Five top US women footballers sue for better pay

[G-Ram]

1 hour ago, ladyram said:

If this is the case, then they should be paid the same, not necessarily more.

But in another sport - tennis - women players want equal prize money for a tournament like Wimbledon. I say play the best of 5 sets instead of 3 like the men do, then ask for equal prize money, until then, no, you shouldn't have it. 

Just my opinion. 

Ive always thought that with tennis if you want the same prize money then play the same amout of sets.

sponsor wise the best make or female earn the most in their relevent sport and that amount they earn is based on how popular their sport is & how much they can generate/ are worth to sponsors.

in everyday life then yes same pay for the same job if they are as equally skilled & doing the same job.

Problem is in some walks of life people can have the same job title as others but be more valuable to a business based on experience and customers they bring in. However that isnt sexism you can have two men with the same job title paid differently based on these factors or a woman paid more than a man if shes say a better solicitor at a law firm than a male and more valuable to the business.

If everythings the same (easier in my opinion to compere in not less less skilled jobs but jobs where you are more put into one box) then same pay should apply. So a male cleaner should earn the same as a female if they are equally skilled. 

In terms of football then no the best woman footballer in the world shouldn't get the same as the best male footballer. the mens game generates far more money and income. paying a woman 300k a week would be completely unsustainable for a ladies team and therefore pay needs to be relevant to what a club can afford and their 'worth' to that club. 

Unfortunately thats just how it is in football but where variables are equal and jobs are more black and white then yes same pay should apply. If the womans game suddenly becomes more popular (and it slowly is) then the rewards for players will be greater but this takes time

[loughboroughRAM]

Men play significantly more matches and bring in far more revenue than the womens game does, thats just the nature of it. It goes for most things can you name the womens 100m WR holder? It will be a long time before the majority of womens sport catches up to the level mens sport in terms of popularity etc. 

One thing that always gets my goat up is female tennis players getting paid the same as the men. Take wimbledon and all other grand slams - you have 7 rounds of tennis and for a male theres a maximum of 35 sets and minimum of 21 whereas with the women its a minimum of 14 and maximum of 21. So for a male to win you end up playing considerably over double the amount of sets. How is that 'equal pay'? 

I'm all for women getting equal pay but only if they have to do the same amount of work etc

[McRamFan]

13 hours ago, ladyram said:

If this is the case, then they should be paid the same, not necessarily more.

But in another sport - tennis - women players want equal prize money for a tournament like Wimbledon. I say play the best of 5 sets instead of 3 like the men do, then ask for equal prize money, until then, no, you shouldn't have it. 

Just my opinion. 

If you generate more revenue you should be paid more. Regardless of what is needed to achieve this.

Wimbledon pays equal prizes. Wimbledon finals sell out before a ball is hit in anger, however US open does not and more often Tha not the female final outsells the men's.

[daib0]

Reading this again, perhaps some are slightly missing the point.

You don't need to put Serena Williams against Novak Djokovic to determine whether the men are faster, more powerful etc. obviously it is a physiological fact. That doesn't, however, in any way denigrate what the women are doing. They are at the physical pinnacle of what can be achieved given their biological limitations as do the men for all their biological limitations.

Would you abandon the real Olympics for a robot version just because they can throw further, run faster etc? Or a robot instead of pianust Lang Lang or violinist Yehudi Menuhin because it can play faster/louder etc?

[Anon]

33 minutes ago, daib0 said:

Reading this again, perhaps some are slightly missing the point.

You don't need to put Serena Williams against Novak Djokovic to determine whether the men are faster, more powerful etc. obviously it is a physiological fact. That doesn't, however, in any way denigrate what the women are doing. They are at the physical pinnacle of what can be achieved given their biological limitations as do the men for all their biological limitations.

Would you abandon the real Olympics for a robot version just because they can throw further, run faster etc? Or a robot instead of pianust Lang Lang or violinist Yehudi Menuhin because it can play faster/louder etc?

Just because someone has reached the pinnacle in their specific field it doesn't mean they should automatically be paid the same as someone in a different field. The same sport is not the same field if the athletes do not compete against one another.

Having said that it doesn't actually matter who is better. Men's tennis could be 100 times worse than women's, but if more people paid to see the men play they would deserve more money. Your point regarding muscians is a good example of this. Contemporary musicians, particularly DJs and pop stars, are objectively less talented and require less skill than someone performing in the London Symphony Orchestra, yet they are better paid because more people pay to see them. If more people paid to see a robot performing then that robot, or more precisely its creators, would deserve to be paid more than a human.

[maydrakin]

If this is the sort of tackles they have to deal with, it's understandable why they want more cash!

 

[Dimmu]

5 minutes ago, maydrakin said:

If this is the sort of tackles they have to deal with, it's understandable why they want more cash!

 

That's what I'd call gamesaver!

[jagerbob]

Glad that the feminists arent out in force on here like everywhere else.

If Serena thinks she should get paid as much as Djokovic, despite womens tennis being less competitive, less skillful, and less viewing figures and less sponsorhip going in....... if somehow they shouild get paid equally.

Then Jamie Murray should thend start demanding that doubles players get as much as single players.....

...which of course he would never do, because im sure he appreiciates what a BS argument it is.