Pay Disparity in Sport

[DigOutYourSoul]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/29744400

This article has been discussed on the radio this morning.

Seems to have caused a bit of debate.

Claims women should be rewarded the same in sport as men. People on the TV and radio claiming that this pay disparity is unacceptable in the 21st century.

Surely when mens sport draws bigger crowds, greater revenues, advertising and viewership then there is always going to be a disparity in pay?

[nsr]

It may not be politically correct but sport is one career path where women cannot perform on the same level as men.

[Niseach]

Correct.

Professional sport only exists because people want to watch it. Sportspeople are paid depending, at a very basic level, on how many people want to watch them (crowds and TV audience). If the same number of punters want to watch women as men, they should be paid the same (Wimbledon, for example). If I could throw in an SFA-esque comparison...the amount bands/singers/DJ's get paid are dependent entirely on how many people want to watch/listen to them.

[Bonksy+HisChristianParade]

Can you fucking imagine female footballers getting paid the same as men? I think even they'd be a bit embarrassed.

[The Master]

Pay in professional sport is based on an arbitrary measure of skill - which is why the striker that is Lionel Messi is paid significantly more than the striker that is <insert any Scottish striker here>. So the equal pay argument doesn't get off the ground.

Prize money in football is paid for out of broadcasting and sponsorship revenues and so is similar to pay. Which is why the Champions League pays more than the Europa League pays more than the FA Cup pays more than...you get the idea. If a women's competition ever attracts the same amount of commercial interest as its male counterpart then by all means pay the same prize money.

[Loki]

There has been equal pay in Tennis for years and whilst the men play best of five in the Slams and the women play best of three the money is justified. Ticket sales, TV revenue etc is about even in Tennis. Some of the women make more money in endorsements and sponsorship than many of the men. Sharapova is second only to Federer in endorsements. A little known man in tennis called Kaarsten Braasch was ranked outside the world's top 200 and he agreed to play both Williams sisters in challenge matches in the same afternoon. He beat them both. The difference in fitness, muscular tone, body size etc will always hinder women if they compete with men. I have no doubt that the best women would improve and make in roads into the Men's game, but it would see them gather less prize money in doing so. So whilst they sell out tournaments, draw big TV contracts and get massive sponsorships, men and women's tennis should always be on a par money wise.

But football can not say the same in the UK. Women's football continues to grow in popularity and is getting more and more TV coverage yearly, but until the economics match I can't see them ever getting equal pay. The law states that you are allowed the same money as the same gender doing the same job, so until women can compete at the highest level at football they will never get equal pay.

[gannonball]

The whole 'equal pay' campaign loses any credibility if they were to start claims like this.

[Supras]

A little known man in tennis called Kaarsten Braasch was ranked outside the world's top 200 and he agreed to play both Williams sisters in challenge matches in the same afternoon. He beat them both.

This was also despite being a decade older than them, and renowned for smoking during the turnovers.

This is a non story cooked up for some controversy. If they want equal pay abolish womens football and let them play in the mens game and see if they reach the top. If so, they will get comparative pay.

[7-2]

It's BBC driven. What a surprise.

[Ross.]

There has been equal pay in Tennis for years and whilst the men play best of five in the Slams and the women play best of three the money is justified.

If you want to use tennis as the example, with regards to prize money the men actually receive less for what they do. The women winner at any grand slam will almost always have played a significant amount less tennis than the male winner, barring any extreme circumstances.

Regards the rest of the comments, I think most of my thoughts have been covered. If people pay to watch, you get the money. If they don't, then f*ck off and stop complaining.

[DAFC]

Women footballers should be paid the same except for the goalies, they're shit.

[DigOutYourSoul]

If you want to use tennis as the example, with regards to prize money the men actually receive less for what they do. The women winner at any grand slam will almost always have played a significant amount less tennis than the male winner, barring any extreme circumstances.

Regards the rest of the comments, I think most of my thoughts have been covered. If people pay to watch, you get the money. If they don't, then f*ck off and stop complaining.

This was my next question. Does the equal pay in tennis almost become an example of positive discrimination?

Female grand slam finals tend to be 6-1 6-3 affairs over and done with in 1 hour 40mins where as the male finals can go on for as long as 5 hours. Does this mean, in terms of performance, men are actually unfairly paid?

[Ross.]

This was my next question. Does the equal pay in tennis almost become an example of positive discrimination?

Female grand slam finals tend to be 6-1 6-3 affairs over and done with in 1 hour 40mins where as the male finals can go on for as long as 5 hours. Does this mean, in terms of performance, men are actually unfairly paid?

I would say yes. If every game is won in straight sets, it would mean that the male winner has played around 33% more tennis, if we use a very basic example. The hourly rate for a male is going to be far lower than that of a female.

[H_B]

The gap should be a lot greater. Tennis is a very good example.

When competing separately, women's tennis generates suignificantly less revenue than the men.

This is hidden of course in Grand Slams. If the women's tour had to resource itself completely, like in golf, the winners of the 4 GS titles would be paid an awful lot less than the men.

[nsr]

Are there any major sports where men and women actually compete together? You would have thought that sports which require a high degree of skill rather than physicality (e.g. snooker or darts) would be a more or less level playing field gender-wise.

[H_B]

Ticket sales, TV revenue etc is about even in Tennis.

It's not.

At the men’s tour, revenue jumped 12 percent to $91 million, leading to a nearly $16 million surplus for the organization. Meanwhile, the WTA’s revenue inched ahead by about $100,000, to $61.4 million, with the WTA’s year-end surplus shrinking by 16 percent, to $3.6 million.

http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2013/11/25/Leagues-and-Governing-Bodies/Tennis.aspx

[HibeeJibee]

Are there any major sports where men and women actually compete together? You would have thought that sports which require a high degree of skill rather than physicality (e.g. snooker or darts) would be a more or less level playing field gender-wise.

Women are able to enter darts and snooker, but I'm not sure if any woman has qualified for their "majors".

I've never been a supporter of equal prizemoney in tennis on the basis that the women aren't playing matches of the same duration as men. You can't say you demand equal pay, but not equal format.

As for the professional team sports - it's driven by attendance, TV viewing figures and sponsorship. That just the reality.

EDIT: In a Scottish context, the Scottish League traditionally draws towards £20,000,000 of sponsorship, endorsement & TV/broadcasting income; the 2 cups several million £ each. Crowds in the top-tier typically average over 10,000 for the division.

In the womens equivalent, I could well be surprised if the SWPL draws £20,000 of income and the cups much at all. Crowds in the top-tier apparently fluctuate either side of 100.

To even consider equal prizemoney would be ludicrous, when income is perhaps 0.1% and crowds perhaps 1% of the mens equivalent. It's the same with cricket, and would be with rugby if they paid prizemoney.

[Loki]

If you want to use tennis as the example, with regards to prize money the men actually receive less for what they do. The women winner at any grand slam will almost always have played a significant amount less tennis than the male winner, barring any extreme circumstances.

Regards the rest of the comments, I think most of my thoughts have been covered. If people pay to watch, you get the money. If they don't, then f*ck off and stop complaining.

Women are able to enter darts and snooker, but I'm not sure if any woman has qualified for their "majors".

I've never been a supporter of equal prizemoney in tennis on the basis that the women aren't playing matches of the same duration as men. You can't say you demand equal pay, but not equal format.

As for the professional team sports - it's driven by attendance, TV viewing figures and sponsorship. That just the reality.

EDIT: In a Scottish context, the Scottish League traditionally draws towards £20,000,000 of sponsorship, endorsement & TV/broadcasting income; the 2 cups several million £ each. Crowds in the top-tier typically average over 10,000 for the division.

In the womens equivalent, I could well be surprised if the SWPL draws £20,000 of income and the cups much at all. Crowds in the top-tier apparently fluctuate either side of 100.

To even consider equal prizemoney would be ludicrous, when income is perhaps 0.1% and crowds perhaps 1% of the mens equivalent. It's the same with cricket, and would be with rugby if they paid prizemoney.

Yes but women's tennis offered to play best of five sets matches at all four Grand Slam tournaments. All four Grand Slam refused this due to scheduling problems, as the Grand Slam tournaments could no longer be played over the two weeks. It isn't the females fault that this has happened. There is also a minority movement in mens tennis to bring the slams down to best of three, however all players that have been asked have largely refused this.

H_B I stand corrected. The data I was looking at didn't have such disparity between the ATP and WTA tours. In the coming years Women's Masters events will pay out more to the winner in prize money than the Men's as the men have opted to share the prize money in the earlier rounds.

[Ross.]

Yes but women's tennis offered to play best of five sets matches at all four Grand Slam tournaments. All four Grand Slam refused this due to scheduling problems, as the Grand Slam tournaments could no longer be played over the two weeks. It isn't the females fault that this has happened. There is also a minority movement in mens tennis to bring the slams down to best of three, however all players that have been asked have largely refused this.

H_B I stand corrected. The data I was looking at didn't have such disparity between the ATP and WTA tours. In the coming years Women's Masters events will pay out more to the winner in prize money than the Men's as the men have opted to share the prize money in the earlier rounds.

Interesting. Didn't realise that.

The second paragraph is also interesting. Is there much of a difference right now in prize money for the early rounds of mens competitions compared to womens or is the prize money equal at every stage?

[H_B]

Yes but women's tennis offered to play best of five sets matches at all four Grand Slam tournaments. All four Grand Slam refused this due to scheduling problems, as the Grand Slam tournaments could no longer be played over the two weeks. It isn't the females fault that this has happened.

I think the actual reason for not playing 5 sets is that no one wants to watch that. It would be farcical. As Bartoli said, women can't play for 5 sets over 2 weeks - they aren't physically capable of it

It could happen for finals only.