Rapinoe vs Green... who you got?

[art_tatum]

People saying being paid their worth like the market dictates are missing the systematic problem in our society. We don't treat women sports that are traditionally masculine with the same respect due to gender stereotypes ingrained in our society. So when the market is prejudiced we can't let it dictate price.

We make lowlights of the worst plays in soccer or wnba as examples of why women shouldn't get paid equally, while male lowlights are just for jokes- they not actually bad.

I'm not saying women should be paid the same regardless of market, but we need to try to make the market less biased, which is a social problem, and only then can we let it dictate pay.

This means, on the sports side anyways, increase pay, more promotion and normalizing of women sports that are traditionally masculine. Problem is where does that money come from, since you can't convince every league like the NBA that it'll be an investment long term.

[Roddy B for 3]

sorry, but yes it does. that's the entire point of physical sports. and in basketball especially that difference is really glaring.

Better is always in the eye of the beholder.
Better is always an objective word.

You Comment tells me, you think mens biology is superior to Womens. As far as makings "better" Basketball.

Well, thats objective. Imo watching UConn women play Baylor women is "better" Basketball than watching disintrested DeAngelio Russell play for an injury riddeled Twolves

In terms of explosiveness, speed, acceleration and strength yeah men are significantly superior to women. This is not even to be contested anymore this is a proven fact. The only physical aspect women can hang with men are endurance sports. Outside of that? Men outdo women by anyhere between 20%-30% roughly and that is a more than a gap, it is a gulf.
Also better is not in the eye of the beholder. Your personal enjoyment does not mean that what you enjoy was better. Millions enjoy fast food crap like McGarbage and Burger Crap yet fast food is demonstrably terrible in terms of nutritious value. Whether it tastes "better" or not is of no relevance whether it is actually better food than some homecooked meal with homegrown ingredients for example.

Better is in the eye of the beholder, I won't argue that point any further... Its self evident. People can look for different things out of the same sports. Some might see 40" vertical as "better" others might see crisp team Basketball as "better".

"In terms of explosiveness, speed, acceleration and strength yeah men are significantly superior to women.". In general yeah, but obviously your statment dosen't qualify for EVERY man agsinst EVERY woman. People on this board often argue hand eye cordination and changer of pace as forms of athletisisim, of assume women grade out very similar to men in hand eye cordination.

If WNBA was advertiseted more and more readily available their ratings would rise. If their ratings would rise enough to offset the increased money spent, I don't know. Thats what this thread is about right? Women not getting paid as much as men for performing the same job, right? WNBA vs NBA maybe isn't considered the same job. Im fine with that.

To get fully back on topic, ket me ask you this theoreticall question.
If USA Womens soccer is more successful and brings in more revenue than USA Mens soccer should the women be paid more?

I belive finding comming ground is a terrific way to make things easier to see from both sides.

[Pg81]

Better is always in the eye of the beholder.
Better is always an objective word.

You Comment tells me, you think mens biology is superior to Womens. As far as makings "better" Basketball.

Well, thats objective. Imo watching UConn women play Baylor women is "better" Basketball than watching disintrested DeAngelio Russell play for an injury riddeled Twolves

In terms of explosiveness, speed, acceleration and strength yeah men are significantly superior to women. This is not even to be contested anymore this is a proven fact. The only physical aspect women can hang with men are endurance sports. Outside of that? Men outdo women by anyhere between 20%-30% roughly and that is a more than a gap, it is a gulf.
Also better is not in the eye of the beholder. Your personal enjoyment does not mean that what you enjoy was better. Millions enjoy fast food crap like McGarbage and Burger Crap yet fast food is demonstrably terrible in terms of nutritious value. Whether it tastes "better" or not is of no relevance whether it is actually better food than some homecooked meal with homegrown ingredients for example.

Better is in the eye of the beholder, I won't argue that point any further... Its self evident. People can look for different things out of the same sports. Some might see 40" vertical as "better" others might see crisp team Basketball as "better".

"In terms of explosiveness, speed, acceleration and strength yeah men are significantly superior to women.". In general yeah, but obviously your statment dosen't qualify for EVERY man agsinst EVERY woman. People on this board often argue hand eye cordination and changer of pace as forms of athletisisim, of assume women grade out very similar to men in hand eye cordination.

If WNBA was advertiseted more and more readily available their ratings would rise. If their ratings would rise enough to offset the increased money spent, I don't know. Thats what this thread is about right? Women not getting paid as much as men for performing the same job, right? WNBA vs NBA maybe isn't considered the same job. Im fine with that.

To get fully back on topic, ket me ask you this theoreticall question.
If USA Womens soccer is more successful and brings in more revenue than USA Mens soccer should the women be paid more?

I belive finding comming ground is a terrific way to make things easier to see from both sides.

Let me put it this way I have yet to find a woman who can beat me in arm wrestling and I am in bad shape thanks to my excruciating chronic back pains.
Edit: As to your question, depends on their contract. They chose the safe option but now want the guaranteed money AND what the men get. Ever heard of wanting your cake and eat it too? Do you want to know what my opinion is on such behaviour?
Edit2: Eye of the beholder is arguable but that is personal likes and dislikes and has nothing to do with "better". "Better" can generally be grasped empircally and empircally in the vast majority of sports men outdo women by substantial margins and it is not even close.

[drchaos]

Death by Snu Snu!

[Slim Tubby]

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.

It’s nice to know that you post on here, Mr. Gaetz.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Prestige]

Not sure why this is on a men’s basketball forum. Maybe one day they’ll find a strategy to better monetize their leagues. But that is unlikely. Most people don’t care to watch, sponsors don’t want to invest, and the womens pro leagues don’t want to share a larger piece of the pie with the athletes. So what we will get is constant whining and attempts to make this into a social injustice movement rather than a simple economic reality.

I would rather support poor women in third world countries that have to fetch dirty well water daily, rather than increasing the wealth of already wealthy first world privileged women.

[Slim Tubby]

It's also very possible that there is some monopoly economics happening. Is it possible that one day women's soccer (or basketball) could become as popular as male? Is there a level playing field for that development to happen or is the historical and economic bias of male dominated sports keeping the female leagues from developping?

I played competitive soccer all the way through college. If I had to choose to watch only one, I’d watch the USWNT over our current Men’s national team. Far more success and player development happening on the women’s team. The women are chasing financial equality while the men’s team is chasing relevancy.

The answer to this debate is very simple as many others have stated...sell more tickets and increase your TV ratings and more money will flow your way. Like it or not, financial success in life depends on productivity. I have plenty of gals that work for me in Sales that earn twice what most of the guys do because they produce more. It’s as simple as that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Bergmaniac]

If the woke know-it-alls who never shut up about this stuff and the "equity at all costs" crowd actually watched women sports and paid for tickets for games of female teams things may change. But the vast majority of them don't. In the sports where women get big viewership they get paid a lot. Simple market economics.

Fact is men are just stronger and more athletic both on average and at the top of the distribution than women, by a significant margin. And in most sports that makes a big difference when it comes to how attractive they are to the average viewer and marketing won't change this significantly. Most basketball players don't want to watch a below the basket game without dunks.

[jk31]

I mean NBA players salaries are tied to the revenue that the NBA creates. What is the discussion here?

[Reverend X]

I assume this thread won’t last long.

What makes you say that? Uninteresting? Controversial?

ALIENS

[brettski]

Women's tennis is about as far from finesse as you can get. They just hit it back as hard as they can and hope the other player is the first one to sail one 20 feet beyond the baseline.
There's nothing except stereotypes supporting the notion that men's tennis is about power and women's tennis is about skill and touch. It's the opposite.

Hmm, there's a discussion to be had here but you're oversimplifying.

About 20 years ago the men's game was getting crippled by power and the women's game was more interesting. This was caused by racket technology which made women more powerful but made men too powerful. You were seeing guys win on grass who couldn't do anything except serve.

2 things changed that as I see it: 1) They changed the surfaces to slow down the game (except on clay, which was already slow as molasses), and 2) the next generation of players learned to be able to react fast enough to return those super-fast shots.

The result then is that while power in real ways still rules the men's game, the issues of "I only serve" dominance went away.

At that point the fact that there are just more top level male players than female players allowed greater physical dominance at the top by someone like Serena than we've seen from someone on the men's side.

Just because I can... in 2001 Agassi and Hewitt each won a major. Neither of them was a power player. Not of the likes of a Sampras or Roddick. I don't think what you're saying gels with my memory of the time/era. The men's game had a combination of power players and grinders (the type that just kept getting the ball back) and thankfully someone like Pat Rafter that still loved the serve volley game! There was a real mix and it was interesting. Women's tennis was suffering because there was a real gap between tiers of players - I'll expand on that below.

I viewed tennis of that era (2000-2010) as being highly successful in the mens game and far less so in the womens game. The reason wasn't about gender but about breadth of quality. In the women's game you could usually name with a high level of accuracy 3 of the final 4 because there was a small group that was always a tier well above the others. Players like Seles, Hingis, Davenport then the Williams Sisters etc that were just a cut above the rest. You only needed to tune in at the end of a tournament because the quality wasn't at the same level and there was little doubt who would win.

In the men's game though it was always far less certain. Anyone from the top 30 could easily make it to the final four or win the tournament. Which made games far more interesting to watch throughout the tournament and made you more interested in the men's results when they got to the final four because you'd been watching them all play multiple earlier rounds.

Closest basketball analogy I can give is people tuning in to the first round of the west playoffs at a far higher level than the first round in the east. Even a west 2 vs 7 or 1 vs 8 could be interesting and go to 6 games.

Now in saying all that. What changed to me was the women's game really came on with far more depth of talent, especially that huge influx of eastern European talents. Where as the men's game became the Federer vs Nadal vs Djokovic show. Basically flipping it on its head. I will admit I would still prefer to watch the men's games though because watching someone like Federer completely on his game was unparalleled. I don't think it is unfair at all to say the combination of power and precision he could produce was a step above anything in the women's game. I don't think we've seen its like by any other player male or female.

Finally, if I was a paying customer, and I have been - I've paid for flights, accommodation and tickets to the Australian Open before. Given the cost of the tickets alone I would choose to watch a men's game. Tickets for finals can go for upwards of $500.00 a ticket and some women's grand final matches have been completely finished in under an hour. Its just not good value for money. If I am paying the same amount for either final give me the one that will go at least 3 sets not the one that can only go 3 sets.

[KembaWalker]

to be fair the same market forces apply when a chick can make a million dollars in a week on OnlyFans as soon as she turns 18 , don't see too many guys complaining about that.
should bhad bhabie and bella thorne have to subsidize me cause nobody wants to pay money to see what i'm workin with?

[Roddy B for 3]

In terms of explosiveness, speed, acceleration and strength yeah men are significantly superior to women. This is not even to be contested anymore this is a proven fact. The only physical aspect women can hang with men are endurance sports. Outside of that? Men outdo women by anyhere between 20%-30% roughly and that is a more than a gap, it is a gulf.
Also better is not in the eye of the beholder. Your personal enjoyment does not mean that what you enjoy was better. Millions enjoy fast food crap like McGarbage and Burger Crap yet fast food is demonstrably terrible in terms of nutritious value. Whether it tastes "better" or not is of no relevance whether it is actually better food than some homecooked meal with homegrown ingredients for example.

Better is in the eye of the beholder, I won't argue that point any further... Its self evident. People can look for different things out of the same sports. Some might see 40" vertical as "better" others might see crisp team Basketball as "better".

"In terms of explosiveness, speed, acceleration and strength yeah men are significantly superior to women.". In general yeah, but obviously your statment dosen't qualify for EVERY man agsinst EVERY woman. People on this board often argue hand eye cordination and changer of pace as forms of athletisisim, of assume women grade out very similar to men in hand eye cordination.

If WNBA was advertiseted more and more readily available their ratings would rise. If their ratings would rise enough to offset the increased money spent, I don't know. Thats what this thread is about right? Women not getting paid as much as men for performing the same job, right? WNBA vs NBA maybe isn't considered the same job. Im fine with that.

To get fully back on topic, ket me ask you this theoreticall question.
If USA Womens soccer is more successful and brings in more revenue than USA Mens soccer should the women be paid more?

I belive finding comming ground is a terrific way to make things easier to see from both sides.

Let me put it this way I have yet to find a woman who can beat me in arm wrestling and I am in bad shape thanks to my excruciating chronic back pains.
Edit: As to your question, depends on their contract. They chose the safe option but now want the guaranteed money AND what the men get. Ever heard of wanting your cake and eat it too? Do you want to know what my opinion is on such behaviour?
Edit2: Eye of the beholder is arguable but that is personal likes and dislikes and has nothing to do with "better". "Better" can generally be grasped empircally and empircally in the vast majority of sports men outdo women by substantial margins and it is not even close.

"Having your cake and eating it too"

I asked if:
"If USA Womens soccer is more successful and brings in more revenue than USA Mens soccer should the women be paid more?"

You replied:

"As to your question, depends on their contract. They chose the safe option but now want the guaranteed money AND what the men get. Ever heard of wanting your cake and eat it too? Do you want to know what my opinion is on such behaviour?"

-Did the men not choose the safe contract?

The "want their cake and to eat it too"? Because the are more successful and generate more revenue so they feel they should be paid accordingly?

Yes I am directly asking you, your opinion on that.

[MalonesElbows]

How many of you preachers are contributing to their cause by attending pro womens soccer or WNBA games or purchasing the WNBA league pass? I rest my case.

[Roddy B for 3]

If the woke know-it-alls who never shut up about this stuff and the "equity at all costs" crowd actually watched women sports and paid for tickets for games of female teams things may change. But the vast majority of them don't. In the sports where women get big viewership they get paid a lot. Simple market economics.

Fact is men are just stronger and more athletic both on average and at the top of the distribution than women, by a significant margin. And in most sports that makes a big difference when it comes to how attractive they are to the average viewer and marketing won't change this significantly. Most basketball players don't want to watch a below the basket game without dunks.

I doubt anyone in this thread spends more than .0000000001% of their time thinking about Womens sports salaries. Yet you think seeing 1 14+ page thread start on the front page of a niche Basketball Talk forum, probably this is the 6th longest post on 1 of 200,000+ realgm GB pages and probably only 1 in 20 pages even mention Womens athletics but people can "never let it go".

[Roddy B for 3]

My last post in this thread will be this one.

Visually Womens sports are definetly preferable, to me.

I generally perfer to watch mens sports because im more emotinally invested.

But, VISUALLY, WATCHING, Womens sports are definetly more attractive to me.

If you guys find watching tall, buff guys run and jump more attractive for your eyes.. hey, different strokes for different folks.

Defintion of attractive for the snowflakes:
at·trac·tive
/əˈtraktiv/
adjective
(of a thing) pleasing or appealing to the senses.
"an attractive home"
(of a person) appealing to look at; sexually alluring.
"an attractive, charismatic woman"
(of a thing) having beneficial qualities or features that induce someone to accept what is being offered.
"the site is close to the high-rent district, which should make it attractive to developers"

[KembaWalker]

My last post in this thread will be this one.

Visually Womens sports are definetly preferable, to me.

I generally perfer to watch mens sports because im more emotinally invested.

But, VISUALLY, WATCHING, Womens sports are definetly more attractive to me.

If you guys find watching tall, buff guys run and jump more attractive for your eyes.. hey, different strokes for different folks.

Defintion of attractive for the snowflakes:
at·trac·tive
/əˈtraktiv/
adjective
(of a thing) pleasing or appealing to the senses.
"an attractive home"
(of a person) appealing to look at; sexually alluring.
"an attractive, charismatic woman"
(of a thing) having beneficial qualities or features that induce someone to accept what is being offered.
"the site is close to the high-rent district, which should make it attractive to developers"

youre super straight bro
props

[Pg81]

Better is in the eye of the beholder, I won't argue that point any further... Its self evident. People can look for different things out of the same sports. Some might see 40" vertical as "better" others might see crisp team Basketball as "better".

"In terms of explosiveness, speed, acceleration and strength yeah men are significantly superior to women.". In general yeah, but obviously your statment dosen't qualify for EVERY man agsinst EVERY woman. People on this board often argue hand eye cordination and changer of pace as forms of athletisisim, of assume women grade out very similar to men in hand eye cordination.

If WNBA was advertiseted more and more readily available their ratings would rise. If their ratings would rise enough to offset the increased money spent, I don't know. Thats what this thread is about right? Women not getting paid as much as men for performing the same job, right? WNBA vs NBA maybe isn't considered the same job. Im fine with that.

To get fully back on topic, ket me ask you this theoreticall question.
If USA Womens soccer is more successful and brings in more revenue than USA Mens soccer should the women be paid more?

I belive finding comming ground is a terrific way to make things easier to see from both sides.

Let me put it this way I have yet to find a woman who can beat me in arm wrestling and I am in bad shape thanks to my excruciating chronic back pains.
Edit: As to your question, depends on their contract. They chose the safe option but now want the guaranteed money AND what the men get. Ever heard of wanting your cake and eat it too? Do you want to know what my opinion is on such behaviour?
Edit2: Eye of the beholder is arguable but that is personal likes and dislikes and has nothing to do with "better". "Better" can generally be grasped empircally and empircally in the vast majority of sports men outdo women by substantial margins and it is not even close.

"Having your cake and eating it too"

I asked if:
"If USA Womens soccer is more successful and brings in more revenue than USA Mens soccer should the women be paid more?"

You replied:

"As to your question, depends on their contract. They chose the safe option but now want the guaranteed money AND what the men get. Ever heard of wanting your cake and eat it too? Do you want to know what my opinion is on such behaviour?"

-Did the men not choose the safe contract?

The "want their cake and to eat it too"? Because the are more successful and generate more revenue so they feel they should be paid accordingly?

Yes I am directly asking you, your opinion on that.

Both national teams got the option for either a safe contract with extra benefits or a riskier contract with potentially bigger payout. Have you even following the discussion? Do you realize how disingenuous it is to chose a contract, celebrating it only to later complain about that it did not yield as much only to try to go to court, faling miserably because as it turns out they are earning MORE than the men in relation to revenue and consequently getting laughed out of court?
Also more successful? You are aware that the mens competition is MUCH better and much more difficult, right? Shall we also mention that multiple womens national teams lost miserably to U15 boys teams?

[Roddy B for 3]

My last post in this thread will be this one.

Visually Womens sports are definetly preferable, to me.

I generally perfer to watch mens sports because im more emotinally invested.

But, VISUALLY, WATCHING, Womens sports are definetly more attractive to me.

If you guys find watching tall, buff guys run and jump more attractive for your eyes.. hey, different strokes for different folks.

Defintion of attractive for the snowflakes:
at·trac·tive
/əˈtraktiv/
adjective
(of a thing) pleasing or appealing to the senses.
"an attractive home"
(of a person) appealing to look at; sexually alluring.
"an attractive, charismatic woman"
(of a thing) having beneficial qualities or features that induce someone to accept what is being offered.
"the site is close to the high-rent district, which should make it attractive to developers"

youre super straight bro
props

You feel the need to address my coment, did you address the comments of people calling WNBA players unattractive?

[G35]

People saying being paid their worth like the market dictates are missing the systematic problem in our society. We don't treat women sports that are traditionally masculine with the same respect due to gender stereotypes ingrained in our society. So when the market is prejudiced we can't let it dictate price.

We make lowlights of the worst plays in soccer or wnba as examples of why women shouldn't get paid equally, while male lowlights are just for jokes- they not actually bad.

I'm not saying women should be paid the same regardless of market, but we need to try to make the market less biased, which is a social problem, and only then can we let it dictate pay.

This means, on the sports side anyways, increase pay, more promotion and normalizing of women sports that are traditionally masculine. Problem is where does that money come from, since you can't convince every league like the NBA that it'll be an investment long term.

There is a reason why social media sites are taking away down voting or thumbs down options......