slimdusty4
Club Legend
today, numerous news centres are running with a story about how the pay gap between the socceroos and the matildas is unfair.
and I'm getting really tired of this argument, i posted the following on social media:
"To see channel 7 and channel 9 both post pieces claiming “the Matilda’s are being ripped off” is laughable, when as billion dollar television networks, they have the option to buck the trend, and spend money on telecast rights for women’s professional sports, but choose not to, or worse, low ball the industry because it isn’t the high drawcard viewing they are searching for. funnily enough, television rights deals make up a huge percentage of revenue and income for professional sports.
The Westfield Matilda’s have 6 ‘official partners’, (Nike, Hyundai, Westfield, NAB, Telstra, and Qantas), coincidentally, all six of these sponsors, also sponsor the Socceroo’s, (whilst making up part of the 13 official partners they have).
To put this into perspective, the Matilda’s have less than half the amount of official partners as the Socceroo’s, and each of the 6 Matilda's partners, is first and foremost a Socceroo's partner.
No Socceroo's money means no Matilda money.... damn those god awful, overpaid Socceroo's.
Why should you have to compensate someone for something that isn't feasible? there isn't the same market for women's sports in terms of the dollars, notoriety, and viewership, as is accustomed to male sports, which is the complete reverse in the modelling industry, but nobody seems to have an issue with that.
Should the governing bodies, and male athletes who bring in these viewers and dollars have to compromise their wage, and their endorsements to keep the “equality in sports” debate out of the paper?
These types of jobs are not based on whether you are a man or a woman, you're employed and remunerated on the ability to perform, bring in money, viewers, sponsorship dollars, and to raise the profile of your industry/product in a positive manner.
If people think that female tennis players, soccer players, or basketballers as a whole, are doing this to the same standard, or better than their male counterparts, i think they need to seriously reassess their definitions of equality and sexism.
At the end of the day, you give the people what they want, and whether you like it or not, what the majority want, is to watch the Socceroo’s before the Matilda’s, the NBA, not the WNBA, the mens singles final at Wimbledon, which ironically is played in front of a larger audience, for the same amount of money as the females, who aren’t on the court for half as long, but hey thats none of my business.
what people forget is that most of these sporting industries have been ‘chopping out’ their female counterparts for years, to make sure these sports are kept afloat at a professional level.
if this were any other business, this type of argument would be laughed at. why?
if you’re contribution to the industry, in all levels, doesn’t reflect that of your counterpart (male or female), why should you receive the same compensation?
because equality? because it isn’t fair? please, spare me.
go and ask your boss why the person who’s bringing in more money, notoriety, and more clients than you, has a bigger office, and see if he can keep a straight face."
when you see so many sports, like the AFL, the NBA, FIFA, and the FFA, giving so much back to grassroots, and helping their female counterparts, i get really frustrated. At what point is it the fault of the managers of these female/lower level sports, that are run by men AND women, is the product not good enough, is the marketing to blame, the networks, the newspapers?
do you buy into the fact that its men v women, or that this is simply fair, and that as a whole, mens sports and its pay differences to women sports are justified?
and I'm getting really tired of this argument, i posted the following on social media:
"To see channel 7 and channel 9 both post pieces claiming “the Matilda’s are being ripped off” is laughable, when as billion dollar television networks, they have the option to buck the trend, and spend money on telecast rights for women’s professional sports, but choose not to, or worse, low ball the industry because it isn’t the high drawcard viewing they are searching for. funnily enough, television rights deals make up a huge percentage of revenue and income for professional sports.
The Westfield Matilda’s have 6 ‘official partners’, (Nike, Hyundai, Westfield, NAB, Telstra, and Qantas), coincidentally, all six of these sponsors, also sponsor the Socceroo’s, (whilst making up part of the 13 official partners they have).
To put this into perspective, the Matilda’s have less than half the amount of official partners as the Socceroo’s, and each of the 6 Matilda's partners, is first and foremost a Socceroo's partner.
No Socceroo's money means no Matilda money.... damn those god awful, overpaid Socceroo's.
Why should you have to compensate someone for something that isn't feasible? there isn't the same market for women's sports in terms of the dollars, notoriety, and viewership, as is accustomed to male sports, which is the complete reverse in the modelling industry, but nobody seems to have an issue with that.
Should the governing bodies, and male athletes who bring in these viewers and dollars have to compromise their wage, and their endorsements to keep the “equality in sports” debate out of the paper?
These types of jobs are not based on whether you are a man or a woman, you're employed and remunerated on the ability to perform, bring in money, viewers, sponsorship dollars, and to raise the profile of your industry/product in a positive manner.
If people think that female tennis players, soccer players, or basketballers as a whole, are doing this to the same standard, or better than their male counterparts, i think they need to seriously reassess their definitions of equality and sexism.
At the end of the day, you give the people what they want, and whether you like it or not, what the majority want, is to watch the Socceroo’s before the Matilda’s, the NBA, not the WNBA, the mens singles final at Wimbledon, which ironically is played in front of a larger audience, for the same amount of money as the females, who aren’t on the court for half as long, but hey thats none of my business.
what people forget is that most of these sporting industries have been ‘chopping out’ their female counterparts for years, to make sure these sports are kept afloat at a professional level.
if this were any other business, this type of argument would be laughed at. why?
if you’re contribution to the industry, in all levels, doesn’t reflect that of your counterpart (male or female), why should you receive the same compensation?
because equality? because it isn’t fair? please, spare me.
go and ask your boss why the person who’s bringing in more money, notoriety, and more clients than you, has a bigger office, and see if he can keep a straight face."
when you see so many sports, like the AFL, the NBA, FIFA, and the FFA, giving so much back to grassroots, and helping their female counterparts, i get really frustrated. At what point is it the fault of the managers of these female/lower level sports, that are run by men AND women, is the product not good enough, is the marketing to blame, the networks, the newspapers?
do you buy into the fact that its men v women, or that this is simply fair, and that as a whole, mens sports and its pay differences to women sports are justified?
