England women's cricketers to be paid same as men

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/66653971

I have a question. Based on the fact its the same job, then pay should be the same as a broad principle, but based on the revenue generation, and therefore market for the players, men clearly generate vastly more money for the ECB and can command huge wages from franchise cricket.
Should women cricketers be paid the same as the men when representing England?

 

Won’t make much difference in cricket as the majority of their pay comes through central contracts (not match fees) so the men will still be miles ahead.

 

Yes. The end.

 

Yes.

 

Yup.

 

They only get around 20% of the salary of men. Irrespective of match fees being brought level.
I dont know what money is generated through ticket sales. TV revenue and sponsorship etc. But I reckon that is reflected in salaries. Do I believe that to be fair. Yes, just not sure about how % are calculated.

 

Yes, it seems that way, the appearance fee isn't tied to the central contract. Seems fair enough then.

 

Tough one for me. The product is of such a low standard compared to the men's game that its equivalent to paying Sheffield League players the same as England players. The standards about the same. By the same argument, should Barnsley Women's team be paid the same as the men's team?

 

No. I enjoy women's cricket possibly more than watching them play any other sport. But the standard isn't as good as the men and they don't generate as much money as the men.

It's like women getting the same as men in Tennis for less work. Cut men to best of three sets if women won't be moved to best of five.

 

Absolutely not, the standard of the product is significantly lower than that of the mens game, now, before I'm labelled a misogynistic pig, I'm sure as the game evolves and the standard and therefore the product is more attractive to a far wider audience, then the payments will naturally approach parity, but, we're a long way off that.

 

I think all athletes representing their country should be paid the same, yes.

 

Do you think marathon runners should be paid 422 times as much as 100m runners?

 

I think you wrong and I am not sexist at all, I play golf and enjoy watching it both men’s and women’s (and women’s golf is top quality, i.e. Solhiem Cup)......women’s cricket has a long way to go I am afraid, I would imagine as a percentage then 99% of women wouldn’t care less about watching or being interested in it, so I am not sure why you are reacting like you are, it’ will always be a minority sport for women in my eyes...... but I am a man so who am I to say......btw I respect your view and I am not looking for an argument, just my opinion sorry

 

In general yes I don't think anyone should get paid less for doing the same (or equivalent) job, whether that's the women cricketers on less than the men or predominantly male warehouse workers on less than the female office staff. Anyone doing the same job should imo be paid the same if they're both run or paid by the same organisation, in this case the fa. In the 60s when it was the women's fa then that's different but when they're both paid by the fa then pay them the same.

But here's something to throw into the mix. If we are saying that revenue generated shouldn't make any difference and therefore men and women should be paid identical wages (a perfectly fair and acceptable argument) then shouldn't the unknown actor be getting identical wages to Tom cruise? After all, the revenue they generate and therefore their worth shouldn't come into it right? They're doing the same job so same money. In football terms does that mean Aiden marsh has the right to demand the same money as our top earner? If not, why not? What's the difference?

 

To be fair fired they did warn you several times about going in the men's toilets