybody knows that the champion men's heavyweight boxer is always going to be THE best overall boxer in the world against all and any challengers; indeed, would not (and is not allowed to) compete professionally against lighter men or against women, precisely because it is a given that he would easily beat them?

I think it also has a lot to do with the fact that, on the whole, men care much more about sport than women do, and they're always going to identify more with male sports stars than female ones. By contrast (and again, speaking purely in general/demographic terms), women are much more interested in clothes and fashion than men are. Of course, it follows that they are naturally much more interested in women's fashions than men's, with the resuit that there are many highly-paid, internationally-acclaimed female fashion models and icons but comparatively very few male ones.

Another factor might be that, among the majority-male sports fans, many who do appreciate women's sport might also be concerned about tedious ribbing from their fellow fans (male or female) and unhelpful accusations of only watching women's sport because of their bodies and/or scant/tight-fitting clothing, in the same way that female sports fans following men's football (which was pretty much the only high-level football widely available to watch then) used to be accused of only watching to cop an eyeful of the men's toned, muscular legs and to see them swapping shirts at the end.

Being completely honest, how many women would be completely comfortable if their DH keenly followed the career of Amelie Thestrup - watched all of her matches, kept viewing all of her scoring triumphs on YouTube, had her photo as his phone lockscreen, kept cuttings of interviews with her and about her playing highlights - but wouldn't even notice, much less care, if he did exactly the same, if the object of his sporting obsession happened to be Mohamed Salah?