QuietContrarian
Registered User
- May 28, 2008
- 8,260
- 3,083
That would require men to get paid alot less, as it’s just not doable without doing so.Does it matter that they lost against boys? Are they the peers they have to compete with? The mens money comes from immense marketing,corruption and tradition. Do you think they get money for being the best? They don't. Men's money exploded because rich people think they can get a return of investment exploiding the tradition of clubs. That's all there is to it. And it's the thing, by the way, that killed a good part of footy. Real should still be bitchslapped for paying what they did to Figo. The CL should still be bitchslapped for killing a once great competition, the investors in the EPL should be slapped as well. Etc, etc. That's all marketing on the back of tradition. Norwegian skijumping does it right. Equal pay for men and women regardless of the money generated.
(For what it’s worth, I think athletes in general get paid too much, so would not be against the men getting less, just not sure if equal pay is fair game in this case)
The females do not generate enough income.
No sexism there.
I would post videos of Economists and lawyers explaining why, ut at the feer of being labeled this and that, aswell as the ban hammer, you will have to pm me if you want it.
There is a reason the USWNT lost this case handidly in court.
It’s all fine and Dandy you don’t think womens soccer is an inferior game, but I do, and there is no logic in saying I am wrong, as this is down to the beholder I would say.
I find womens tennis immensly entertaining, same with handball.
Womens soccer and WNBA, not so much - And that sure as hell has nothing to do with marketing.
And, imo, sure more marketing would help womens soccer, but no matter what, I don’t ever think it would reach the popularity of the mens game - No matter how much push.
Last edited: