Megan Rapinoe

At the end of the day if you can sell tickets, sell TV rights, and get sponsorships then you should get the money. I do recall reading that the US women do get better viewership than the men, so if the women are getting less money from the sale of the TV rights she's absolutely correct. Same if they sell more tickets. But the men's world cup will always be more attractive to sponsors and so there will always be more money going to the male players, and that's correct too. They have earned that money by selling those tickets, selling the TV rights and getting the sponsorships.

 

If they just stuck to weshin n ironin there'd be no need for a bloke to read 4 pages of inane drivel

 

That example given is a good one. Kiwomya and most of the Chelsea youth team will end up earning over-inflated wages before dropping down the leagues and still earning (less) overinflated wages.

It i still a case of earn what you could be worth to the club scenario, though. In that case, it's not about the tickets sold but is still about how much they can earn the club. I remember reading an article in a magazine about 4 or 5 years ago when Chelsea had about 30 players on loan, and the loan fees they were receiving was more or less covering the entire youth team's wages(the 6 or 7 bigger names loan fees made the majority of it up). So if they can loan them out to cover their wages, any future transfer fee is almost pure profit, or if they go on to play in the first team it's saved a huge transfer fee, and they will be earning less than an incoming transfer too(I was told first hand that wages for players who have come from the academy are about 20% lower than players purchased).

Just look at the transfer fees involved in each game. This year, global transfer spending for the woman's game has broken the $1m mark for the first time. A million dollars. Total. Worldwide. And there was only 36 transfers made involving a fee, and three-quarters of the total coming from 5 deals. I wish the men's game was like that(it was $5.63b, in the same timeframe). But you can see why the big clubs hoard young players and pay them stupid money. In 2018, there was a Mirror article saying that the "Big 6" had sold £113m worth of academy players who played less than 10 games for them, and another £64m of players who had never played a single minute. Players getting paid £20k a week at 17 over a 3-year contract will cost ~£3.1 in wages. Send them out on loan for 3 years to cover half their wages in loan fees(for example), then sell them for 2 or 3 million to put them into profit, and a sell-on clause. It's good business for them.

But I think we agree that at the international level men and women should be paid the same. It's the details and how we get there that isn't aligned.

 

Why does any discussion on wages/performance/development of any of the women's games immediately default to what is happening in the corresponding men's game?
There seems to be a rule that the most women in football/tennis etc can aim for is parity with the men - why shouldn't women get more money than men if they merit it?

 

Don't women in tennis get paid a LOT more then men for the same work? They certainly do at Wimbledon.

 

Don’t the England squad donate all their match fees to charity? Or at least the bulk of it?

 

equal prize money at Wimbledon
https://www.wtatennis.com/news/1447...he Ladies,the semifinalists securing £588,000.

 

they on better hourly wage to be fair

 

But it's not equal work. Serena Williams won in 2019 for playing 16 sets, Federer won the same year playing ten sets more. 62% more work.

It's the equivalent of one retail worker doing 39 hours a week and the other doing just 24. It's not equal pay just because they both take home the same amount of money. Or to put it another way it's the equivalent of one getting minimum wage (£8.72) and the other getting a massive £14.17

 

Rapinoe as an agenda always opens her addresses I am a proud LBGTQ member, who cares, just get on with life your a human like rest of us

 

So what? She is isn't she? Her agenda is wanting to be paid the same. You might not agree with her due to crowds, TV money or a myriad of other reasons but to tell her to get in with her life and stop mentioning that she's gay does nothing but scream that you're a bigot to be honest.

 

But men's matches can last the same length of time.

 

But it's impossible for a man to win Wimbledon playing the number of sets that a women can win playing. The minimum sets Federer could have won with was 21 even if he won every single point available. Serena lost quite a lot of games and a few sets and yet still played 5 sets less than that.

 

If they want to be paid the same make every sport unisex and then both sexes compete against each other on an equal playing field. I will guarantee that no women would be able to compete against men as equals.
This is not sexist its a physiogical fact men are stronger faster bigger than women and thus will beat them hands down. I don't mind watching female sport but the performance levels are far lower than the male equivalent and as such don't create the same spectacle.
If men and women are doing the same job in industry for example then they should be on equal pay but imo

 

Exhibit A, your honour, why people think Barnsley folk are backward.

 

spot on!

slightly O/T - Wimbledon took out an insurance in case the Tournament was off due to a Pandemic well before the pandemic started.
Read somewhere they got a payout of £174,000,000 compensation!