Men should be paid more - Djokovic
Comments
-
Ah, the good old "earnings should be regulated by the wise and fair" argument. Definitely always worked well in the past.DeVlaeminck wrote:I don't know when that was taken - if you are telling me she was like that when she won Wimbledon then yes it appears she is carrying more fat than optimum !
Anyway my take on all this is that yes there are valid arguments on the side of the men earning more - for example what Djokovic said - but they are trumped by very much more important arguments on the side of the women earning the same. I find it more important that we take some steps towards gender equality even if that means we throw away the rules of market economics that we generally accept as our guide to what is "fair" when it comes to earnings.0 -
Ballysmate wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:It was quite revealing with regard to what you think female tennis players are better for.
As for moaning about the athleticism of female athletes - if they were allowed to play 5 sets athleticism would be a bigger part of the game, wouldn't it?
Kournikova made more money out of tennis than almost any other female tennis star. She did this by selling a certain image. She cashed in on her sexual appeal and looks. So did Sharapova to a lesser extent. They market their sexuality then you get all indignant because someone makes a casual remark in jest which alludes to it?
Yeah it's a shame isn't it? Not sure why I detect glee in your answers. Think we all agree that this isn't how it should be? Or don't you?0 -
Yes, that was her Wimbledon winning condition. Anyway, good post and point well made, without histrionics, take note RC.DeVlaeminck wrote:I don't know when that was taken - if you are telling me she was like that when she won Wimbledon then yes it appears she is carrying more fat than optimum !
Anyway my take on all this is that yes there are valid arguments on the side of the men earning more - for example what Djokovic said - but they are trumped by very much more important arguments on the side of the women earning the same. I find it more important that we take some steps towards gender equality even if that means we throw away the rules of market economics that we
generally accept as our guide to what is "fair" when it comes to earnings.Pinno, מלך אידיוט וחרא מכונאי0 -
I call a spade a spade Sean. My comments about misogyny don't exist in the vacuum of this thread, as I've said.
It's difficult to argue logically with a misognyist about gender issues. So it's worth highlighting when people are.
Just cos it's a loaded term doesn't mean it isn't true.
Curious to know why that term bothers you. Worried it was aimed at you?0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:Ballysmate wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:It was quite revealing with regard to what you think female tennis players are better for.
As for moaning about the athleticism of female athletes - if they were allowed to play 5 sets athleticism would be a bigger part of the game, wouldn't it?
Kournikova made more money out of tennis than almost any other female tennis star. She did this by selling a certain image. She cashed in on her sexual appeal and looks. So did Sharapova to a lesser extent. They market their sexuality then you get all indignant because someone makes a casual remark in jest which alludes to it?
Yeah it's a shame isn't it? Not sure why I detect glee in your answers. Think we all agree that this isn't how it should be? Or don't you?
I think you are trying to detect glee in his argument to further reinforce your own.
This society we live in is not perfect and there are dozens of social divisions. Colour race sex religion wealth education. The list goes on. There will never be a total equality amongst all members of society. There will be the dominant forces that take control in all situations. Everyone should have the right to be treated FAIRLY. This does not always mean EQUALLY as we can never all be equal. Men are physically stronger. This is not man or womens fault. Its just nature. People will always prefer to view or support male sports over female. Its not they consciously decide not to treat females less its just people will prefer the mens game.
If you have 2 people doing the same job they should be treated and paid the same regardless of gender age race etc. It still does not mean they are equal in all areas. Equality is a dangerous word that divides people unfairly and creates animosity. Fair is the proper way to treat people.0 -
Yeah so the tournament "employs" the athletes to compete to win the tournament.
Because of how the sport is structured men play men and women play women in singles.
When you win the tournament you get X amount, regardless of gender.
That's fair.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:Ballysmate wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:It was quite revealing with regard to what you think female tennis players are better for.
As for moaning about the athleticism of female athletes - if they were allowed to play 5 sets athleticism would be a bigger part of the game, wouldn't it?
Kournikova made more money out of tennis than almost any other female tennis star. She did this by selling a certain image. She cashed in on her sexual appeal and looks. So did Sharapova to a lesser extent. They market their sexuality then you get all indignant because someone makes a casual remark in jest which alludes to it?
Yeah it's a shame isn't it? Not sure why I detect glee in your answers. Think we all agree that this isn't how it should be? Or don't you?
Glee? Don't know where you got that from. What I actually feel for women's tennis is indifference. All I have been trying to convey is the reasoning behind the ladies being worthy of less prize money.
Kournikova etc are free to maximise their earning potential in whatever way they feel comfortable with. If they choose to do so by marketing their looks, then good luck to them. Again total indifference. Their decision and FA to do with me, nor you come to that.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:Yeah so the tournament "employs" the athletes to compete to win the tournament.
Because of how the sport is structured men play men and women play women in singles.
When you win the tournament you get X amount, regardless of gender.
That's fair.
The tournaments employ none of the players.
They set up the tournament, sell the rights and invite people to compete. The thrust of the original quote was that the men's game generates the most income which is shared disproportionately with the women.0 -
Maglia Rosa wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Ballysmate wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:It was quite revealing with regard to what you think female tennis players are better for.
As for moaning about the athleticism of female athletes - if they were allowed to play 5 sets athleticism would be a bigger part of the game, wouldn't it?
Kournikova made more money out of tennis than almost any other female tennis star. She did this by selling a certain image. She cashed in on her sexual appeal and looks. So did Sharapova to a lesser extent. They market their sexuality then you get all indignant because someone makes a casual remark in jest which alludes to it?
Yeah it's a shame isn't it? Not sure why I detect glee in your answers. Think we all agree that this isn't how it should be? Or don't you?
I think you are trying to detect glee in his argument to further reinforce your own.
This society we live in is not perfect and there are dozens of social divisions. Colour race sex religion wealth education. The list goes on. There will never be a total equality amongst all members of society. There will be the dominant forces that take control in all situations. Everyone should have the right to be treated FAIRLY. This does not always mean EQUALLY as we can never all be equal. Men are physically stronger. This is not man or womens fault. Its just nature. People will always prefer to view or support male sports over female. Its not they consciously decide not to treat females less its just people will prefer the mens game.
If you have 2 people doing the same job they should be treated and paid the same regardless of gender age race etc. It still does not mean they are equal in all areas. Equality is a dangerous word that divides people unfairly and creates animosity. Fair is the proper way to treat people.
why is nobody arguing for the total prize money to be divided equally with the seniors, juniors and handicapped. If you should not discriminate by gender then you definitely should not be discriminating against the old, the young and the handicapped0 -
Surrey Commuter wrote:Maglia Rosa wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Ballysmate wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:It was quite revealing with regard to what you think female tennis players are better for.
As for moaning about the athleticism of female athletes - if they were allowed to play 5 sets athleticism would be a bigger part of the game, wouldn't it?
Kournikova made more money out of tennis than almost any other female tennis star. She did this by selling a certain image. She cashed in on her sexual appeal and looks. So did Sharapova to a lesser extent. They market their sexuality then you get all indignant because someone makes a casual remark in jest which alludes to it?
Yeah it's a shame isn't it? Not sure why I detect glee in your answers. Think we all agree that this isn't how it should be? Or don't you?
I think you are trying to detect glee in his argument to further reinforce your own.
This society we live in is not perfect and there are dozens of social divisions. Colour race sex religion wealth education. The list goes on. There will never be a total equality amongst all members of society. There will be the dominant forces that take control in all situations. Everyone should have the right to be treated FAIRLY. This does not always mean EQUALLY as we can never all be equal. Men are physically stronger. This is not man or womens fault. Its just nature. People will always prefer to view or support male sports over female. Its not they consciously decide not to treat females less its just people will prefer the mens game.
If you have 2 people doing the same job they should be treated and paid the same regardless of gender age race etc. It still does not mean they are equal in all areas. Equality is a dangerous word that divides people unfairly and creates animosity. Fair is the proper way to treat people.
why is nobody arguing for the total prize money to be divided equally with the seniors, juniors and handicapped. If you should not discriminate by gender then you definitely should not be discriminating against the old, the young and the handicapped
In a major tournament like wimbledon or US open this may sound like a fair way to treat them. The flip side of it is in doing so you would have to reduce the winnings of the top prizes as they stand as the pot is not bottomless. Lesser prize money for the elite would no doubt make it less attractive to the top players to enter which in turn would effect ticket sales and sponsorship. So in a way you need to keep the top players happy to allow the trickle down to other players in the juniors or disability games. This is why although at face value it seem unfair to the women/jumiors/disability players for the men to earn more but without them there everyone loses.0 -
ddraver wrote:You re talking about football but that is not the case for many sports. Women's cycling being a pertinent one given that we re on a bike forum. I'd also say that holds true for the best womens tennis and athletics too. In fact pretty much any time that that time is irrelevant but the excitement comes from the relative differences between the competitors.
Yeah, but I've tackled racing elsewhere on the thread and I pretty much agree with the rest of what you say. I'm not sure if you were trying to disagree with me. :?0 -
Maglia Rosa wrote:Erm. Schoolboy football is played at international level by all the major football playing nations. It doesn't seem to effect their abilty to produce quality players. It also plays little relevence to the technical ability of a players ball control and skill in picking out a pass or a run.
But when they're a bit younger (up to the age of say, 13 or 14), 11-a-side on a full pitch is not nearly as common as it is in Britain. They concentrate on building up skills first. I think the FA was even talking about abolishing 11-a-side leagues in favour of 5-a-side for children a few years ago.Maglia Rosa wrote:Biggest issue in the UK is getting girls into sport to begin with at an earlier age. But thats a different matter.
I agree.0 -
finchy wrote:Maglia Rosa wrote:Maglia Rosa wrote:Biggest issue in the UK is getting girls into sport to begin with at an earlier age. But thats a different matter.
I agree.
Many girls start sport at an early age (in primary school), the real prob is keeping them in sport from primary through to secondary, huge drop out rate, double that of boys, body image, media and social pressure plus most girls dont have the role models, either at home or in popular sport to see it as a worth while thing to carry-on, funding and lack of facilities for girls sports dont help.
Boys can aspire to making a living out of many sports, not so for girls.
Mainstream day to day sport is dominated by men and primarily male sports plus of course some of the attitudes shown here dont help either.
My daughter has carried on in sport but none of her friends have and very few in a school of 700 girls.
Having just watched the womens team series race at hogs hill, no one could say it wasnt great racing, loads better than the mens support race, despite that race being faster.0 -
finchy wrote:
But when they're a bit younger (up to the age of say, 13 or 14), 11-a-side on a full pitch is not nearly as common as it is in Britain. They concentrate on building up skills first. I think the FA was even talking about abolishing 11-a-side leagues in favour of 5-a-side for children a few years ago.
Speaking as someone that helps run a youth football team I'm pretty sure you've got this wrong - kids do not play 11 a side until a certain age and even then not on full size pitches until U17.[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]0 -
bompington wrote:
Ah, the good old "earnings should be regulated by the wise and fair" argument. Definitely always worked well in the past.DeVlaeminck wrote:I don't know when that was taken - if you are telling me she was like that when she won Wimbledon then yes it appears she is carrying more fat than optimum !
Anyway my take on all this is that yes there are valid arguments on the side of the men earning more - for example what Djokovic said - but they are trumped by very much more important arguments on the side of the women earning the same. I find it more important that we take some steps towards gender equality even if that means we throw away the rules of market economics that we generally accept as our guide to what is "fair" when it comes to earnings.
Well there are lots of examples where we don't allow the free market to dictate because we think society would be the worse for it. Child labour is outlawed, I can't pop down to the corner shop and buy a bag of cocaine, women effectively subsidise car insurance for men, I assume but don't know men subsidise the private pensions of women, I can't refuse to employ you because you are Jewish etc.
I am not even arguing that it should be law that Wimbledon pay equal prize money - I just think it's a positive thing that they do and the fact it may contradict free market economics does not alter that.[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]0 -
Re: someone being over what is perceived to be the correct weight does not really indicate the relative merit of the competition. To give examples that 'blokes' would understand - Gazza and Micky Quinn were able to compete, and this never led to anyone claiming the competition was somehow lacking.
The most common argument against financial equality is that the competition is weaker and thus, no one wishes to watch that and women deserve less pay. But the issue is that in, for example, cycling, the lack of pay means that it is not a viable career option, leading to a weaker field ... and so on. For most women seeking a career in cycling, they need to participate in more than one discipline, which gives an indication of just how much harder a woman will have to work to secure a fair pay. My daughter is one such woman (nearly) seeking such a career, but I'm not entirely sure whether this is the right path compared to other options. Boys on the other hand can be relatively sure to be able to make some kind of living out of cycling - men very far down the pecking order can eek out a living quite easily without hitting the heights.
In the end the arguments against fair pay tend to fall down, since women have not had coverage, support or committed governance willing to give parity. On top of that, at least in cycling, they have to overcome a whole plethora of backward attitudes that directly or indirectly operate to make life difficult.0 -
PuttyKnees wrote:Boys on the other hand can be relatively sure to be able to make some kind of living out of cycling - men very far down the pecking order can eek out a living quite easily without hitting the heights.
Read Domestique. Even in the mens tour there are riders who barely scrape a living together. If they struggle women have no chance. Some sports attract money in droves. Football being the obvious one but the big 4 US sports baseball basketball hockey and American Football pay players astronomical amounts. The women are on a pittance. Other sports like cycling don't get big money even for the men so the women are even worse off there. Some sports are so poorly paid for men and women they can barely be called fully professional.0 -
"The minimum wage for male UCI World Tour cyclists is €35,000 (£27,800) per annum, with the average salary reported at €265,000 (£210,500) in 2012, according to Ernst & Young. Discount the big earners and this figure would probably equate to €125,000-150,000 (£99,000-120,000), according to an estimate from Steve Beckett, former head of cycling at British Sky Broadcasting.
Female elite cyclists reportedly earn just €20,000 (£16,000) per annum – and those are the lucky ones.
Not so bad.... if you are a man and certainly those boys with talent to aspire too, but not such a great career option for a girl.
i m not calling for equality here in cycling but to point out that across all sports, girls face an up hill struggle in what is predominately a male dominated sporting world, so tough tiddies if your a girl.0 -
Ballysmate wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Yeah so the tournament "employs" the athletes to compete to win the tournament.
Because of how the sport is structured men play men and women play women in singles.
When you win the tournament you get X amount, regardless of gender.
That's fair.
The tournaments employ none of the players.
They set up the tournament, sell the rights and invite people to compete. The thrust of the original quote was that the men's game generates the most income which is shared disproportionately with the women.
Give it up, he is beyond reasoning with.
Fairness is too complicated a proposition for him.
Equality (50/50) is a far easier sum.0 -
DeVlaeminck wrote:finchy wrote:
But when they're a bit younger (up to the age of say, 13 or 14), 11-a-side on a full pitch is not nearly as common as it is in Britain. They concentrate on building up skills first. I think the FA was even talking about abolishing 11-a-side leagues in favour of 5-a-side for children a few years ago.
Speaking as someone that helps run a youth football team I'm pretty sure you've got this wrong - kids do not play 11 a side until a certain age and even then not on full size pitches until U17.
I didn't mean a full size pitch, I just mean as opposed to 5-a-side pitches. I was playing 11-a-side at the age of 9. I know that's becoming less common these days, but I still see it quite a lot. As for playing on adult pitches, it starts at around 13 or 14 round my way. Glad that wherever you are is a bit more enlightened.0 -
mamba80 wrote:Many girls start sport at an early age (in primary school), the real prob is keeping them in sport from primary through to secondary, huge drop out rate, double that of boys, body image, media and social pressure plus most girls dont have the role models, either at home or in popular sport to see it as a worth while thing to carry-on, funding and lack of facilities for girls sports dont help.
The strange thing about that is that girls grow up into women who become fanatical yoga or gym bunnies, my sister and her friends (late twenties Londonites) are seemingly never out of one. Suggest they play any sort of game or come for a ride usually results in them looking like they ve been asked to climb everest (despite many of them being more than decent sportswomen at school)We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
Can someone summarise the last 6 pages please. I cba to go through it all.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0
-
I'm a misogynist apparently.0
-
Rick believes everything he reads in the Guardian and repeats it here. Everyone else had a discussion about sport. I think. :?0
-
verylonglegs wrote:Rick believes everything he reads in the Guardian and repeats it here. Everyone else had a discussion about sport. I think. :?
Thank God he doesn't read the Mail or we would all be Left wing commies who hate royalty and will no doubt cause cancer0 -
Maglia Rosa wrote:verylonglegs wrote:Rick believes everything he reads in the Guardian and repeats it here. Everyone else had a discussion about sport. I think. :?
Thank God he doesn't read the Mail or we would all be Left wing commies who hate royalty and will no doubt cause cancer
Thing is I have a browse on the Guardian a couple times a week and I voted for Lib-dem last year to keep my current MP. Even so some of the nonsense on there is the opposite side of the coin with the Mail. The misogynist thing for example, it's been a trait of that paper to cry that everytime someone dares to suggest women may be different to men or make a remark that may even be slightly critical or disrespectful.0 -
-
Rick Chasey wrote:
In that thread I pointed out that Sean had met the love of his life at the school gates, accused Blakey of buying pics of naked women off the internet and suggested that my missus doesn't cook a nice breakfast. If that marks me out as being a misogynist, then your skin must be transparent mate.0 -
Sounds like the sort of shite that says if you worry about immigration you're a racist. If you express concern about Israelis treatment of non Jews you're an anti-semite. No one can utter a word about another group of society without some arse wipe calling you out for a hate crime.0
-
Pop corn time? ...and I thought Road Beginners was providing all the entertainment currently.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0
