So... if the men’s league earns more and that’s why players make more... then... female players who want more money should join the men’s league? Oh wait... it’s not even a question wether female players could compete with men, women just plain aren’t allowed are they? So then- what do you call it when you have a job that pays more but women aren’t allowed to do it...? Not that they tried and didn’t make the cut- but they aren’t allowed to try and be hired if they make it? The championship women’s player isn’t even counted as good as the 3rd string relief on a men’s team, but not on merit that they both tried out and one did better- on gender? That’s... isn’t that the definition of sexism in a career field?
Dunnoh. Facts are facts. Regardless of wether we think or can prove that every female athlete in the world isn’t up to the same standards of ability as any professional male athlete in any position on any league- almost all major sports leagues don’t even let women try out or send scouts to look for women. Even in countries that have certified that a woman is as combat ready in any given military role or just as able as a man to serve the public peace as a peace officer.
It would seem a bit strange that we consider women to be able to trust the lives of male soldiers to, to trust national security and the safety of the public to, but there isn’t a single woman in the world who can even be a relief or backup or any position in FIFA, the NFL, NHL, MLB, etc? We can trust women with combat but not to win a sports match? Somehow- I find that dubious. But regardless- the point this guy is trying to make is saggy without even getting into history or economics or any other points to discredit his argument on- simply because, women can’t join men’s sports and so women can’t be part of the more profitable franchise even if they wanted to and were as capable as say- a male goalie or kicker- or even a backup.
Actually @guest_ there are no regulations against women participating in the Male leagues. Woman's leagues on the other hand do prohibit male players.
Any woman can join a male team, provided she can keep up physically. Unfortunately human beings are sexually dimorphic and woman aren't able to compete physically at the top levels. That's why you see things such as the Williams sisters losing back to back to the 203rd ranked male tennis player and Olympic teams losing to male under 16 teams.
When a woman who would go on to win a silver Olympic medal attempted to play in the NHL she completed only a single period of a pre-season game and let in 2 goals on 9 shots.
@felixo777- .777 sv doesn’t make her the best goalie in history but puts her on the board with tons of NHL goalies who play in the league. Many pro sports teams do not have explicit regulations banning female players, some only made those distinctions recently, and college sports from title IX institutions can’t discriminate against female athletes... on paper. But court rulings have made clear that so long as employers or teams don’t EXPLICITLy state “it’s because you’re female,” they aren’t violating discrimination law.
While some players and even perhaps coaches, MAYBE an owner or two might be up for female talent, one would have to be naive to think that there isn’t discrimination against female players in professional sports. This discrimination starts even before college- but is certainly cemented in college where female athletic scholarships and programs don’t receive the funding or attention of male sports. Female leagues do not receive the media coverage of their male counterparts either, and as is often the case in such matters of discrimination, female sports starts at a disadvantage due to past discrimination in which women weren’t allowed to play at all.
Men’s leagues aka “pro leagues” are some of the largest and most established enterprises in the world, largely due to historical events in which women weren’t allowed to compete. That’s like forbidding a team from starting up until there are 3 games left in a season with all rookie players and staff and no budget and saying that you’re giving them a fair shot.
A single woman played an NHL game and did mediocre. One woman in history has had an NFL tryout. How many men are considered or vetted or tried out per any given season? Hell- you could judge athletes like Micheal Jordon off one or two games and if it was a “bad day” conclude some of the best athletes in history couldn’t make the pros. Giving “A woman A chance” isn’t the same as giving women a chance. It also isn’t a fair shot because women don’t enjoy many of the aids that male athletes do in training and support, marketing etc.
It’s one thing to admit- “yeah. Most people just want to watch men play...” and another to try and say there’s fair and equitable treatment, or as this guy says that women have or better than male athletes. Wether it’s sexist or just preference or whatever reason a person just isn’t interested in female sports that’s their feeling. But when a woman can do the same job as a man and get paid less to do it that’s another. A woman playing pro basketball or football or whatever sport and a man are doing the same job. Even IF we just agree that women can’t play on the same level of ability as men- that’s irrelevant as they are giving the same effort or maybe even more.
Female athletes aren’t responsible for making sure their games get airtime, their leagues make tie in deals, their teams and ownership promote their sports. They play at 100% like male athletes. Their job is to play sports and do fan service. If the league can’t make money that isn’t on them. The case is somewhat unique because however you want to split hairs we have segregated sports leagues, one of the few examples of segregation by protected class we have. It’s a complex thing but it simply isn’t fair to ask the same sacrifices and same demanding job of women and then pay them less.
One of THE biggest arguments when the insane salaries of sports stars comes up is that they “need” that money because their jobs make health insurance and long term careers unlikely, the aspects of expense and the tolls being a pro take require these sums. So somehow, women, who are “physically less adequate” for sports than men- need health care etc LESS when playing the same sports and pushing the limits of their bodies? Another that comes up is that without high salaries you wouldn’t get the best players (I’m sure... a guy who’s primary choices are sell used cars or loft a ball around for millions would turn down $5million a year because he’s holding out for another job that pays 10?) but let’s defend that’s true. If that’s true- and pro sports may pay insane salaries to keep the sport healthy and competitive- and women or women’s sports “aren’t as good” as men’s- then women’s sports would NEED salary boosts even more to get up to speed no?
And how does that work in college? Where players play for a school and aren’t allowed to take endorsements or even get paid to play, the sport is supposed to generate funds and “spirit” for the school and its programs... yet male athletic programs get more attention, more funding, and male athletes are awarded more lucrative scholarships and stipends or benefits?
On paper- in a very 2D and basic childish view of just the uneducated facts, I could see where one might say “gee- it makes sense women make less...” but if we zoom out a bit, fire up some of those surplus unused neurons, and look at things from a more enlightened angle- we are taking a bout a game. A children’s game played by adults for ungodly amounts of money. It’s all very silly but the money is not. However that’s what it comes down to and we have a choice to make don’t we? A slippery slope where we decide wether or not we prioritize money or social progress.
A brutalist society favors advancement, personal, socially, etc at ANY cost. Each person has a value in what they can do, what role they are used for. Like an insect colony every drone serves a purpose and can be replaced. You’re only as good as you are at this moment, yesterday doesn’t mater and tomorrow is considered but not heavily weighted. Or we can aspire to a more noble virtue of society. I prefer the latter. At some point idealism must take a back seat to pragmatism. When it’s just you and another lost at sea in a raft- one of you WILL eat the other or you both die. But perhaps we don’t need to make that choice 2 days in when there are still lots of supplies. Maybe we can try to high road first and save that as a fallback?
@guest_ I know it's your shtick to spew words until everyone else stops talking but let's have an actual discussion.
First, you insist that teams and owners must be discriminating against female athletes. And you base this on what exactly? Your gut? I'm going to need some actual examples.
Do female athletics recieve less attention than their pro counterparts? Yes because they are less popular. Why are they less popular? Because they play at a lower skill level.
Sports are, at their core, entertainment and people watch what they find the most interesting, the highest skilled players. It is not the responsibility of the public to subsidize a less entertaining media just because "they're women." Despite this, women's sports are already subsidized by their pro counterparts. For example, the WNBA wouldn't exist if the NBA didn't give it money every year.
I don't want to be that guy, but several womans national team have tried playing against mens teams. They got completely destroy by local club team, some of which were u16. This includes the champion US womens national team. Also woman are allowed to play in Men's soccer but aren't able to make it through the tryouts.
Also there's this think called a free market. It's crazy how it work. Basically, people buy and watch the things they want. No one wants to watch people play soccer at the level of a local club team.
In conclusion, women and men are biologically different which leads to men playing athletic sports at a higher skill level. The public finds this more entertaining and so male or pro sports make more money. The only thing preventing women from joining a pro league is their biology and skill.
In your response, try to be concise and don't attempt to hit me over the head with a wall of text.
Any woman can join a male team, provided she can keep up physically. Unfortunately human beings are sexually dimorphic and woman aren't able to compete physically at the top levels. That's why you see things such as the Williams sisters losing back to back to the 203rd ranked male tennis player and Olympic teams losing to male under 16 teams.
First, you insist that teams and owners must be discriminating against female athletes. And you base this on what exactly? Your gut? I'm going to need some actual examples.
Do female athletics recieve less attention than their pro counterparts? Yes because they are less popular. Why are they less popular? Because they play at a lower skill level.
Sports are, at their core, entertainment and people watch what they find the most interesting, the highest skilled players. It is not the responsibility of the public to subsidize a less entertaining media just because "they're women." Despite this, women's sports are already subsidized by their pro counterparts. For example, the WNBA wouldn't exist if the NBA didn't give it money every year.
Also there's this think called a free market. It's crazy how it work. Basically, people buy and watch the things they want. No one wants to watch people play soccer at the level of a local club team.
In your response, try to be concise and don't attempt to hit me over the head with a wall of text.
Nah. Partial credit for partial facts.
Concise.