The debate "A woman's soccer team should receive the same payout as a men's for winning the world cup" was started by
July 10, 2019, 12:24 pm.
By the way, Light is disagreeing with this statement.
62 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 34 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
Nemiroff posted 3 arguments to the agreers part.
Light posted 4 arguments, jrardin12 posted 2 arguments, MightyJackalope posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
MADHURA, jennalyse, mwest0097, sk25, Nteby5, Threelip, Repent_4_The_End_Is_Near, suwani, Nemiroff, bigbuttgal, Sumit082, codyray16, Agrumentman, Audrey23, Cisco, tyler0300, eli and 45 visitors agree.
Light, guchch, Deat, jrardin12, asyrafialing00, shaswat_singh, Manuel, MightyJackalope, CastLight, diecinueve, Andrew_Sagirius and 23 visitors disagree.
I disagree. If we are talking about monetary payout, it should be determined by market forces. If the women's world cup was more popular, therefore yielding more income, the women's team should be payed more than the men's
which is the argument I made when I said this is a societal problem. and not some that can be placed on any individuals shoulders... and I also agreed that compensation should be fair on a % basis.
however it is important to accept the fact that we as a society actively refuse to watch women's sports, even in sports where they may be equal or even have a physical advantage in. if it has women, America tunes out.
While more people watching men's sports may be a valid example of sexism, it still happens. Whether it should or not, as a business the companies that own the teams should pay more to the teams that bring in more money. You bring in more, you get more; like a commission.
Getting more people to watch women's sports is a separate issue.
that is a good argument for some specific sports, like sprinting or weight lifting. however it is a poor argument for sports in general.
the sport in question, soccer, is more about accuracy and ball handling (finesse) both qualities women can be equal of even exceed men.
@jrardin yes, that is the sexism I'm talking about. despite the fact that the men are losing and the women are consequetive champions, we refuse to watch "girl sports".
I'm not into sports in general so I can't really comment on this. I am also worried what I'm about to say might be sexist but I also feel like it's accurate so I need you to correct me if I'm wrong.
Would the view disparity between male and female sporting events still be considered sexist if it was a result of male athletes being physically superior? Is it sexist to suggest the strongest men are much stronger than the strongest women? I hope not because this is what I believe. It's supported by world records too.
I used to be obsessed with the 100m sprint (only sport I've ever cared about because I was somehow good at it) but I never watched the female 100m because it was slower and would never show someone even in the top 1000+ people alive. No woman has broken the sub-10 barrier, but so many men have that I've even raced against one (who completely smashed me). Even though it's just running, watching the fastest people run is just impressive. While it was still impressive, that same awe didn't carry over to the women's 100m.
More people watch men's soccer than women's soccer.
They should get paid as much as the League can afford.
That makes sense.
I'm not saying the women should get a raise automatically. I agree they should get a fair portion of what is raised. nor am I saying any particular individual is being sexist.
I'm saying our society as a whole is being sexist (although in a marginal way compared to the past). and we arent going to improve if we dont first acknowledge that. this problem is systemic, thus no individual can shoulder this blame.
they are both producing the same product. mens sports almost universally bring in more money then women's sports. the people choose to spend their money based on the sex of the players.... that's sexist.
this is even more highlighted by the fact that the women are repeated champions, while the men in this example are losers.
Yes but the Men are producing a product called entertainment and people like their product better. That is where people chose to spend there money and the men shouldn't suffer because their audience doesn't spend as much money on the woman's team.
unfortunately the disparity between men and women in viewership and sponsorship money is consistent throughout all sports. I agree it should be a % of proceeds, but I dont think we should have such a large disparity in proceeds... how is it that the loser mens team that cant consistently make it anywhere near the top bracket gets more $ then the women's team that wins championships.
I agree it should be % but that doeant change the fact that the disparity is due to sexism and shouldnt ideally exist. more proof our society is not as egalitarian as some try to imagine it is.
this is more proof that sage of terms such as sexist and racist are not overblown, and the existence of counterbalance programs like affirmative action are warranted. any cries of counter racism are ignorant of the underlying reality that many forms of bigotry are still a large part of our society. it's one thing for victims to cry victim. it's another thing for people of *relative* privilege to cry victim. that's just pathetic.
I see many people agree would anyone care to explain why.
Its like a commission in a way. You get a certain percentage of the profit. So if you as an entertainer create less profit than someone else in the same business then you should receive less. The woman also actually receive a larger percentage of the profit at 13% then the men at only 9%.
The teams should make what they bring in. If the male team brings more money to the companies (which I heard they do, but I could be wrong), then they should make more money. If the female teams bring in more money, then they should be making more money.