Women should get paid the same amount as man in sports

[Seja luz]

Girls and women who play sports have higher levels of confidence and self-esteem and lower levels of depression. Girls and women who play sports have a more positive body image and experience higher states of psychological well-being than girls and women who do not play sports. Research shows us there is a proven link between gender equality and building respectful relationships between men and women ant it would inspire even more women to get involved in sports

[Razneta]

I don't think this is the correct forum for this kind of stuff.

About your argument: Salaries in sports are entirely based on revenue. Even though I support gender equality %100, men's sports are (in general) more popular then women's sports, therefore generate more revenue, therefore increase the wages.

[HUElavia]

While I agree with the argument, this is a post more appropriate for the "General" section of NS Forums.

[Baranil]

1) This is in the wrong topic, it should be in General and not NS Sports.
2) People get paid in sports with how much money they bring in, a semi-professional footballer gets paid less than a Premier League or La Liga footballer because they bring in less money and play a lower standard of football. The same is true here.

[Dagnia]

First of all, learn which forum to post in.
Second, women's sports brings in only a fraction of the audience because professional women can't even beat high school boys. You want more money, you have to perform better.

[Union of Quincy]

we fin get a firestorm in this if this ain’t locked askin for a mid to lock this thread or move it to the appropriate forum as to avoid arguments.

[Ransium]

Moved to General.

[Galloism]

So, just to be clear, women soccer players should be paid less?

[The East Marches II]

So, just to be clear, women soccer players should be paid less?

I'm for it myself. They deserve a pay cut for harboring an abuser on the team for years.

[Sovaal]

Eh, if they bright in the amount of money that men's sports do sure. If not then adjust it for how much they do.

[Czechostan]

So, just to be clear, women soccer players should be paid less?

Since the women's team won the world cup, they've generated more revenue than the men's team.

Specifically, from 2016-18, the women’s team brought in $50.8 million in revenue, while the men’s team brought in $49.9 million. That’s a difference of less than 2% in the women’s favor.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-mete ... enue-get-/

It's pretty difficult to compare their pay anyway since their collective bargaining agreements differ. But one should wonder why the US women's team generates fewer revenue when, in general, their performance is better than the men's team.

[Sovaal]

So, just to be clear, women soccer players should be paid less?

Since the women's team won the world cup, they've generated more revenue than the men's team.

Specifically, from 2016-18, the women’s team brought in $50.8 million in revenue, while the men’s team brought in $49.9 million. That’s a difference of less than 2% in the women’s favor.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-mete ... enue-get-/

It's pretty difficult to compare their pay anyway since their collective bargaining agreements differ. But one should wonder why the US women's team generates fewer revenue when, in general, their performance is better than the men's team.

Because its the women's team of a fairly unpopular sport in the US.

[The Two Jerseys]

Do the female tennis players intend on playing five-set matches?

If not, then they deserve 3/5 of what the men get paid.

[Galloism]

So, just to be clear, women soccer players should be paid less?

Since the women's team won the world cup, they've generated more revenue than the men's team.

Is this a relevant consideration on whether they should be paid the same as men?

Because if it is for soccer, it is for all.

[Des-Bal]

None of those are reasons to pay women more. If they're producing the same value they should be paid the same, if they're producing more value thtey should be paid more.

First of all, learn which forum to post in.
Second, women's sports brings in only a fraction of the audience because professional women can't even beat high school boys. You want more money, you have to perform better.

I agree with the sentiment that women should draw more crowds if they want more money but I disagree that actual skill matters. That can dictate how much people care but if they're filling seats they're filling seats.

[True Refuge]

First of all, learn which forum to post in.
Second, women's sports brings in only a fraction of the audience because professional women can't even beat high school boys. You want more money, you have to perform better.

It was a friendly game.

To be fair, it was just a scrimmage, which means the U.S. women were working on team chemistry and on pitch alignment and strategy more than they were focused on results.

A similar thing happens with pro tennis players in their warm-up matches all the time. Players in a pro-team focused on things other than goals is not going to get as many goals as usual, and it's unlikely that they were really pushing 100% anyway to avoid making the U-15 team feel bad.

[Czechostan]

Because its the women's team of a fairly unpopular sport in the US.

Of course. And I'm saying sexist assumptions/nuances within society are likely behind it--at least, why women's soccer is less popular than men's soccer.

Is this a relevant consideration on whether they should be paid the same as men?

Because if it is for soccer, it is for all.

Ahh, my bad. I should have quoted the section of the article you cited that I was responding to:

USSF also says the men’s team generates more revenue. The women’s team generated $101.3 million over the course of 238 games between 2009 and 2019 while the men generated $185.7 million over 191 games, according to the federation.

And revenue should be a, though not the, factor in determining the pay of athletes.

[Sovaal]

Because its the women's team of a fairly unpopular sport in the US.

Of course. And I'm saying sexist assumptions/nuances within society are likely behind it--at least, why women's soccer is less popular than men's soccer.

And if so increasing the pay of female players isn't going to change that exposure. I have no dog in this fight but at the end of the day its affected by the market, in abut the same ways that male pornstars get paid less then women. The culture of the consumers is more important in this regard than the actual employers.

[Galloism]

Because its the women's team of a fairly unpopular sport in the US.

Of course. And I'm saying sexist assumptions/nuances within society are likely behind it--at least, why women's soccer is less popular than men's soccer.

This is fairly probable.

Is this a relevant consideration on whether they should be paid the same as men?

Because if it is for soccer, it is for all.

Ahh, my bad. I should have quoted the section of the article you cited that I was responding to:

USSF also says the men’s team generates more revenue. The women’s team generated $101.3 million over the course of 238 games between 2009 and 2019 while the men generated $185.7 million over 191 games, according to the federation.

And revenue should be a, though not the, factor in determining the pay of athletes.

And yet they say they're paying the women more than the men.

(Also part of the factor is that women often argue in favor of more fringe benefits in exchange for less pay. Economics wise, we should sum that all up to figure out the full employer outlay, but no one ever does that in these analyses. They assume the person who gets 95k + health insurance + retirement + dental + vision + employer contributions to HSA + nontaxable qualified awards + identity theft insurance + life insurance + other things is making less than someone who gets 110k in salary with no benefits, despite that being demonstrably and verifiably not true.

Overall remuneration should be measured by taking salary, + the value of nontaxable fringe benefits, + sick pay accumulation, - sick pay usage, + vacation accumulation, - vacation pay usage, +employer side of employment taxes, + employer contributions to retirement and retirement-like accounts, + discount value of stock options, + bonuses and awards.)

[Des-Bal]

Of course. And I'm saying sexist assumptions/nuances within society are likely behind it--at least, why women's soccer is less popular than men's soccer.

Women are as a matter of pure biological fact weaker and slower than men, this is of course an average but the problem is averages matter. A woman at the top of her game is closer to an average male than a professional male. If people were equally interested in men and women's sports despite men being objectively better then that would be a sign of sexism.

[New haven america]

Sports pay depends on a lot of factors though, like ad revenue, ticket sales, reputation, championship earnings, etc...

So yeah, something like the US women's soccer team will make more money than the men's team because they're more successful and well known, while say, the NBA will make more money compared to the WNBA.

[Cannot think of a name]

Girls and women who play sports have higher levels of confidence and self-esteem and lower levels of depression. Girls and women who play sports have a more positive body image and experience higher states of psychological well-being than girls and women who do not play sports. Research shows us there is a proven link between gender equality and building respectful relationships between men and women ant it would inspire even more women to get involved in sports

This is a better argument for funding women's sports academically the same way we do men is a good idea. Which it was when Title IX was passed. And it has been effective at increasing participation by female athletes at a young age.

Of course. And I'm saying sexist assumptions/nuances within society are likely behind it--at least, why women's soccer is less popular than men's soccer.

This is fairly probable.

Ahh, my bad. I should have quoted the section of the article you cited that I was responding to:



And revenue should be a, though not the, factor in determining the pay of athletes.

And yet they say they're paying the women more than the men.

(Also part of the factor is that women often argue in favor of more fringe benefits in exchange for less pay. Economics wise, we should sum that all up to figure out the full employer outlay, but no one ever does that in these analyses. They assume the person who gets 95k + health insurance + retirement + dental + vision + employer contributions to HSA + nontaxable qualified awards + identity theft insurance + life insurance + other things is making less than someone who gets 110k in salary with no benefits, despite that being demonstrably and verifiably not true.

Overall remuneration should be measured by taking salary, + the value of nontaxable fringe benefits, + sick pay accumulation, - sick pay usage, + vacation accumulation, - vacation pay usage, +employer side of employment taxes, + employer contributions to retirement and retirement-like accounts, + discount value of stock options, + bonuses and awards.)

Your source also seems to make it clear that women achieve this status in soccer by actually winning where the men don't, which is to say that men do not get all their performance bonuses like the women do who go on to win the cup like it was theirs. But per game and performance bonuses are less, they just manage to hit more of them because they're actually good. Thanks Title IX!

[Galloism]

Girls and women who play sports have higher levels of confidence and self-esteem and lower levels of depression. Girls and women who play sports have a more positive body image and experience higher states of psychological well-being than girls and women who do not play sports. Research shows us there is a proven link between gender equality and building respectful relationships between men and women ant it would inspire even more women to get involved in sports

This is a better argument for funding women's sports academically the same way we do men is a good idea. Which it was when Title IX was passed. And it has been effective at increasing participation by female athletes at a young age.

This is fairly probable.


And yet they say they're paying the women more than the men.

(Also part of the factor is that women often argue in favor of more fringe benefits in exchange for less pay. Economics wise, we should sum that all up to figure out the full employer outlay, but no one ever does that in these analyses. They assume the person who gets 95k + health insurance + retirement + dental + vision + employer contributions to HSA + nontaxable qualified awards + identity theft insurance + life insurance + other things is making less than someone who gets 110k in salary with no benefits, despite that being demonstrably and verifiably not true.

Overall remuneration should be measured by taking salary, + the value of nontaxable fringe benefits, + sick pay accumulation, - sick pay usage, + vacation accumulation, - vacation pay usage, +employer side of employment taxes, + employer contributions to retirement and retirement-like accounts, + discount value of stock options, + bonuses and awards.)

Your source also seems to make it clear that women achieve this status in soccer by actually winning where the men don't, which is to say that men do not get all their performance bonuses like the women do who go on to win the cup like it was theirs. But per game and performance bonuses are less, they just manage to hit more of them because they're actually good. Thanks Title IX!

Well, women also have a higher base salary.

It's hard because it's performance based, and men are especially performance based. If they all won all their games, the men would make more because they have higher bonuses. If they all lost all their games, women would make more because of their higher base salary + benefit packages.

There's somewhere where those lines cross, but given the secret collective bargaining agreements, it's impossible for me to speculate where. I'm sure the court will figure it out.

[The East Marches II]

Girls and women who play sports have higher levels of confidence and self-esteem and lower levels of depression. Girls and women who play sports have a more positive body image and experience higher states of psychological well-being than girls and women who do not play sports. Research shows us there is a proven link between gender equality and building respectful relationships between men and women ant it would inspire even more women to get involved in sports

This is a better argument for funding women's sports academically the same way we do men is a good idea. Which it was when Title IX was passed. And it has been effective at increasing participation by female athletes at a young age.

This is fairly probable.


And yet they say they're paying the women more than the men.

(Also part of the factor is that women often argue in favor of more fringe benefits in exchange for less pay. Economics wise, we should sum that all up to figure out the full employer outlay, but no one ever does that in these analyses. They assume the person who gets 95k + health insurance + retirement + dental + vision + employer contributions to HSA + nontaxable qualified awards + identity theft insurance + life insurance + other things is making less than someone who gets 110k in salary with no benefits, despite that being demonstrably and verifiably not true.

Overall remuneration should be measured by taking salary, + the value of nontaxable fringe benefits, + sick pay accumulation, - sick pay usage, + vacation accumulation, - vacation pay usage, +employer side of employment taxes, + employer contributions to retirement and retirement-like accounts, + discount value of stock options, + bonuses and awards.)

Your source also seems to make it clear that women achieve this status in soccer by actually winning where the men don't, which is to say that men do not get all their performance bonuses like the women do who go on to win the cup like it was theirs. But per game and performance bonuses are less, they just manage to hit more of them because they're actually good. Thanks Title IX!

See, more proof Title IX was a terrible mistake.

[The East Marches II]

This is a better argument for funding women's sports academically the same way we do men is a good idea. Which it was when Title IX was passed. And it has been effective at increasing participation by female athletes at a young age.

Your source also seems to make it clear that women achieve this status in soccer by actually winning where the men don't, which is to say that men do not get all their performance bonuses like the women do who go on to win the cup like it was theirs. But per game and performance bonuses are less, they just manage to hit more of them because they're actually good. Thanks Title IX!

Well, women also have a higher base salary.

It's hard because it's performance based, and men are especially performance based. If they all won all their games, the men would make more because they have higher bonuses. If they all lost all their games, women would make more because of their higher base salary + benefit packages.

There's somewhere where those lines cross, but given the secret collective bargaining agreements, it's impossible for me to speculate where. I'm sure the court will figure it out.

When the brain types get together to figure this stuff out, the whole package is generally tried to get taken into account. Everybody wants the most they can get, so much the better if some benefits are non-taxables or they involved complicated retirement metrics. Obamacare attempted to pay for part of itself by counting gucci healthcare plans by unions as a form of income and """taxing""" it via that Cadillac tax to make up for what they couldn't hit income side. It makes sense to take the whole picture into account versus just a minor slice. It's how compensation is generally viewed.