It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Subscribe to our Patreon, and get image uploads with no ads on the site!
Base theme by DesignModo & ported to Powered by Vanilla by Chris Ireland, modified by the "theFB" team.
Comments
The vast majority of the money comes from TV, and the mens game is significantly more popular. I know there is an argument that says the womens game won't get as popular without more money, but if the group A's "product" brings in significantly more money than the group B's "product", shouldn't they benefit from that?
As I said, I have no issue with the same money for tennis, but to try and apply it to all sports is just silly nonsense.
When the former big 4 of the mens game were contesting, you got some really, really classic matches. How many classics have the women produced? The players are good but best of 3 robs them of the chance to create an epic.
So equal pay, and best of 5 for both players - oh and if you are going down that route, alternate the schedule so that the both sets of players get the tournament closing sunday final in alternate years.
I can’t bring myself to watch most sports, and I think most of that comes from never being very good at them.
its amazing I have been interested in guitars for so long
Instagram
I'm sure you'll understand my lack of answer to the series of black-and-white personal questions.
The women playing best of five wouldn't fit in the schedule during the first week, but it could in the later rounds, when the men's and women's singles are on alternate days. How about best of three for men and women up to the last 16 and best of five after that, with last set tie breaks in the quarters and semis but not the final?
PS A good test case will be Dr Who. If global sales decline, will the makers revert to a male lead to improve sales? Or stick to the dogma that the global audience for the show must accept the female lead even if it leads to the shows decline and closure?
I do find the hijacking of this topic by "men's movement" idiots to be laughable though.
Studio: https://www.voltperoctave.com
Music: https://www.euclideancircuits.com
Me: https://www.jamesrichmond.com
If the sponsors and competitions paid equally they'd also be promoting women's sport equally (or possibly more so until they were on an equal footing) in order to maximise the return on their investment.
As I said, I support equal pay in Wimbledon, but don't call it equality.
Anyway, better leave that kind of stuff out, might offend Octatonic
You pay based on experiance, skill, entertainment value, marketability, proven worth etc, etc.
That's the best point made in this thread, equality surely means being paid the same if everything else is equal? If one group "works" more hours shouldn't they expect to be paid more?
The people that attract the audience's get the most money, look at football players. As a silly example, female porn stars get paid a lot more than male porn stars, because it's the women most of the audience want to see.
My post was about breaking a circular argument. I thought that was clear from the mention of circular arguments.
It isn't that no one knows that women's football exists..
3 sets for men would solve the issue and make the sport watchable
Maybe the most democratic is to roughly base it on amount of viewers. But that creates it's own issues.