who will fund pro womens rugby?

[Reiser99]

...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.

Yes and the simple fact there is a difference between equality and identical. Equality allows for difference, but aims to be fair. Identical is exactly that. My main point is not whether the system is works, it was that if you only judge it from one angle you will not be able to make an informed decision. This is one of the biggest problems we have in society on a range if issues, where people make judgments and decisions based on a limited point of view.

As I've said I believe the situation in both the GS and ATP is wrong because one gets paid the same for less and one gets paid more for the same, which doesn't cancel each other out.

 

[bushytop]

Yes and the simple fact there is a difference between equality and identical. Equality allows for difference, but aims to be fair. Identical is exactly that. My main point is not whether the system is works, it was that if you only judge it from one angle you will not be able to make an informed decision. This is one of the biggest problems we have in society on a range if issues, where people make judgments and decisions based on a limited point of view.

As I've said I believe the situation in both the GS and ATP is wrong because one gets paid the same for less and one gets paid more for the same, which doesn't cancel each other out.

Just in case you've taken my typed tone the wrong way... no probs dude, I agree that this is a fairly complex issue (made more complex by the PC brigade) but sometimes you need to simplify things down to identify the ultimate endgame. If I seem a little triggered, I'm just fed up of today's 'perception' of equality... it's no longer equality (not that we actually had it when the term was perceived correctly) but now it's, let's just **** the person who isn't a minority for the sake of historical sleights.

You can't (or shouldn't) punish someone for the sins of the father (or mother if you know what I mean).

 

[truthteller]

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.

All mens tournaments make hell of a lot more money in tickets tv viewing hospitality etc etc The standard is a lot higher and the matches alot longer so they should be paid more. In grand slam especially they play 5 sets and women 3 and on average mens matches are 80% longer. Therefore unless the tennis bosses make it the same 3 or 5 set matches then men should be paid 80% more for playing 80% more (and to a much higher standard) Either that or the women enter the mens tournaments

In other walks of life female super models get paid on average over 5 times the male salary, in fact at the top end the top females are paid over 20 times the males....I assume based on market forces and no one says a word

 

[Reiser99]

All mens tournaments make hell of a lot more money in tickets tv viewing hospitality etc etc The standard is a lot higher and the matches alot longer so they should be paid more. In grand slam especially they play 5 sets and women 3 and on average mens matches are 80% longer. Therefore unless the tennis bosses make it the same 3 or 5 set matches then men should be paid 80% more for playing 80% more (and to a much higher standard) Either that or the women enter the mens tournaments

In other walks of life female super models get paid on average over 5 times the male salary, in fact at the top end the top females are paid over 20 times the males....I assume based on market forces and no one says a word

You guys still miss my point, I'll take out the context.

Bushtop gives Fact A

I give Fact B to show that Fact A is not the only issue and there is more to consider.

Truthteller comes in all angry about Fact A, but ignores Fact B.

I point out that just taking Fact A to justify your point of view while ignoring Fact B is wrong and hypocritical in this case and that you need to look at all the facts.

As I said, on the individual points I don't necessarily agree or disagree with your points of view, I would just like people to actually consider all the facts if they are available and not take a narrow point of view from by cherry picking a few facts that suit them.

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

This thread feels to me like it's designed by the OP to only **** on the "PC culture" and isn't really about the woman's game.
Maybe i'm wrong but just the feeling i'm getting from the way it's worded and the follow up comments by OP.

 

[bushytop]

You guys still miss my point, I'll take out the context.

Bushtop gives Fact A

I give Fact B to show that Fact A is not the only issue and there is more to consider.

Truthteller comes in all angry about Fact A, but ignores Fact B.

I point out that just taking Fact A to justify your point of view while ignoring Fact B is wrong and hypocritical in this case and that you need to look at all the facts.

As I said, on the individual points I don't necessarily agree or disagree with your points of view, I would just like people to actually consider all the facts if they are available and not take a narrow point of view from by cherry picking a few facts that suit them.

Look I will admit that in order to develop a 'product' (in this case the women's game) some 'aid' should be provided but I honestly feel that just blanket pillaging of success to prop up something which is unsustainable on its own merits is a little unfair on the pillaged party.

There I've said my piece... and regardless of how my comments may be construed, equality is incredibly important to me... I just have little to no faith in the current generations perception of equality.

 

[Reiser99]

Look I will admit that in order to develop a 'product' (in this case the women's game) some 'aid' should be provided but I honestly feel that just blanket pillaging of success to prop up something which is unsustainable on its own merits is a little unfair on the pillaged party.

There I've said my piece... and regardless of how my comments may be construed, equality is incredibly important to me... I just have little to no faith in the current generations perception of equality.

My issue was never with the content of your comments, it was more truthteller completely ignoring something I wrote, which shows a biased viewpoint. Problem is we got mixed up between the actual argument and the fact that I was calling Truthteller out on the fact that he likes to ignore inconvenient facts when giving his point of view.

 

[truthteller]

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.

All mens tournaments make hell of a lot more money in tickets tv viewing hospitality etc etc The standard is a lot higher and the matches alot longer so they should be paid more. In grand slam especially they play 5 sets and women 3 and on average mens matches are 80% longer. Therefore unless the tennis bosses make it the same 3 or 5 set matches then men should be paid 80% more for playing 80% more (and to a much higher standard) Either that or the women enter the mens tournaments

In other walks of life female super models get paid on average over 5 times the male salary, in fact at the top end the top females are paid over 20 times the males....I assume based on market forces and no one says a word

My issue was never with the content of your comments, it was more truthteller completely ignoring something I wrote, which shows a biased viewpoint. Problem is we got mixed up between the actual argument and the fact that I was calling Truthteller out on the fact that he likes to ignore inconvenient facts when giving his point of view.

If youre preaching try and write a good sermon. I have no idea what youre talking about tbh? Try not to talk in riddles?

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

What the fek has super models got to do with woman's rugby?

1 flipping MP and 1 club (LEWES FC) has asked for equal pay rise or a pay increase in the womans FA cup.
All of a sudden that is mass pressure for the FA to have equal prize fund.

The current prize fund for womans is 250K in total compared to the mens 30 million, I can see why some might be calling for a prize increase TBH.

Womens Wimbledon final had more viewers than the mens final BTW...............
Literally you started this topic about something that hasn't even been discussed by anyone of some power yet, because you just wanted to vent about equal pay, that is the real reality.

 

[truthteller]

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.

careful the thought police here say we can only talk specifically about the topic in a very very narrow way and deviate not connect it up to other issues

 

[truthteller]

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$.

supposedly though we are not allowed to deviate at all on the topic to compare with other sports or industries, thought police ruining debate again

 

[truthteller]

What the fek has super models got to do with woman's rugby?

1 flipping MP and 1 club (LEWES FC) has asked for equal pay rise or a pay increase in the womans FA cup.
All of a sudden that is mass pressure for the FA to have equal prize fund.

The current prize fund for womans is 250K in total compared to the mens 30 million, I can see why some might be calling for a prize increase TBH.

Womens Wimbledon final had more viewers than the mens final BTW...............
Literally you started this topic about something that hasn't even been discussed by anyone of some power yet, because you just wanted to vent about equal pay, that is the real reality.

If you want to follow your own PC rules that we cant deviate away at all from the specifiic topic here of funding womens rugby then you cannot talk about wimbledon thats not the topic at hand. Incidentally I have been in hospitality and transport for 25 years and dealt with wimbledon and the mens packaages are worth around three times as much for the centre court. secondly the viewing figures you conventiently picked out to defend the overpayment of womens players, that was the ONLY time womens final had more tv viewers in 20 years. super models getting paid over 20 times the super model males is just as relevant as you comparing to wimbledon. there is not equal pay for either gender as its all driven by market forces. get it? oh yes and try not to swear to try and get cheap laughs.

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

Keep drinking the cool aid, if you want to.
You originally brought up, Football, tennis and super models to the convo not me.

Unlike supermodels sport isn't entirely a market driven.
If that was the case then if Manchester united went out in the first round they shouldn't be paid the same as say Lichfield FC, because let's face it Manchester united bring in way more viewers and sponsor. But they do.
Same with tennis, if Nadal went out in the first round he shouldn't be paid the same as say Kyle Edmund or someone if it was a entirely market driven competition.

I'm very sorry my swearing offended your sensitive nature, I will do my best to control it in your presence.
(Also find it quite funny you are wanting to censor me, yet also call me the thought police. )

Also 2005 womens finals had more viewers thought you might know that considering your work in hospitality for it, but no 2018 was the ONLY time in 20 years!!!!

 

[Reiser99]

I officially resign from any future truthteller discussions. He only wants to know about anything that supports his view and deflects by blaming and accusing others when they give facts to disprove him. Now I know why he voted for Brexit, he's a tailor made gullible mug.

 

[truthteller]

Keep drinking the cool aid, if you want to.
You originally brought up, Football, tennis and super models to the convo not me.

Unlike supermodels sport isn't entirely a market driven.
If that was the case then if Manchester united went out in the first round they shouldn't be paid the same as say Lichfield FC, because let's face it Manchester united bring in way more viewers and sponsor. But they do.
Same with tennis, if Nadal went out in the first round he shouldn't be paid the same as say Kyle Edmund or someone if it was a entirely market driven competition.

I'm very sorry my swearing offended your sensitive nature, I will do my best to control it in your presence.
(Also find it quite funny you are wanting to censor me, yet also call me the thought police. )

Also 2005 womens finals had more viewers thought you might know that considering your work in hospitality for it, but no 2018 was the ONLY time in 20 years!!!!

No your swearing for cheap laughs reflects badly on you , just some advice for you
youve really dug into the pro women side of the argument and done nothing on the other side fair play total bias....youll expect us to investigate the history of wimbledon viewing figures but you want to ban people from bringing up other careers in entertainment where women are vastly paid more than men. accoridng to you we are banned from bringing in these topics? youre a total hypocrite. supermodels sport is mostly market driven and all industries are regulated to a degree. so to dismiss modelling and carry on talking womens tennis is yet more of your double standards.
keep taking the cool aid pal, double the dose

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

No your swearing for cheap laughs reflects badly on you , just some advice for you
youve really dug into the pro women side of the argument and done nothing on the other side fair play total bias....youll expect us to investigate the history of wimbledon viewing figures but you want to ban people from bringing up other careers in entertainment where women are vastly paid more than men. accoridng to you we are banned from bringing in these topics? youre a total hypocrite. supermodels sport is mostly market driven and all industries are regulated to a degree. so to dismiss modelling and carry on talking womens tennis is yet more of your double standards.
keep taking the cool aid pal, double the dose

I'm not the one who made the claim that it was the only time in 20 years, even all capping only.
And where did I call for anyone to be banned?
I already told you modelling is entirely market driven they pay that model for her brand and look, sport isn't hence why United don't get paid the same as someone like Lichfield if they both go out in the first round despite united having a massive market share.

 

[truthteller]

I'm not the one who made the claim that it was the only time in 20 years, even all capping only.
And where did I call for anyone to be banned?
I already told you modelling is entirely market driven they pay that model for her brand and look, sport isn't hence why United don't get paid the same as someone like Lichfield if they both go out in the first round despite united having a massive market share.

sport and modelling and all entertainment is primarily market driven , you are making no point at all.

 

[truthteller]

I officially resign from any future truthteller discussions. He only wants to know about anything that supports his view and deflects by blaming and accusing others when they give facts to disprove him. Now I know why he voted for Brexit, he's a tailor made gullible mug.

quitters quit. bye bye mug

 

[User1245]

I watched the highlights of the woman's version of Queensland Reds vs the Brumbies match and I immediately thought about funding. The stadium was empty (like really empty) and sounded like only the players' close family were there on the grand stand.

Rugby Australia really needs to prioritize it's money and I don't think the women teams are strengthening the sport or the coffers in any way.

 

[truthteller]

I watched the highlights of the woman's version of Queensland Reds vs the Brumbies match and I immediately thought about funding. The stadium was empty (like really empty) and sounded like only the players' close family were there on the grand stand.

Rugby Australia really needs to prioritize it's money and I don't think the women teams are strengthening the sport or the coffers in any way.

its unfair to bankrupt the mens game to pay for a pro womens game that cant support itself...If the government want to try and subsidise it thats a different question..It would be great to see womens rugby continue to grow but the PRO game cannot be funded by mens rugby.... most unions are already losing money which is part of the reason why they try to cram ever more test matches in and this damages players and ends their careers early like warburton. Clubs and regions are mostly losing millions too. This needs to be seriously addressed NOW.