Rapinoe vs Green... who you got?

[LouisLitt]

I don't know how to feel about this. On the one hand, women's sports are usually less competitive than men's and so they generate less revenue. But that is also a function of receiving much less funding.

Women's tennis has shown that pay equality can work. The women cannot compete with the men physically (obviously), but the quality of the women's matches is still very entertaining and draws strong viewership numbers.

Are people greedy or not?

If all it took was further investment into women's soccer to make money, it would happen.

Unless the world is so sexiest that they are willing to avoid a massive area that would make billions of dollars.

[Jadoogar]

I assume this thread won’t last long.

What makes you say that? Uninteresting? Controversial?

people on the internet hate women

[Lalouie]

If you listen to what each of them actually said, she is in the right. But mind you that's way different from what this discussion will boil down to which is women's sports suck and don't generate revenue so shut up.

But I hope some people will take the time to actually read the quotes before their usual lazy commentary. Several female athletes actually engaged with him in very meaningful ways to acknowledge some of what he said while correcting him on the areas he missed on.

It spurred a good dialogue, but we won't have it here sadly.

i'm not going to break from this precious time i have with realGM to google their beef. OP brought up. he should give us the accurate cliff's notes

[AingesBurner]

I don't know how to feel about this. On the one hand, women's sports are usually less competitive than men's and so they generate less revenue. But that is also a function of receiving much less funding.

Women's tennis has shown that pay equality can work. The women cannot compete with the men physically (obviously), but the quality of the women's matches is still very entertaining and draws strong viewership numbers.

There is the key, entertaining to watch. Money spent=Entertainment received, most of women’s sports are just not entertaining. Fighting, soccer, and tennis are likely the most entertaining of women in sports. The WNBA players are likely overpaid. US women’s soccer are not paid the same as men because the men’s soccer, FIBA, spilts the overall money in percentages, they make more money then women’s soccer so obviously the splits are less. I wonder what Woke accounting school Rapinoe went to.

[Raps in 4]

I don't know how to feel about this. On the one hand, women's sports are usually less competitive than men's and so they generate less revenue. But that is also a function of receiving much less funding.

Women's tennis has shown that pay equality can work. The women cannot compete with the men physically (obviously), but the quality of the women's matches is still very entertaining and draws strong viewership numbers.

Are people greedy or not?

If all it took was further investment into women's soccer to make money, it would happen.

Unless the world is so sexiest that they are willing to avoid a massive area that would make billions of dollars.

There is nothing fundamentally unique about women's tennis that makes it more interesting to watch than any other sport. The difference is that women's tennis programs get a ton of funding, which results in the development of high quality athletes. Other women's sports are decidedly lacking in talent.

[sasquatchBob]

Women should get paid a percentage of the generated revenue, just like the men.

/thread

[tbhawksfan1]

I assume this thread won’t last long.

What makes you say that? Uninteresting? Controversial?

people on the internet hate women

Made me laugh. I guess that eventually people on the internet hate everything

[Lalouie]

I don't know how to feel about this. On the one hand, women's sports are usually less competitive than men's and so they generate less revenue. But that is also a function of receiving much less funding.

Women's tennis has shown that pay equality can work. The women cannot compete with the men physically (obviously), but the quality of the women's matches is still very entertaining and draws strong viewership numbers.

wait,,,,are you saying funding solves everything? that the women would play better, be more competitive, and generate more money if they were funded better??

[Nate505]

Finally, someone I detest more than Green. That's an accomplishment.

[LouisLitt]

I don't know how to feel about this. On the one hand, women's sports are usually less competitive than men's and so they generate less revenue. But that is also a function of receiving much less funding.

Women's tennis has shown that pay equality can work. The women cannot compete with the men physically (obviously), but the quality of the women's matches is still very entertaining and draws strong viewership numbers.

Are people greedy or not?

If all it took was further investment into women's soccer to make money, it would happen.

Unless the world is so sexiest that they are willing to avoid a massive area that would make billions of dollars.

There is nothing fundamentally unique about women's tennis that makes it more interesting to watch than any other sport. The difference is that women's tennis programs get a ton of funding, which results in the development of high quality athletes.

Well you're asking a subjective question and as someone who routinely goes to the US Open and watches both genders, I'll disagree.

This doesn't detract from my point.

By saying there's billions of dollars to be made in women's soccer, it's just missing investment, means you believe people are so sexist that they refuse to invest in women's soccer despite the massive upside.

[Raps in 4]

I don't know how to feel about this. On the one hand, women's sports are usually less competitive than men's and so they generate less revenue. But that is also a function of receiving much less funding.

Women's tennis has shown that pay equality can work. The women cannot compete with the men physically (obviously), but the quality of the women's matches is still very entertaining and draws strong viewership numbers.

wait,,,,are you saying funding solves everything? that the women would play better, be more competitive, and generate more money if they were funded better??

Yes. Funding development programs results in better athletes.

[bebopdeluxe]

So predictable. The GB doesn't get it...just like Draymond Green doesn't get it.

The difference is facilities between the men and women basketball players for the NCAA tournament is all you need to know about how deeply embedding sexism is. And just like racism, people don't appreciate being dragged out in the light.

I don't think that Rapinoe is saying female athletes should be paid the same. She is saying that their efforts and commitment should be given equal respect. The example I gave above is Exhibit A of what she is talking about.

[Doctor MJ]

If you listen to what each of them actually said, she is in the right. But mind you that's way different from what this discussion will boil down to which is women's sports suck and don't generate revenue so shut up.

But I hope some people will take the time to actually read the quotes before their usual lazy commentary. Several female athletes actually engaged with him in very meaningful ways to acknowledge some of what he said while correcting him on the areas he missed on.

It spurred a good dialogue, but we won't have it here sadly.

So, let’s have some good dialogue. How exactly is she right?

I'd start with her point that its not just the job of the marginalized to fighting against it. Yes, absolutely women athletes have a responsibility if they want more pay to help to figure out new revenue streams, lots of female athletes including her not only acknowledge that but having been fighting those fights for years. Worth noting that the UWNT generated more revenue than the men in her sport and still got paid less.... Same thing has happened in tennis where they tried to use the 3 sets versus 5 argument and Serena and others were like okay we'll play 5 now pay us--which did eventually happen.

I think too many people jump to the conclusion that women are asking for the same pay as men in every sport and that's simply not the case. But it makes it easy for people to have a quick lazy take instead of trying to take a longer-term view on the issue. Is investing in something that isn't currently a revenue producer valuable? If yes, then let's work together to figure out solutions instead of telling women figure it out, but not only with no support from me as a man, but I'm going to actively make it harder with comments like this.

Now maybe some don't think women's basketball is worth investing in. Fine. I personally think that's short-sighted, but I don't expect everyone to share my view. But sports invests in all kind of loss-leaders because they see potential long-term benefits. And paying the WNBA players for instance just enough more so they aren't having to go play in Russia in the off-season might just be worth doing.

As always appreciate your level-headedness Chuck.

Some thoughts:

- Speaking as a tennis fan, it's absolutely clear to me that there's friction in trying to get salaries between the sexes in alignment even when demand really is on equal footing. (This isn't always true in tennis, but sometimes it is.)

- I do think it's clear that many attached to women's sports and women's rights don't actually know anything about sports economics. I always say "First and foremost, understand that anybody gets paid anything to play a kid's game professionally is a minor miracle." Because of this I always look to divide sports into 2 categories: 1) Money-making, and 2) Non-money-making. And while I'm all for giving women's sports as much support as men's when comparing non-money-making sports, if the men's and women's versions of the same sport have vastly different popularity levels, they don't belong in the same category.

- I'll also say as a teacher I really hate what's happened with colleges and sports. Go find some obscure sport that no one actually wants to watch, and go find the parents of the student athletes. By and large they will be college graduates who gamed the system to allow their child to get into a better school than some other more worthy student. I think it would be wise for colleges to kill off any sort of incentive structure along these lines.

- What about helping poor kids go to college? This isn't a thing that should be dependent on your ability to play a sport. If kids are at an academic disadvantage, help them academically.

- Caveat: I do recognize that some of our Olympic sports are dependent on the college scholarship system to develop new contenders and I hate doing something to jeopardize that. I consider the Olympics to be the literal gold standard for human athletic events, and I don't want to kill of fringe sports from an Olympic perspective, but education comes first.

- Now, I do think the WNBA looking for a similar percentage of revenue to the NBA players makes a lot of sense as a first pass analysis, it gets tricky though.

- The reality is that the NBA is paying for all sorts of infrastructure costs that simply have to be paid, and that would not be possible to be paid based on WNBA revenue. Without the NBA, the WNBA doesn't exist. Some other women's league exists in its place certainly, but there's a reason why women's basketball is more popular now than ever before and it's because of the NBA's backing of the WNBA. This makes it literally a non-starter to say something like "Franchises pay the costs and the WNBA players get the rest" because if you include all the infrastructure the WNBA uses and compare it to the WNBA's revenue, the league would always be losing money.

- You can of course argue that since the NBA revenue is what's driving the vast majority of these infrastructure needs, the WNBA should only have to pay for the stuff that is WNBA specific. That feels fair, but it's totally out of alignment with industry in general. The company that owns the means of production is expected in general to squeeze their employs as much as they can in the US, and so what Rapinoe is essentially asking for the NBA to act as something other than an capitalist entity, which hardly a realistic demand from labor toward management.

- The comparison with Russian women's leagues doesn't make sense because as far as I understand, there's no thought that the Russian leagues will actually make money. The women who go over there are basically just being the pets of the oligarchs who have more money than God and are looking to spend it on on their own opulence rather than building a society that's worth a damn. Suffice to say, I don't think the WNBA should EVER try to outspending these guys because this money is a rounding error to the oligarchs and they aren't operating based on the idea that there's a concrete sense of worth for basketball play.

- As I say all of that, I do think the NBA needs to ask themselves: How much money would it cost us to tie WNBA salary percentages to NBA salary percentages? If the answer is "negligible", I might recommend that they do it as it allows them to settle the issue. If you try to force any other standard other than the NBA percentage, it'll just keep raising questions and potential for conflict indefinitely.

[nate33]

I don't know how to feel about this. On the one hand, women's sports are usually less competitive than men's and so they generate less revenue. But that is also a function of receiving much less funding.

Women's tennis has shown that pay equality can work. The women cannot compete with the men physically (obviously), but the quality of the women's matches is still very entertaining and draws strong viewership numbers.

Are people greedy or not?

If all it took was further investment into women's soccer to make money, it would happen.

Unless the world is so sexiest that they are willing to avoid a massive area that would make billions of dollars.

There is nothing fundamentally unique about women's tennis that makes it more interesting to watch than any other sport. The difference is that women's tennis programs get a ton of funding, which results in the development of high quality athletes. Other women's sports are decidedly lacking in talent.

Women's tennis is interesting because the women aren't as strong and therefore don't serve aces as often. There are more volleys which makes for a more interesting game.

[Doctor MJ]

The difference is facilities between the men and women basketball players for the NCAA tournament is all you need to know about how deeply embedding sexism is. And just like racism, people don't appreciate being dragged out in the light.

So I wanted to zoom in on this specifically, and I'll say up front I don't know the details, but imagine this scenario:

Say you have two tournaments that are both try to budget based on the revenue and cost of their respective tournaments.

Say that many of the big costs - transportation, housing, playing facilities, support staff - have to be about the same.

Where would you expect the tournament that makes less money to cut costs relative to the tournament that makes more money?

I don't have an answer here, but I'd suggest the answer would typically be something other than "No, the tourneys must spend the exact same amount of money!" And yet, I think for many of the people outraged over the differences between the men's and women's tournament cost, they believe everything should be absolutely identical in the name of equality.

Many thinking in terms of Title IX will say that that's what the rule needs to be, and it's not like I'd be outraged were that the case, but it needs to be understood also that if the NCAA is spending money on the women's basketball tourney that causes that to lose money, that's money that could have been used for other things.

It could have been used for other women's sports.
It could have been used for other women's scholarships based on actual academics.
It could have been used for educational infrastructure in general.

I think we probably spend too much time asking "Why don't our female athletes have it better?" and not enough time asking "Why should we look to fund costly sporting events at all?"

[clyde21]

I don't know how to feel about this. On the one hand, women's sports are usually less competitive than men's and so they generate less revenue. But that is also a function of receiving much less funding.

Women's tennis has shown that pay equality can work. The women cannot compete with the men physically (obviously), but the quality of the women's matches is still very entertaining and draws strong viewership numbers.

wait,,,,are you saying funding solves everything? that the women would play better, be more competitive, and generate more money if they were funded better??

Yes. Funding development programs results in better athletes.

huh? you think the problem with the WNBA is that there aren't enough women athletes in it?

[Galloisdaman]

I don't know how to feel about this. On the one hand, women's sports are usually less competitive than men's and so they generate less revenue. But that is also a function of receiving much less funding.

Women's tennis has shown that pay equality can work. The women cannot compete with the men physically (obviously), but the quality of the women's matches is still very entertaining and draws strong viewership numbers.

Are people greedy or not?

If all it took was further investment into women's soccer to make money, it would happen.

Unless the world is so sexiest that they are willing to avoid a massive area that would make billions of dollars.

If women like something they will support it big time with money. Look at The Kardashians, the makeup industry, Taylor Swift, Sex and the City TV show. This is not really a gender issue IMO. Its a dollar and cents issues.

[shakes0]

Who is Rapinoe?

an idiot who's good at soccer.

[shakes0]

If you listen to what each of them actually said, she is in the right. But mind you that's way different from what this discussion will boil down to which is women's sports suck and don't generate revenue so shut up.

But I hope some people will take the time to actually read the quotes before their usual lazy commentary. Several female athletes actually engaged with him in very meaningful ways to acknowledge some of what he said while correcting him on the areas he missed on.

It spurred a good dialogue, but we won't have it here sadly.

so how about you bring some of those good points and good dialogue to this thread rather than just showing us your woke credentials by telling us she's right.

[Doctor MJ]

There is nothing fundamentally unique about women's tennis that makes it more interesting to watch than any other sport. The difference is that women's tennis programs get a ton of funding, which results in the development of high quality athletes. Other women's sports are decidedly lacking in talent.

I'd first ask: What data are you looking at to suggest this?

I would suggest that in general people who make it in professional tennis come from privileged background where they have parents who go all-in preparing their kids to be potential elite tennis players at a young age. Even the great Cinderella story of modern tennis - the Williams sisters from Compton were being drilled every day by an obsessed father.

Tennis is not a sport where there's any national machine creating the best players in the world. By and large, every superstar tennis player is a unique story, but what they all have in common was that they played a ton at a young age.

By contrast, all those WNBA players have benefited from having coaching available freely to them through the school system all through growing up, basically no matter where they grow up.

Next thing I'd point out is that you can't understand any of this stuff if you don't know the history.

When sports first became a superstar culture you're talking about the 1920s, and in that superstar culture, there were specific sports that mattered, and when it came to women's sports, it was basically all individual sports. Tennis, gold, figure skating.

Suzanne Lenglen became an absolute tennis mega-star in this time period, and while we can break down all that went into that, the reality is that there were NO basketball players that mattered as much at the time, men or women.

Speaking most broadly:

Spectators giving a damn about any particular type of athlete is a thing that had to come into existence at a certain point through some type of critical mass appeal. It should never be a surprise when a particular sport never becomes super popular because it's always beating the odds to become popular. And the corollary: It should never be a surprise when a minor league fails to be as popular as a major league, because it's really beating the odds to become popular when there are other human beings who are better than you at the sport you're playing.

Last thought:

It has to be said that it's not like it's random what women's sports have generally won out: It's the one's that showcase women's physical capacity, including their beauty. And to be clear, this "beauty" should not be taken as synonymous with "what men find sexy". The Olympics are the place where female viewership oftentimes surpasses male viewership, and the sports that female viewers tend to be most interested in watching are sports like gymnastics and figure skating. Human activities that are beautiful first and foremost and have scoring artificially attached on top just so that it can be a competition.

This isn't to say that women's basketball can't keep growing in popularity, but tennis' edge here isn't some random thing that can be explained based on differences in public funding.