This is a hot topic - especially with the soccer women suing for equal pay for equal work. Just curious as to some people's thoughts on here. I do believe that the women work equally as hard as the men, but in sports, there is a meritocracy element - just because you are a very hard worker doesn't mean you make the team, or get to play, or get paid the same. In paying people shouldn't it be simplified to just a percentage of revenue? I have no problem with the women's soccer team and men's soccer team getting paid 40% of the revenue that each generate (whatever the number) and if women make MORE than men, so be it, same for men. But in basketball - the WNBA is losing money, the game is boring, there are very few fans that attend - to me they should not be compensated the same as men because the game is different, and not as exciting, to me they should try to make it more exciting, maybe lower the rims to 9 feet etc? They already play with a smaller ball - they should be competing for the fans - and should be compensated based upon fan interest, IMHO. My youngest son is a high level soccer player, he got a couple of D1 offers and tons of D2 and D3 offers to play soccer but because of Title 9, most D1 schools don't have soccer because they have to make up the 80+ football scholarships with other sports for women. Why can't we just acknowledge that women and men are different in sports? And let it be a revenue device that triggers pay. I mean, you could just be an ass, and say....ok, women and men compete in the same sport for the same position on the field......and eliminate gender sports all together, but we know that men would get most of the spots because by and large men are stronger and faster than women - doesn't mean men work harder or deserve more, but men are different than women, not sure why it is so hard to acknowledge that. I am all for equal pay for equal work - but in sports, it seems that is the one area that should be perhaps excluded and be based upon meritocracy or revenue..... Women's tennis is doing great, they are a great example of a sport that is probably more entertaining than the men's side is....... Anyway, not sure I have the answer but it sure seems everything we try to do hurts someone as much as it helps someone else. DD
Think the truth is they have visibility. ESPN carries their work. They just can't generate the revenue. They do have potential to do so if women attend or watch the games. So that has to be the plan. It doesn't matter what men think. It matters that women support it first. So the plan should be built on milestones. Invest this amount, and we will reach this milestone. You can measure that to see if the investment is paying off and if you should continue. Make improvements at each milestone just like a football team. If the first milestone is met, here is the second investment. I don't know if they have outlined that kind of plan, but if they have, then all they need are the investors. But start small. Once the revenue starts coming in, then you can distribute it. They have plenty of models for how to do it. Every major sport had to do it. If they are telling me women won't throw money at other women in order to succeed, then I think they just haven't put together an actionable plan. From what I've seen, women have money and they are willing to spend it on a cause. Even though Draymond had to back up, what he said resonates with me. I don't know what their plan is. neither does he. So that's the first clue. They need to lay it out clearly with actionable steps and milestones. I mean hold an ESPN forum on live TV where you present a plan and evaluate it, pulling together with the stakeholders you will need to buy in. And lay it out so that the regular Joe and Janet can see what you've done, and how they can help.
The first thing they have to do is make it more exciting....lower the rim to 9 feet let's see some dunks! Got to make the game more interesting..... DD
My only issue with the USWNT's case is that they, themselves, negotiated their contract. Outside of that, they play more games, win BY FAR more games, have become just as visible and are generating income. I don't see why they shouldn't be paid something at least as equitable as the men. Not only that, they shouldn't be forced to play in substandard facilities and on fields that aren't equitable to what the men play on.
I can see it but only closing in on the men's average pay. Female stars do not yield the same revenue as their male counterparts.
Then why should they reap the benefits of what others have built, and when their leagues are losing money for the most part? They need to fix their own game first, make it interesting to the masses. Bet she didn't mention they play with a smaller ball? I mean.....if it is truly a meritocracy, play with a regulation NBA ball and against men. DD
Not that I am being cynical but I doubt that women players ever reach the speed and power of men's until they are pumping roids and substances into them and I doubt folks want to see that. I am interested but I have to admit there is the lack of the elements pace and strength in the game for sure. If you want to see tactical improvement, sure, the Japanese women played a nice Tiki Taka Barca style for instance.
Deep thoughts ... Women sports need to expand their fan base ... to increase the revenues ... to increase the salaries. The way to get there is hard but sorta easy ... get more women to support women sports. This is not black and white. There are women who support WNBA, just not enough. There are some women sports that women do support like figure skating and gymnastics in the Olympics. I am not sure who goes to a women's soccer event, but this might be able to added to women sports that women support. I will say making the WNBA more "exciting" (like lowering the rims so there are more dunks) likely will not attract more women. If the hope is that a more exciting WNBA will attract more men, I do not see that moving the needle.
Is it women supporting women in gymnastics and figure skating? Could be, but I wonder if more men watch those sports. I think the difference between the women in those sports and the WNBA is that the women in the WNBA aren't exactly the most feminine of women. The women in tennis are similar to the gymnastics and figure skating in femininity, as well. And, maybe I'm a pig for saying this, so forgive me, but the uniforms of women's most popular sports also show off more of their figure and maybe those women have more of a feminine figure to show off. Overall, women are facing an uphill climb that I think will prove impossible if they ever want to surpass or even approach men's sports for many more reasons than the ones mentioned here.
Of course that is a factor - same for the LPGA - being attractive is good for both sexes in when they sell their product. May not be comfortable to talk about but it is the truth. The issue for me, and women's sports in general is they are just boring - not all that fun to watch - they don't need to be EQUAL playing surfaces....find a way to make it more competitive and entertaining to watch for everyone. In soccer, maybe make the goals bigger or allow throw ins with one arm? Add a blue line.....for offside.....try stuff to make it more interesting....if the athleticism can't compete. DD
LOL - if they are after our entertainment dollar they need to be putting on a viable product....certain OBESE people are NOT asking you to watch them play sports. DD
