male sports keeping female affiliates afloat.

Remove this Banner Ad

One thing I never understand is this quest for sport to strive for equality - either through race or gender, or whatever.

It's not that I don't think these are good aims, it's that I don't think sport can achieve it.

Sport is cruel. It only values the elite. AFL for example churns through players. Have a relatively serious injury in your second season and haven't debuted yet? Delisted. Second fastest man in the world, 0.1 seconds behind Usain Bolt? Expect to earn a 10th of what he does over his lifetime. Maybe less.

Beyond the very elite, the best of the best, it makes little money, and no inroads for social equality. The idea that sport can deliver benefits to things like indigenous people is nonsense. For every Adam Goodes or Lance Franklin, there are hundreds of indigenous men not good enough for elite sport. How do their achievements as individuals help the average indigenous person, given that sport adds no meaningful contribution to a community?

Too much emphasis is placed on sport being able to achieve social goals, when at its purest it is the antithesis of egalitarianism.
 
Play by Numbers said:
.

.What they are bringing in your eyes is irrelevant. All that matters is the revenue they generate. They are receiving less as a return of total revenue generated proportionally..
Click to expand...
do you have proof to back up that the men are getting more than their share, and that women are getting less?
if this is true it's an outrage.

at a guess, its not something that could be proved, and if roger federer, or rafael nadal was making 10 times genie bouchard or maria sharapova, it probably still isn't enough, for what those men have done for the game.

federer's net worth is 300m. with his own brand.
sharapova's ne worth is 150m.

you think he's only brought twice as much as sharapova to the game of tennis?
 
A lot of what Sharapova has earned has little to do with tennis and a lot to do with her looks.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

slimdusty4 said:
do you have proof to back up that the men are getting more than their share, and that women are getting less?
if this is true it's an outrage.

at a guess, its not something that could be proved, and if roger federer, or rafael nadal was making 10 times genie bouchard or maria sharapova, it probably still isn't enough, for what those men have done for the game.

federer's net worth is 300m. with his own brand.
sharapova's ne worth is 150m.

you think he's only brought twice as much as sharapova to the game of tennis?
Click to expand...
Yes, if you had read the article they cite a comprehensive study which concludes that..
 
Play by Numbers said:
Yes, if you had read the article they cite a comprehensive study which concludes that..
Click to expand...
perhaps if you copied the article properly, I'm here looking at page 2, not knowing theres a page one.
ill be with you in a moment.
 
My massive, overwhelming disinterest in the Matildas has everything to do with my loathing of the sport of soccer and nothing to do with the fact that they're chicks.
 
Government and league subsidies should go to women and grass roots community sport ahead of keeping afloat supposedly professional organisations like the struggling AFL clubs. It would be a better investment for the government regards health outcomes that comes from sports participation and better outcomes for the sport itself regards long term grass roots support.

Unfortunately politicians want to have photo ops with clubs that have 30,000 members rather than doing something that may get 1 million girls over the next few decades to play a particular sport. Unfortunately Vlad and Gil judge themselves on the size of the current TV rights deal, rather than making sure coming generations will sometimes have two parents who play the game.
 
slimdusty4 said:
perhaps if you copied the article properly, I'm here looking at page 2, not knowing theres a page one.
ill be with you in a moment.
Click to expand...
1) "Ticket demand and market tastes are also trotted out as explanations (i.e. fans pay more to watch men play, so the men should be paid more. But at the biggest tournaments, fans often pay to watch both men’s and women’s matches."
this isn't trotted out as an explanation, its common sense. mens ticket price for centre court at wimbledon will be more expensive than the ladies for the respective finals.

2) maybe the WTA should join the ATP instead of running its own tour? that would help feminism in sport wouldn't it. "we can't compete for money out here, we have to tag along, so that we can make as much as you".

3) ownership of tournaments, from rich people, and cities, determines the prestige, and profitability of the tournament, and therefore the players, the bidding obviously isn't as high for the WTA, so they can't pass that onto the players.

4)"Women aren’t as strong as men, but that doesn’t mean the sports aren’t as entertaining and aren’t as competitive. That’s what sport is about too,” she said."
i refer you to when i was at the Aus Open in jan, watching womens singles and seeing a match split 5-4 without either of the women holding serve, its not entertaining. and the matches in grand slams certainly aren't as competitive.

5) the author is male bashing.... "Since 2006, just six men have won 33 Slams, and four of them have hogged 31 to themselves. In that period, 14 different women have hoisted Slam trophies"
firstly, hogged? hogged? be more emotive in your writing, and secondly, serena williams anyone?

6)"SportsCenter devoted only 1.4% of its airtime to cover women’s sports in 2009, a decline compared with 1999 (2.2%) and 2004 (2.1%)." what has that got to do with the price of fish, the americans care little for tennis, swimming, the olympics, and soccer, unless its a world cup year. they gave 0.001% of airtime to afl, but that didn't effect the income stream.

7) when a woman says "there's scarcely a women's game i'd care to watch", that really says it all...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/te...e-equal-on-court-but-do-we-want-to-watch.html
 
fishardansin said:
Government and league subsidies should go to women and grass roots community sport ahead of keeping afloat supposedly professional organisations like the struggling AFL clubs. It would be a better investment for the government regards health outcomes that comes from sports participation and better outcomes for the sport itself regards long term grass roots support.

Unfortunately politicians want to have photo ops with clubs that have 30,000 members rather than doing something that may get 1 million girls over the next few decades to play a particular sport. Unfortunately Vlad and Gil judge themselves on the size of the current TV rights deal, rather than making sure coming generations will sometimes have two parents who play the game.
Click to expand...
couldn't agree more, but then we would have to depend on the government looking to the greater good, and not to protect their back pocket? lols.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Striker475 said:
Tennis pays its female athletes equally.


I have faith that an on-field AFL Women's product will be pretty good. We've had three great games between the Demons and Dogs' drafted sides with a fourth in a few weeks. The league shouldn't overreach - the comp should be, at most, a 12-team competition, with 4-6 interstate sides. Say 6- Melbourne and 5-6 interstate, thus:
Click to expand...

I have faith the the on-field AFL Women's product is shithouse. I can go and watch better games of mens amateurs or in any state league around the country. It's all about the dollars in every single sport in the world. The more you bring in the more you get paid. The exception is tennis and it's only at the high end. Also it's a load of shite, they shouldn't get paid the same amount as the men in major tournaments as they don't spend the same amount of time on court.
 
DaVillaBlues said:
Oh Hai Rita Panahi.

I couldn't disagree more with the premise of your post, it beggars belief that some blokes can't accept that many women are pro athletes, and are darn good at it.

Its your choice to watch it or not, but to dismiss their product/competitive efforts and achievements just because they are women, is just idiotic.

FWIW I reckon Serena Williams would beat the crap out of Bernard Tomic, and just about all the male players outside the top five, on the world's professional tennis circuit.
Click to expand...
Did you even read the op:oops:
 
quotemokc said:
This argument that the Matilda's should get paid the same as the Socceroos implies that the Socceroos should get paid the same amount as the English mens team. ( I assume the English players get paid more than the Aussies)
Click to expand...

If they were being funded by the same government body then yeah maybe, but they aren't.
 
WCE_phil said:
I have faith the the on-field AFL Women's product is shithouse. I can go and watch better games of mens amateurs or in any state league around the country. It's all about the dollars in every single sport in the world. The more you bring in the more you get paid. The exception is tennis and it's only at the high end. Also it's a load of shite, they shouldn't get paid the same amount as the men in major tournaments as they don't spend the same amount of time on court.
Click to expand...

not mention they don't even compete with the men. Basically they want the best pay with out competing against the best. even that WAFL exhibition match was s**t house.

I mean seriously? the biggest baddest woman to ever play the game is Lou Wotton she would be killed by being hit she's big and bad, for a girl and thats it. she was also slower then buses in George street during peak hour. No where near AFL standard, and she deserves the same pay as sandi or goldstein?
i don't even think she could compete with Pikey.
 
Women's AFL shouldn't even be in the conversation. A typical boy's under 17 school team would easily account for the All Australian women's team.



These are apparently the best female players in the country, nobody can kick it over 30 meters.
 
I personally think women vollyballers (especially the beach variety) should get paid more than the men....
 
ydraw said:
Women's AFL shouldn't even be in the conversation. A typical boy's under 17 school team would easily account for the All Australian women's team.



These are apparently the best female players in the country, nobody can kick it over 30 meters.
Click to expand...


in fairness they are the best women in the country....... have you seen Sydney's Women's division one?

I will never knock the Sydney premier division again!
 
Considering the Women's soccer side plays the same length of time as the men then yes they should be paid the same when representing the national team, this debate is about the world cup and differences in pay rates and they are unjustly large differences, this debate isn't about the respective local leagues as pay rates vary from league to league.
 
slimdusty4 said:
the irony is, as i said, that the matildas have 6 partners/sponsors, and they make up 6 of the 13 major partners the socceroos have, so without the socceroos, they'd be in even worse shape, but heaven forbid we let the facts get in the way of man hating.
Click to expand...

Soccer is different to most sports as it has only one governing body so in effect the pay rates should be the same, it isn't like Tennis or Golf with separate entities
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top