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?

Dillonif you want to be an elite level athlete, you have to make sacrifices with regards to diet, recovery and lifestyle far beyond that any of any "goof fir age" competitor. Thars what sets elites apart from non elites.

I didnt realise people dudnt know these things. I literally know some e on the Olympic team who was good fir age at 20 but who was willing to make the sacrifices his peers didn't to get to the Olympics. Already lean, he, like most other athletes, lost a lot of weight to make that jump.

I'm not sure where you think top athletes come from. Most of them come from grass roots clubs who have a track coach and gradually progress, improving their times. It's not necessary to be a top junior but it's essential to have been a good junior, otherwise the necessary motor skills won't develop in time.

It's training and dedication that sets elite and olympians apart from sub elite. At that level, where 5 seconds in an 800m makes all the difference, they will all have a pretty ideal body type.

Apologies, I'm going to try and answer as much as I can Dillon

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? Yes. That has a sexed element too. Men tend to have a higher % of fast twitch muscle - so they tend to be better at explosive sports. So men will sprint, women do ultra marathons (research on how ultra is still being done). Then again Ussein Bolt exists, as does Peter Crouch!

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? Yes. But a higher % of them will be 'better' at those sports than women!

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. So you experienced the same innate, immutable difference between males, just as the vast majority of women find them between the sexes.

You were technically proficient, probably more so, but could not match the brute force of people whose bodies were better suited to rowing. You'd have looked very good as you lost!

Same thing!

In tennis, there is an ongoing arguement about the number of sets. Men and women have asked for parity... it is the organisation, larger tournaments that are proving immutable! It is only those tournaments that hold on to the difference - follow the money, historically!

You'd have looked very good as you lost!

Ouch

I thought I had added a smirk!

Sorry!

Frankly I think the amount some in sports and entertainment is obscenely high, and I wouid like to see it lowered.

Why? It would simply be pocketed by the clubs as profit. Many of who have non uk owners so the money leaves the country. At least when it goes to the players the UK gov can tax then, and they will be contributing to the economy.

Equal pay if they do equal work. In tennis males play best of 5 sets and females best of 3 so males deserve more pay. If 100 meter race both run same distance so same pay.

@caringcarer

Equal pay if they do equal work. In tennis males play best of 5 sets and females best of 3 so males deserve more pay. If 100 meter race both run same distance so same pay.

On that basis, should the marathon runners be paid hundreds of times what the sprinters get? Do you advocate that men who get prize money for matches that conclude in under five sets should have it reduced accordingly?

I suppose I broadly agree with the OP's suggestion in terms of pay that's broadly driven by revenue generation.

Tennis specifically is a complicated one though, because unlike say a single boxing PPV event, at which it's obvious who everyone has paid to see, nearly all top level tennis takes place through the medium of huge tournaments, with hundreds of players involved, making it hard to objectively determine who is 'box office' and who isn't.

Over the last decade or two women's tennis has been fairly dismal compared to the men's game in terms of the chance to see great games between great players, but it IMO has the potential to be just as compelling. A modern version of the Navratilova-Evert or Graf-Seles rivalries would do wonders for the profile of the game.

I think primarily C, the demand for the entertainment should set the price.

Personally I prefer watching women’s tennis, as being slower means longer rallies, however watching top women’s football is not enjoyable to me and I don’t think it could ever be seen as comparable to the men.

It’s probably right to continue subsidising the minority sports to an extent (eg women’s football) to encourage all younger people to play sports and the health benefits that brings. I think it’s probably a decent balance at the moment.

The suggestion above to stop segregating sports would just mean no sportswomen in the public eye at all, which would not be good for participation of women at lower levels, not to mention it would fail to recognise the amazing achievements of the top female athletes.

Its all relevant to what the players bring in at the gate. Liverpool mens team make a fortune for example on ticket sales/TV coverage, where i imagine Wolverhampton ladies football club doesn't.

The football thing is interesting.

In the UK women's football was immensely popular in the 20s so.... It got essentially banned by the FA.

It has not and remains not s level playing field...

'Although its first golden age occurred in the United Kingdom in the early 1920s, with matches attracting large crowds (one match achieved over 50,000 spectators),[3] The Football Association initiated a ban in 1921 in England that disallowed women's football games from taking place on the grounds used by its member clubs. This ban remained in effect until July 1971.[4]'

Women weren't allowed to run the marathon for years. In various events. Google Boston marathon woman to see a woman who sneaked in being wrestled by men trying to stop her running.

Wimbledon women ok with 5 sets organisers say no.

Googling earlier, with covid it seems women's funding was first to go.

Etc etc