who will fund pro womens rugby?

[truthteller]

Now this is a monster issue that is already growing

all unions are struggling, even the mighty rfc lost millions last year
there are more women and more pro women in england than ever and in other rugby nations
theres 8.5 million rugby players worldwide 2.2 million are women tht figure seems astonishing
now in the age of political correctness and equality politicians and women are demanding equal opportunity and equal pay for everything.....But how can this be afforded and by whom? If the unions end up responsible then they will either go bust or have to cut back the clubs. The market isnt there to support a big pro female game atm ,,,but why should a male get the chance to be a pro rugby player and not a woman?

 

[profitius]

,,,but why should a male get the chance to be a pro rugby player and not a woman?

A tiny percentage of the male population get to play professional rugby. Why shouldn't every male have the right. See where I'm going here? The smallest minority is the individual.


Most countries won't support women's professional rugby because the audience isn't there. I've never watched a game of women's rugby even though I'm a fan of the game.


I can see unions being put under pressure by the insane brigade but even so, I don't think most unions can afford it.

 

[truthteller]

this needs to be addressed soon its already creating more financial problems....mps are aready demanding equal prize money for womens fa cup as men

 

[Reiser99]

It's a simple fact that majority of professionalism is funded by T.V and advertising etc... therefore audience numbers are key and women's sport in general suffers compared to men. I have no idea what the solution is because as long as you compare men vs women in most sports, especially with high athleticism, men's sports are generally more exciting.

 

[truthteller]

in pc uk you wont be allowed to say that anymore and everything must be equal...trust me this is a massive problem looming large and the unions will eventually need to speak to the government about who is to fund the pro womens game....because they sure as hell cant afford it and as you say the market isnt there in reality atm

 

[mdaclarke]

Even in Soccer the women's professional teams don't make any money and are heavily subsidised by the mens teams. As indicated above, unless people want to watch it then it won't make any money

 

[Scotty]

I dont beleive womens rugby will ever be equal to mens in terms of pay as i cant seeing it over take in people watching. There for less income from tv and advertising and less attendance at game.

England women have had alot of money put into it and has come a long way with professional contracts and more televised games and will reap bennefits from that.

What i dont agree with is women saying i want the same as the mens game when the mens game is only were it is after years and years of growth and change.

Women deserve the chance and deserve everything they earn in their young premiership and in a nunber of years time their game should have grown and numbers of viewers increase. But they cant be paid the same as the men as it stands until they earn it, that doesbt mean winning the WC or six nations, it mean training and working hard to make their game an equal to the mens game, only then will they be able to be equal on pay.

 

[The Seeker]

I dont beleive womens rugby will ever be equal to mens in terms of pay as i cant seeing it over take in people watching. There for less income from tv and advertising and less attendance at game.

England women have had alot of money put into it and has come a long way with professional contracts and more televised games and will reap bennefits from that.

What i dont agree with is women saying i want the same as the mens game when the mens game is only were it is after years and years of growth and change.

Women deserve the chance and deserve everything they earn in their young premiership and in a nunber of years time their game should have grown and numbers of viewers increase. But they cant be paid the same as the men as it stands until they earn it, that doesbt mean winning the WC or six nations, it mean training and working hard to make their game an equal to the mens game, only then will they be able to be equal on pay.

I agree, it reminds me of the WNBA here in America. There's no comparison in talent, so there's less TV viewers and less attendance. They shouldn't expect equal pay because the women's teams don't make near as much money as the men's teams do and can't afford to pay equal sized contract$.

 

[Scotty]

I agree, it reminds me of the WNBA here in America. There's no comparison in talent, so there's less TV viewers and less attendance. They shouldn't expect equal pay because the women's teams don't make near as much money as the men's teams do and can't afford to pay equal sized contract$.

Exactly and if the say comes that they start bringing in the same level of attendance and money as the mens game then they should be paid equal just as if they overtake the men in income then i would have nothing against women earning more than men.

 

[Amiga500]

The market isnt there to support a big pro female game atm ,,,but why should a male get the chance to be a pro rugby player and not a woman?

The answer is in the first part of your sentence.

When Webb Ellis picked up the ball, he wasn't immediately offered a professional contract was he?

When the womens game has reached the point where attendances and TV contracts support full time pay, then they can go professional. Until then...

 

[truthteller]

well it happened in tennis so the endless push for politically correct equality will enforce this to happen...women will have to be paid the same as men in everything or hell will break loose....trouble is if the rugby unions continue to fund the increase then loads fo rugby clubs will go bankrupt, there is so very little spare money in the pot

 

[bushytop]

well it happened in tennis so the endless push for politically correct equality will enforce this to happen...women will have to be paid the same as men in everything or hell will break loose....trouble is if the rugby unions continue to fund the increase then loads fo rugby clubs will go bankrupt, there is so very little spare money in the pot

Yeah, the tennis thing winds me up actually... not only do nowhere near the amount of people watch the ladies game but they actually play less sets (& by definition provide less entertainment and complete less work) so the fact they get the 'same' prize money actually equates to them being paid more... per shift.

 

[Reiser99]

Yeah, the tennis thing winds me up actually... not only do nowhere near the amount of people watch the ladies game but they actually play less sets (& by definition provide less entertainment and complete less work) so the fact they get the 'same' prize money actually equates to them being paid more... per shift.

Last time I checked, which was a few years ago, although women get equal prize money in the Grand Slams for less sets, they play the same number of sets on the ATP tours, but get paid less for that than men.

 

[bushytop]

Last time I checked, which was a few years ago, although women get equal prize money in the Grand Slams for less sets, they play the same number of sets on the ATP tours, but get paid less for that than men.

Think that's because on the tour they are completely separate tournaments (as opposed to slams) and therefore drove completely different sponsorship and investment.

 

[Reiser99]

Think that's because on the tour they are completely separate tournaments (as opposed to slams) and therefore drove completely different sponsorship and investment.

Yeah, but I'm pointing out that they play the same for less most of the time, it is only the GS where they get paid the same. Not saying either is right, but if you just complain about the GS, then you have to look at the ATP too.

 

[bushytop]

Yeah, but I'm pointing out that they play the same for less most of the time, it is only the GS where they get paid the same. Not saying either is right, but if you just complain about the GS, then you have to look at the ATP too.

I do get what you're saying but payment for sport is 'essentially' payment for entertainment... it's why soccer players earn millions while rugby players earn peanuts. Not that I think soccer is more entertaining than rugby... don't find it entertaining in the slightest to be honest but millions (& millions) do and therefore they get 'paid'!

You can't just give women tennis players the same amount of payment that the men get as it is the men's game that generates the vast majority of the money. In other cases (industries) women deserve more than men because there (for instance Saturday evening TV hosting) they generate more income. Simply paying people the same in all cases is never justified.

Now if the Women's game had bigger TV audiences and bigger match day crowds (than the men's game) I would be advocating that women earn more payment than men. It's economics.

 

[truthteller]

Yeah, the tennis thing winds me up actually... not only do nowhere near the amount of people watch the ladies game but they actually play less sets (& by definition provide less entertainment and complete less work) so the fact they get the 'same' prize money actually equates to them being paid more... per shift.

agreed its an absurd souble standard that no one has the balls to talk about.....im all for equality but it works both ways. men deserve equality too and dont get it in divorce courts, in nhs spending per head and mental health

 

[truthteller]

tell you what though 8000 for womens england team last week is impressive.

 

[Reiser99]

agreed its an absurd souble standard that no one has the balls to talk about.....im all for equality but it works both ways. men deserve equality too and dont get it in divorce courts, in nhs spending per head and mental health

Did you actually read my post about how men get paid more in ATP tours than women for the same amount of work? Yes it is all about advertising and TV, which we've all agreed is the main reason men's sports are better paid. But you can't criticise one let of circumstances while completely ignoring another that contradicts it, that's hypocrisy.

I don't agree with the situation in the Grand Slams, or with the ATP tour and they don't cancel each other out. As for Bushytops comment about people watching men's more than women's, well in that case everyone should be paid based on their own game. If you were to take all the revenue from Nadal vs Federer for example vs every first round player who loses straight away, some of the revenue generated by those two players ends up with players who haven't brought any people to watch them. Is that fair on Nadal and Federer as well as the other top players because realistically those are the players people go to watch?

I'm sure you'll say it's not practical and I agree, my point is that it's not a simple issue and you make blanket statements based on one point rather than looking at the whole picture.

 

[bushytop]

Did you actually read my post about how men get paid more in ATP tours than women for the same amount of work? Yes it is all about advertising and TV, which we've all agreed is the main reason men's sports are better paid. But you can't criticise one let of circumstances while completely ignoring another that contradicts it, that's hypocrisy.

I don't agree with the situation in the Grand Slams, or with the ATP tour and they don't cancel each other out. As for Bushytops comment about people watching men's more than women's, well in that case everyone should be paid based on their own game. If you were to take all the revenue from Nadal vs Federer for example vs every first round player who loses straight away, some of the revenue generated by those two players ends up with players who haven't brought any people to watch them. Is that fair on Nadal and Federer as well as the other top players because realistically those are the players people go to watch?

I'm sure you'll say it's not practical and I agree, my point is that it's not a simple issue and you make blanket statements based on one point rather than looking at the whole picture.

...but the massive Nadal vs Federer games have been finals (for the most part) so they are getting paid on the basis that they have progressed to the latter part of the tournaments.

For arguments sake I will take things to the 'n'th degree (far outside the actual parameters but indicative and illustrative of the issues involved)... if for instance 7 million people watch the women's final at Wimbledon on television, which in turn drives, oh I don't know let's say £250,000,000 investment from various sectors. Then the men's game (it's going through a particular slump for the sake of this hypothesis) gets 5 viewers (it's just all serve and volley, terrible game) and drives £10 investment... how could ANYONE ever justify that the men's winner earn the same as the women's winner (& the same for the male and female runners up).

In that scenario, there is simply no argument, the women should be earning more of the revenue that they are driving... and just like that the mist clears and the political correctness that is driving the world into oblivion dissipates.