Women's vs. Men's Sports. Not the Same?

I think women's tennis is the only really big sport that can somewhat compete with the money generated by the men.

 

I was complaining about this last week when I heard about it on Mike & Mike. The women are not doing equal work. They are a much lower level of competition. It is like arguing minor leaguers deserve the same salary as major leaguers because they are playing the same sport.

Now, I can certainly see a difference with Soccer in that the women's team is far and away more successful than the men, albeit against lesser competition. If they are more popular despite weaker competition, I wouldn't mind them getting paid the same or more. Just don't say it is equal work, because it isn't.

With few exceptions, men's sports are always going to be more popular because men are better athletes by a good margin on average. It is biology.

Similarly, I expect female models to make more because they are works of art, while the male body is utilitarian and just for getting around. Only sickos like the male body.

 

The article talked about how the bonuses alone weren't even close. The men got $9 mil for getting knocked out and the women got $4 mil for winning it all.

 

People are putting forth their best efforts and optimizing their abilities given their biology, so you can equate their accomplishments just as you would college and pro sports. There's also a significant amount of sentimental, aesthetic and cultural affinity that defines which sports and which teams one supports, so if you like seeing women succeed or just like seeing something tight and bouncy run around, your appreciation for women's sports is no less legitimate than that for men's.

 

There are Men's teams that are Division 1 and Women's teams that are Division 1, so not sure what you mean. UCLA is a Men's Division 1 team and Connecticut is a Women's Division 1 team. So, saying that the Connecticut team's coach has more Division 1 basketball titles than the UCLA coach is an accurate statement.

 

Once again, there is no NCAA league called just "Division I Basketball".

There is Division I Men's Basketball and Division I Women's Basketball.

There is no singular entity.

The Villanova Wildcats didn't win the "Division I Basketball" title on an amazing buzzerbeater.

They won the "Divison I Men's Basketball" title.

To say "so and so has more division I wins" is to create a league out of thin air wherein the men and women both participate/compete against and with each other, and no such thing exists.

 

So if I hit 17 home runs in T-ball I'm as good as Babe Ruth is at baseball? I'm pushing the limits of my biology as a 6 year old when I did it. Look, I got nothing about against appreciation or how good the feat is, but don't tell me that in any way its the same. The MLS isn't the EPL, and as much as I love my Dynamo they are no Everton or any other team across the pond. I'm the leading scorer of my rec team right now, and I'm pushing the limits of an overweight grad student's body, but I am no Pele here.

 

Very very true, but it gives a slight idea of the revenue streams that the teams receive. I would be shocked if the woman's teams receive the same amount of revenue YOY as the men's teams do. If they do, then I may change my tune about equal pay.

 

Don't each of the schools play basketball in Division 1?

 

the talent, or effort is irrelevant.

It's about revenue generated. And, with the possible exception of Tennis, (and Beach Volleyball if that's a sport), men's sports simply out draw.

 

Fledgling sports/leagues always tend to have parity issues.

I have no doubt this is why John Wooden and Red Auerbach won a bazillion titles in the middle of the 20th century.

It's also why I view their accomplishments with a much more cynical eye than most.

 

Even men's tennis is pulling away further. Funny timing for this thread because a couple of weeks ago there was a lot of controversy when Djokovic made some comments about it being unfair that women's and men's grandslam have the same prize pool even though men's tennis generate millions of dollars more revenue in the past few years and is still increasing.

Tennis have its own tradition where women and men grand slams share the facilities which means you can't buy men's tickets or women's tickets you buy passes that gives you access to both. I think if you separate the tournaments the gap in revenue would be even bigger than it is now.

There was a time where women's tennis garnered just as much viewership and revenue, but that was like more than 10 years ago, women's tennis is in a dark era now with very little consistent talent.

 

real talk, men and women professional athletes get paid way too much money right now. same goes for all levels of entertainers including actors, musicians, etc... the entire world puts way to much importance into sports and entertainment. especially true when you juxtapose sports and entertainment salaries to our scientists, doctors, and teachers.

 

The op/ed writer from the OP is overreacting from the typical hyperbolic media claim of Auriemma surpassing Wooden.

I'm assuming people know better, and I see the comparisons more as a prop for readers and viewers who don't follow women's sport to make the connection of history being made with the fledgling women's sport. To me, and probably most people who aren't violent feminists, it's common sense that the pantheon of men and women's greats are held in their respective circles.

That view becomes more apparent when you take a sport where women have an established and lasting legacy like women's tennis where they don't need to piggyback and force their accomplishments on top of the history men's tennis.

You might get a comparison with each gender's greatest Grand Slam winners, but there's so many greats in their own circles to not feel the need to force some debate about the singular greatest tennis player of all time.

Maybe this view is dying in some strained way to force equality. I hope not and would rather give society the benefit of the doubt.

 

That's my post in the thread about the USWNT's law suit in the Other Sports forum (I guess nobody reads that forum).

Everyone else has pretty much echoed these statements.

 

Another sport that is superior to men. Unless Scott Sterling is playing, of course.

 

supply and demand. an entertainer entertains millions and gets paid by millions, a typical doctor treats a couple of dozens of patients and paid as such. which is a lot anyway.

 

Most athletes don't get paid well, and all of them leverage their intellectually and professionally formative years on physical excellence for the sake of others' enjoyment. Also remember that monetary compensation is not an honorific of any kind, it is a reallocation of investment returns based on an employee's operational or strategic contribution, or a hedge against the opportunity costs of their absence. The notion that compensation should be based on perceived societal rather than quantifiable commercial value is genuinely dangerous, because it will eventually be determined not on one's occupation but on political and demographic factors.