Fair Pay in Sport.

BattleCorp · 22-03-2016 12:56PM

seamus wrote: »

But there are other events where gender makes basically no difference. Where 99% of the game is tactics and technique, not raw strength. Shooting. Tennis. Soccer.

I'll agree with you on the shooting. I have sometimes been beaten by a woman when target shooting.

But come on, are you seriously saying that women are on par with men in tennis and soccer? Get real.

gramar · 22-03-2016 01:00PM

BattleCorp wrote: »

I'll agree with you on the shooting. I have sometimes been beaten by a woman when target shooting.

But come on, are you seriously saying that women are on par with men in tennis and soccer? Get real.

I've been beaten by women at plenty of things but I'm not an elite athlete.
Top male athletes in virtually any discipline will beat women. Darts sport or not but again top male players are well ahead of women and it could hardly be less physical.

22-03-2016 01:00PM

osarusan wrote: »

Karsten Braasch was ranked 203 in the world when he played the Williams sisters in a two set match. They were 17 and 16. Venus was in the top 10 of the world. Braasch was somewhat well-known for smoking during changeover breaks.

He beat Serena 6-1 and then Venus 6-2.

US women's team had a practice match against the U-17 national men's team. 8-2.

22-03-2016 01:01PM

As for "technique" being important, of course it is, but it doesn't exist in a vacuum.

Jimoslimos · 22-03-2016 01:08PM

seamus wrote: »

Assumptions.

It has always been the assumption that women wouldn't be able to compete. So they haven't. Which means they can't....

...But there are other events where gender makes basically no difference. Where 99% of the game is tactics and technique, not raw strength. Shooting. Tennis. Soccer.

Why do we still maintain gender separation for these, right from the very start when a child starts out?

It's not assumptions, it's basic human physiology. Males have much greater muscle mass and circulating testosterone - even hypogonadal males have higher levels than women with PCOS.

Shooting, darts, bowls, snooker - yes. Tennis and soccer no.

Dirty Dingus McGee · 22-03-2016 01:17PM

biko wrote: »

I think we need to start with banning Lingerie Rugby Football
A "sport" invented by **** and watched by ****.

Portraying women is "sexy" alternatives to "real" sports is not only demeaning, it's sexist and helps keep women's lib back.

I had no idea this sport existed until now.Thank you for spreading the gospel of this wonderful sport.

Alf Veedersane · 22-03-2016 01:18PM

The issue isn't whether female tennis players can compete with male tennis players.

It's whether or not they generate the same revenue through tv, marketing etc.

Dirty Dingus McGee · 22-03-2016 01:21PM

Although what Moore said isn't probably politically correct an he'd have been better of to stay quiet he is right.There is no doubt female tennis players benefit from their connection to the mens game .

Tennis is the most high profile female sport by far but I'd imagine if the biggest events of the year were not played alongside the men the status of the womens game would diminish significantly.

Seeing as the mens game generates more money and ticket prices for the mens grand slam finals are higher which indicates that the organizers consider them more important , it's a bit odd that the male players don't get more money for their efforts .

I don't particularly care about the women being paid proportionally more for grand slam events but it's just strange that there never seem to be any calls for equality when inequality benefits women.

BattleCorp · 22-03-2016 01:22PM

Jimoslimos wrote: »

It's not assumptions, it's basic human physiology. Males have much greater muscle mass and circulating testosterone - even hypogonadal males have higher levels than women with PCOS.

Shooting, darts, bowls, snooker - yes. Tennis and soccer no.

Men are taller in general than women. So would being tall be an advantage in darts and snooker?

Dyr · 22-03-2016 01:22PM

What are the chess rankings like these days?

Dirty Dingus McGee · 22-03-2016 01:25PM

BattleCorp wrote: »

Men are taller in general than women. So would being tall be an advantage in darts and snooker?

Women have even stuggled against men in those sports which require low levels of physicality.

I think men are more suitable to sport psycholigically simply because they are more likely to become completely obsessive about something trivial than women, and being obsessive is a large part of what makes a successful sportsperson.

Jimoslimos · 22-03-2016 01:26PM

BattleCorp wrote: »

Men are taller in general than women. So would being tall be an advantage in darts and snooker?

No, not so much - as long as you aren't a dwarf, these games are nearly 100% skill.

Basketball on the other hand.

BattleCorp · 22-03-2016 01:28PM

Jimoslimos wrote: »

No, not so much - as long as you aren't a dwarf, these games are nearly 100% skill.

Basketball on the other hand.

Darts, someone tall is closer to the dart board and therefore has a marginal advantage.

Snooker, a tall person can reach more shots without stretching or resorting to the rest.

These are only fractional advantages but in sport that can make all the difference.

Jimoslimos · 22-03-2016 01:29PM

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

Women have even stuggled against men in those sports which require low levels of physicality.

I think men are more suitable to sport psycholigically simply because they are more likely to become completely obsessive about something trivial than women, and being obsessive is a large part of what makes a successful sportsperson.

There's a number of reasons, but that sort of amateur psychology bullsh1t wouldn't be one of them.

Lower numbers participating at the grassroots would be the most important IMO.

Jimoslimos · 22-03-2016 01:33PM

BattleCorp wrote: »

Darts, someone tall is closer to the dart board and therefore has a marginal advantage.

Snooker, a tall person can reach more shots without stretching or resorting to the rest.

These are only fractional advantages but in sport that can make all the difference.

A couple of cms won't make much difference over 6ft.

Top snooker players rarely need to use the rest or stretch because their skill level means they don't end up in those positions. Any height advantage is minimal unless you're playing a small child.

BattleCorp · 22-03-2016 01:34PM

Jimoslimos wrote: »

There's a number of reasons, but that sort of amateur psychology bullsh1t wouldn't be one of them.

Lower numbers participating at the grassroots would be the most important IMO.

You can only play against what is in front of you.

You can't blame men for being better at most sports because most women aren't interested. There are a significant number of top class female athletes and not many of them come close to beating men when they are competing against each other.

maudgonner · 22-03-2016 01:36PM

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

Although what Moore said isn't probably politically correct an he'd have been better of to stay quiet he is right.There is no doubt female tennis players benefit from their connection to the mens game .

Tennis is the most high profile female sport by far but I'd imagine if the biggest events of the year were not played alongside the men the status of the womens game would diminish significantly.

Seeing as the mens game generates more money and ticket prices for the mens grand slam finals are higher which indicates that the organizers consider them more important , it's a bit odd that the male players don't get more money for their efforts .

I don't particularly care about the women being paid proportionally more for grand slam events but it's just strange that there never seem to be any calls for equality when inequality benefits women.

There's definitely truth in that. But I believe that when the prize money was equalised the reason give was that it was to kick-start a move towards making the women's game more equal in stature to the men's.

That's obviously something that doesn't happen overnight and as was mentioned upthread there is a bit of chicken and egg to it - if women's championships are always perceived as inferior then they will never get as big a market share. So they will have smaller viewing figures and be treated as inferior. But if the tennis governing bodies start to treat them more equally it can help break that cycle.

Tennis is one sport where there is definitely potential to change the imbalance. Many people like to watch the women's games because they don't have as much power, so it becomes less about brute force serves (and nothing is more boring than a game that's just ace after ace). The players have similar levels of public profile.

Is it fair? Maybe not. But it's not going to be fair either way.

Dirty Dingus McGee · 22-03-2016 01:37PM

Jimoslimos wrote: »

There's a number of reasons, but that sort of amateur psychology bullsh1t wouldn't be one of them.

Lower numbers participating at the grassroots would be the most important IMO.

Maybe but I would say is a certain truth to it and studies say that men tend to be naturally more competitive than women.

There should be no real reason more women wouldn't be able to compete at a level close to men in a sport like darts or snooker.

razorblunt · 22-03-2016 01:39PM

Should men's tennis have a bigger prize pot than women's absolutely. Longer games for one, increased viewing figures and associated incomings too should mean they warrant a bigger cut of the pie.

I've said before though, I'd love to see a mixed gender golf tournament, they could even trial it at one of the Pro-Am events like the Dunhill Links,

22-03-2016 01:41PM

maudgonner wrote: »

There's definitely truth in that. But I believe that when the prize money was equalised the reason give was that it was to kick-start a move towards making the women's game more equal in stature to the men's.

That's obviously something that doesn't happen overnight and as was mentioned upthread there is a bit of chicken and egg to it - if women's championships are always perceived as inferior then they will never get as big a market share. So they will have smaller viewing figures and be treated as inferior. But if the tennis governing bodies start to treat them more equally it can help break that cycle.

Tennis is one sport where there is definitely potential to change the imbalance. Many people like to watch the women's games because they don't have as much power, so it becomes less about brute force serves (and nothing is more boring than a game that's just ace after ace). The players have similar levels of public profile.

Is it fair? Maybe not. But it's not going to be fair either way.

The women's 100m world record has been the same since the 80s, set by someone who died at a young age having retired when it was announced random testing would be introduced. In almost 30 years no woman has matched her. There are dozens (likely hundreds) of footballers in their early 20s who could beat that record. But it's all about participation.

As for tennis, IMO the women's game has gotten extremely boring, it's not as powerful as the men's game yet they seem to be focusing far more on power the last while.

Christy42 · 22-03-2016 01:53PM

razorblunt wrote: »

Should men's tennis have a bigger prize pot than women's absolutely. Longer games for one, increased viewing figures and associated incomings too should mean they warrant a bigger cut of the pie.

I've said before though, I'd love to see a mixed gender golf tournament, they could even trial it at one of the Pro-Am events like the Dunhill Links,

They have them http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1638513-pga-tour-can-or-should-a-woman-ever-break-onto-the-mens-golf-circuit
It just doesn't really work as a mixed event.

The world championship in snooker is another event that isn't gendered but just looks like it. For most sports I would be happy with an open and a women's competition. It ensures that the women aren't being held back by only being allowed in the women's section as it were but also don't need to make the standard of the guys to be able to compete in their chosen sport.

ohnonotgmail · 22-03-2016 01:53PM

BattleCorp wrote: »

Darts, someone tall is closer to the dart board and therefore has a marginal advantage.

Snooker, a tall person can reach more shots without stretching or resorting to the rest.

These are only fractional advantages but in sport that can make all the difference.

the dominant darts player over the last 20 years is only 5'8".

razorblunt · 22-03-2016 02:03PM

Christy42 wrote: »

They have them http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1638513-pga-tour-can-or-should-a-woman-ever-break-onto-the-mens-golf-circuit
It just doesn't really work as a mixed event.

The world championship in snooker is another event that isn't gendered but just looks like it. For most sports I would be happy with an open and a women's competition. It ensures that the women aren't being held back by only being allowed in the women's section as it were but also don't need to make the standard of the guys to be able to compete in their chosen sport.

I was aware of the golfer playing years back, fair enough she didn't make the cut first time around, but there would have been tons of pressure heaped on her anyway. I would have expected a few more tournaments before getting up to speed.
One of the big blocks would be some, longer courses being too challenging distance wise for the women golfers. But they'd give them a good rattle at the likes of St Andrews and the more "conventional" courses.

diomed · 22-03-2016 02:04PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

the dominant darts player over the last 20 years is only 5'8".

Enough of the "only 5'8"" already. :mad:

Maguined · 22-03-2016 02:29PM

maudgonner wrote: »

Is it fair? Maybe not. But it's not going to be fair either way.

What would be unfair about the division that brings in more money getting larger prize pools? That sounds pretty fair to me.

maudgonner · 22-03-2016 02:52PM

Maguined wrote: »

What would be unfair about the division that brings in more money getting larger prize pools? That sounds pretty fair to me.

Well you can look at it from the other point of view - women who climb to the peak of their sport, achieve the maximum that they can, should be equally rewarded as the men who achieve the same feats.

Is it the player's fault that the women's game receives lower viewing figures? Or is is due to less promotion, unfavourable scheduling and a legacy of less participation of women in sport generally?

I'm not saying Djokovic doesn't have a point, but you can argue it both ways.

But I think we can all agree that no matter who gets paid what, Raymond Moore is a complete gobdaw, right?

22-03-2016 02:55PM

maudgonner wrote: »

Well you can look at it from the other point of view - women who climb to the peak of their sport, achieve the maximum that they can, should be equally rewarded as the men who achieve the same feats.

Why?
Again, boxing has fight nights, top of the bill gets the most money because they get the numbers in. Until very recently Heavyweights tended to have a massive advantage in earnings potential because that's what people wanted to watch.
If one wants to claim it's down to promotion then the women need their fed to do more promotion. And even then I'll bet it won't be enough.
While there's segregation there's different earnings potential. Get rid of segregation and women's earning potential in the sports where they can currently make money will disappear.

"Fair" doesn't mean "equal no matter what".

ohnonotgmail · 22-03-2016 02:57PM

maudgonner wrote: »

Well you can look at it from the other point of view - women who climb to the peak of their sport, achieve the maximum that they can, should be equally rewarded as the men who achieve the same feats.

Is it the player's fault that the women's game receives lower viewing figures? Or is is due to less promotion, unfavourable scheduling and a legacy of less participation of women in sport generally?

I'm not saying Djokovic doesn't have a point, but you can argue it both ways.

If the womens game brings in less money who do you think will make the up shortfall to pay the women the same as the men? Its not a question of fault, its a question of economic reality.

maudgonner wrote: »

But I think we can all agree that no matter who gets paid what, Raymond Moore is a complete gobdaw, right?

Agreed

Maguined · 22-03-2016 03:07PM

maudgonner wrote: »

Well you can look at it from the other point of view - women who climb to the peak of their sport, achieve the maximum that they can, should be equally rewarded as the men who achieve the same feats.

Is it the player's fault that the women's game receives lower viewing figures? Or is is due to less promotion, unfavourable scheduling and a legacy of less participation of women in sport generally?

I'm not saying Djokovic doesn't have a point, but you can argue it both ways.

But I think we can all agree that no matter who gets paid what, Raymond Moore is a complete gobdaw, right?

Why does it have to be anyones fault? It is certainly not the male athletes fault if more fans want to watch them.

Sport is not equal. I love rugby and hate soccer. I could say it is not fair that football players are paid so much more than rugby players who risk more due to it being an impact sport but there is no real merit with that argument. It is no ones fault that more people prefer to pay money to watch soccer over rugby so there is more money in soccer.

Do you think it is unfair that female models earn far more than male models? Do you believe that male models should be paid the same as female models regardless of the fact there is less demand for them?

DEFTLEFTHAND · 22-03-2016 03:27PM

BattleCorp wrote: »

Men are taller in general than women. So would being tall be an advantage in darts and snooker?

Height does not come into it. Men in general have superior hand-eye coordination and spacial awareness to women. This is why they're better at these sports.

Fair Pay in Sport.

Comments