Søren Lilholt wrote:Maybe sexism IS he root cause of the disparity but you can't stop people liking what they like.
It's the abject lack of rudimentary economic understanding that astounds me. Where is the money to pay the women expected to come from? Top flight male footballers are paid hundreds of thousands A WEEK. Do they think the football-viewing public have consciously CHOSEN for that to be the case? Of course they haven't - it's just the free market exercising itself. I doubt even the clubs want to pay these ludicrous amounts; they judge they have to, to stay competitive. Hence the high prices for tickets, etc.
The pressures on the women's game are simply not the same. But no, women should be paid the same anyway, the money should simply be found from somewhere, because magical reasons. And it's sexist to suggest otherwise.
Mindless, cretinous morons.
People like to watch the very, very best. The vast majority of women's sports simply aren't there. In track and field, basketball, football, etc., the best, Olympic-class Women aren't as good, in most sports, as the best HS boys. Which, essentially, means huge swaths of women's sports are glorified amateur level offerings.
There are some exceptions. Tennis is a good example. The game, as it's played, minimizes sex differences so women are closer to men than in something like track-and-field or football. Consequently, interest in women's tennis is closer to men's tennis and top women make closer to what the top men make. Of the Top-10 earners (including endorsements) last year, women held the 3rd, 5th, 6th, 7th and 9th spots.
