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?

I really don't think that male and female tennis players should be paid equally until they all play 5 sets!

This is a pretty rubbish argument as the only events where the men play 5 sets are the Grand Slams.

However to say that women's tennis is boring is equally rubbish. They may not hit the ball so hard but this often means the rallies are more tactical.

But until they can command the same levels of interest I'm afraid I agree with the original OP. So a combination of B and C.
No point paying for effort. You can put in 1000% effort but if you're untalented I don't want to watch you.

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.

There's no excuse for women being less skillful. Less strong, less fast yes. But less skillful no.
If they are less skillful too then it's obvious why audiences are smaller.

I don’t agree that Wimbledon pays women equal prize money when women play the best of 3 sets and men have to play the best of 5.

Are people aware of this: www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/newsbeat-48510198

There's also a great freakamomics podcast on it. I was shocked and saddened by the damage these 'so called' sporting institutions- FA & FIFA - did to women's football.

It's a disgrace and it should be more well known

I really don't think that male and female tennis players should be paid equally until they all play 5 sets!

This is a pretty rubbish argument as the only events where the men play 5 sets are the Grand Slams.

To be fair, the Grand Slam events as a whole do constitute by far the highest-profile part of the whole professional tennis year, and the ones which therefore very disproportionately attract the androcentrically-driven argument for equal pay only for equal-length play; and thus, on that narrow basis, it isn't a rubbish argument at all.

On the other hand, the fact that the women aren't allowed to play 5-set games - in spite of high-profile female players clearly stating their unalloyed willingness to do so; and the fact that this has been rejected, owing largely to the organisers' unwillingness to assign a greater proportion of the available playing time to the women's game and thus keep it resolutely consigned to 'less important' and 'second-class' status by virtue of its being forced to occupy considerably less time.... now THAT is the undeniable proof that it's a rubbish argument!

Isnt thier pay determined by the money they bring in?

Football team bringing in millions of views and sponsorships earns more than one that diesnt regardless of gender

Sex it's sex. Women are discriminated against based on sex.

And for years men have made the decision that women cannot play various sports, won't get funding, won't get training, coaching, facilities, won't get publicity, air time etc.

How does women's sport advance if those holding the purse strings, setting the rules, holding keys to facilities won't let them in?

How can women's sport grow / survive at grassroots level if schools, clubs, coaches can't get insurance or bookings?

30 years! Is it any surprise that female football has a lot of progression to make to be as exciting as the men's sport? We don't even have 2 generations of fully funded, coached women who have been encouraged to train and play since they were tiny.

Pshaw!

@CuriousaboutSamphire

Sex it's sex. Women are discriminated against based on sex.

And for years men have made the decision that women cannot play various sports, won't get funding, won't get training, coaching, facilities, won't get publicity, air time etc.

How does women's sport advance if those holding the purse strings, setting the rules, holding keys to facilities won't let them in?

How can women's sport grow / survive at grassroots level if schools, clubs, coaches can't get insurance or bookings?

30 years! Is it any surprise that female football has a lot of progression to make to be as exciting as the men's sport? We don't even have 2 generations of fully funded, coached women who have been encouraged to train and play since they were tiny.

Pshaw!

But how will funding make it more exciting?

The excitement typically comes from the athletic prowess. something we all admit is one sided, we wouldn't let a womens team play a mens team because no matter how good the womens team is they would get steam rolled by a Male team of equivilent skill.

Are many people here avidly watching womens football? Buying tickets and merch?

Take the 100m sprint.
Theres a new record for the mens set nearly every year, theres a good chance if you go to see it you will see history made and all the excitement that goes with it.

The womens?

The record was set in 1988, 32 years and it's not been beaten.

What's the tagline for that event?

"Come see people run slower than they did before"

Seriously? You want to know how increased funding will make women's sports more exciting?

And drugs... one sad answer to the second point is the number of men vs the number of women willing to take a cocktail of drugs to run the shortest distance fastest.

Other answers include sex based differences in somatotypes.

@CuriousaboutSamphire

Seriously? You want to know how increased funding will make women's sports more exciting?

And drugs... one sad answer to the second point is the number of men vs the number of women willing to take a cocktail of drugs to run the shortest distance fastest.

Other answers include sex based differences in somatotypes.

Yes seriously? Is more money going to make people faster and stronger?

I mean are you buying season tickets to provide that money?

Ahhh so your answer is that all Male athletes take drugs but women are too virtuous?

You get the irony of that because 1988 was the last year before drug testing was mandatory?

The womens record is undoubtedly held by a doper unlike the mens.

As an entertainment industry, professional sports pay is always going to reflect the numbers of people who want to watch it and the amount they are willing to pay to do so.

Now - as far as actally sports that we expect normal people in schools or recreationally to participate in, or even high level amateur sports, I think as a society we should be investing in both equally. As men and women don't always play the same sports in totally equal numbers that doesn't necessarily mean investing equally in mend and women's versions of each sport, I don't see any reason we need to be insisting that they be exact mirror images.

Erm...

Funding to increase grassroots participation will indeed increase all aspects of female participation.

And you might want to read all I wrote. I am fully aware of the dates... Could that in itself not support my point?

But somatotypes are the strongest factor at play in performance differences, when all else is equal. Women, as a class, will never run short distances as fast as men, as a class, but will eventually (once more girls take up the sports at a young age) push ultra distances to a point where women will dominate, by about the same margins as men currently dominate sprints.

And with ever growing grass roots participation of team sports the women's games will eventually be seen as equally skillful... as is already being seen at all levels by those who care to watch rather than denigrate.

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.

The 4th level of English football rarely appears on TV unless said team is playing one of the big sides in a cup run or something. The has average crowd attendance at that level is 4600 people. While the national papers will just print the results local papers will pick up the match report because there is a local demand for it. If you want women's sports to get more exposure it needs grass roots support, ie people trekking down the local ground and paying a few quid to see a game, that underpins everything. If only a few hundred people go and watch harlequins ladies play, the top tier of English women's rugby, the sponsors, TV people, sports writers responsible for those column inches in the papers, are not going to get too interested. The only way that is going to change is supporting your local women's team rather the usual hand wringing of 'something must be done (but not by me)'

Elsewyre the men's 100m record is 11 years old - hardly a new one being set every year.

I'm athletics, mens world records are updated far less frequently than womens. The only one this year has been in the 5000m, and that record was set way back in 1992! Mens'championsup races have tended to be more tactically (ie slower) ran than womens in recent years, so finish times have been going up.

Whereas the women's records keep getting broken recently. The 1000m women's World record was broken recently, last year as was the mile and the marathon. There are a wonderful crop of exciting record breaking female middle distance runners right now.

The mens' races have some good runners, but they are more inconsistent, more prone to missing races due to injury and no stand out record breaking performers.

Do any of the posters on this thread actually gave any involvement in competitive sport, or does their experience extend only to watching it on TV? Because some of the old fashioned tripe they are coming out with us about 20 years out of date that no one who actually dues these sports would recognise.

There is a real problem in Europe in engaging young men and boys in the regular training that is needed in sport, whereas women who want a healthy body shape, aren't affected as badly.

Take the 100m sprint.
Theres a new record for the mens set nearly every year, theres a good chance if you go to see it you will see history made and all the excitement that goes with it

Not even close, are you sure you mean the 100m? Usain Bolt set the WR in 2009 and no one has looked like getting near it since.

Yeah, wtaf? Google is your friend!

Putting money into sport does help of course it does.

We put money into sport when we were going to host the Olympics and came away with a host of medals. Cycling we really invested in and we took a load of medals across both men and women.

Jessica Ennis, Victoria Pendleton, Nicola Adams plus loads others on the women's side en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Britain_at_the_2012_Summer_Olympics

There are two arguments here.

1. Women are just shitter than men at sport, boring to watch, so why should they expect the same rewards.

Maybe the men could get gold silver bronze and the women could get tin, wood and paper medals?

That's essentially what's being said.

There are questions around role models and participation for young girls and women which I don't want to go into now. If it's officially recognised that female sports people are pretty useless then that undermines all of that message.

1. Make everything unisex. Women never win anything again and, I would guess, stop competing entirely in all martial arts, boxing etc. Just too dangerous.

This would filter down as well. Past puberty the girls who were enjoying sport would just stop. What girl wants to be repeatedly chucked onto the ground and pinned down by male competitors who are just X times stronger for example, in judo.

Girls would never be picked for competitive teams from school up.

I have heard sexist men say it should all be mixed a million times. To see it on MN is a different level of shit though.

The bottom line is an underlying lack if respect for women and a feeling that sport isn't really 'for us' I think. It's men's sphere.

The ones who say with mixed sport women and girls should just try harder are probably the worst. Saying sport is for men, and women simply aren't up to it because they don't put the effort in. I can't fathom the idea that women like the ones who won medals for us at the London Olympics are sub par and don't try hard enough.

Just a shitty little thread tbh. I expect this bollocks from men. Not so much from women. But here we are.

There is a real problem in Europe in engaging young men and boys in the regular training that is needed in sport, whereas women who want a healthy body shape, aren't affected as badly.

Can you expand on this point a bit, my understanding is that participation rates of women in sports is appallingly low?

There is a real problem in Europe in engaging young men and boys in the regular training that is needed in sport, whereas women who want a healthy body shape, aren't affected as badly. I think that refers to sport and physical activity/exercise. Sports participation is dropping, leisure activities are rising.

Dillon I mainly know about triathlon, athletics, swimming and cycling. Athletes need to start as children to develop the necessary skills and fitness to progress as seniors. Research studies show that coaches have difficulty in recruiting and then in retai ING youngake athletes. Generally, the dedication required to succeed in sport isn't seen as "cool" in the make peer group. And being slim (aka skinny) enough to ge competitive cam be seen as non-masculine. Whereas girls and young women want to be seen as slim, fit and sporty, and they are encouraged by their female training partners and friendship groups they make through training to support each other.

Then young men at the sub elite level in their mid twenties drop out because they get non sporty girlfriends, so you lose the numbers required for training groups to support the elite.

That's why male athletics are now particularly dominated by African nations. There just aren't enough Europeans coming through, and why the times that European make athletes achieved in the past are no longer being achieved. Whereas amongst the women, we have athletes like Laura Muir, Jemma Reekie, Konstance Klosterhalfen, etc challenging the African nations for medals and regularly winning against them.

Even as an age grouper triathlete, it's much harder to get a prize now in local races in the women's age categories than the men's. Eg the suoervet women's category (over 50)will have 6 or 7 competing, whereas there will only be 1 or 2 men.

And the standard of the men's performances is dropping too. It's now quite easy to beat most of the men in my age category. A lot of them can't be bothered to improve their swimming, whereas us women will swim 3 or 4 times per week, on top of cycling and running.

This is what I mean about a lot of the comments above being 20 years out of date. It's like reading stuff from the past. Actually go and do a race and you will find out that the situation has changed.

I really don't think that male and female tennis players should be paid equally until they all play 5 sets!

Women have asked to play 5 sets, but they don't have TV time for both men and women to play 5 sets, so it's been refused.

If I stop someone from doing work they're happy to do, and pay them less as a result, that's clear-cut discrimination.

All the stats I've seen (and they're recent stats) show that boys overtake women at about 15.

Interesting response, thanks for sharing.

Surely though at the 'sharp end' of athletics (and most other sports) your body type is pretty much genetically predetermined irrespective of how much training you do. You are not going to get for instance an elite endomorph distance runner or an ectomorph shot put athlete? I get that many young men are wanting the beef cake 'Love Island' gym monkey look but most of those guys probably also know that they don't have the base attributes to excel at athletics at elite level. They can knock around and compete at their local club but they know their physical and genetic limits irrespective of how commited they are to the training?

I used to play semipro rugby throughout my 20s, my body type suited me playing centre, I was just shy of 6ft and weighed in at 95kg. My body type was suited to that position and that sport. When I hung up my boots I took up competitive rowing and suddenly found myself one of the shorter blokes in the clubhouse. I trained hard, became technically very proficient, qualified for Henley Royal Regatta where I and my crew got our arses handed to us by a Dutch crew that probably averaged 6'5". They were not much fitter or more technical then us but their height gave them that added margin on every stroke, over 285 strokes down the length of that course is a big margin! There was nothing I could do about my height so resigned myself to doing 'okay' at domestic events.

Women have asked to play 5 sets, but they don't have TV time for both men and women to play 5 sets, so it's been refused

Just because there is not enough broadcast time it does not mean the games do not take place. One of the gripes from the Pro men tennis players is that by playing 5 sets in the singles tournament they do not have time to compete in the doubles and mixed doubles competition whereas the women can, significantly adding to their prize money haul in the process.