Sooooooooooooo, the highest payed female athlete is

B_BeGina2848

Just Browsing
Joined
Jun 14, 2012
Posts
31
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
41
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
the pay is directly related to how much attention the sport gets, then how much attention the team gets, then how popular or good the athlete is

i dont think it is blatantly sexist, it just has more to do with what people like to watch. for example, the highest paid WNBA player gets about $100K, whereas Kobe Bryant, the highest paid NBA player will earn about $27M... that might seem unfair, but you have to dig deeper. its not like the team owners is purposely paying the WNBA players much less to keep a power structure based on gender.. it simply is based on numbers... lets get real, how many people actually buy tickets, merchandise and watch the WNBA? its a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of the people who watch, buy merchandise and tickets for the NBA.

a more fair way to show payroll, would be percentage that player makes based on the income of the team. and even then, that would be hard to compare because of the varying level of popularity, skill, marketability of each player. even two players in the same position of the same sport will vary largely. someone like tom brady, peyton manning or mike vick is going to make boatloads more than josh mccowan, rex grossman or dan orlovsky, even though all 6 of the players mentioned are starting quarterbacks for their team.

because of all these factors, i think its a bit of a stretch to say the least to try and say this is a form of sexism
 

MickeyLee

Mythical Member
Staff
Moderator
Gold
Platinum Gold
Joined
Nov 3, 2008
Posts
33,739
Media
7
Likes
49,861
Points
618
Location
neverhood
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
hmmm for true? cuz action movie blockbuster type rolls put asses in the seats, Mr. Luka.

when it comes to entertainment/sports/sports entertainment i can't really blame the industry, i kinda have to see what the audience is buying.

with movies pay scale is based on how well a face/name can carry a film. unless a female lead can have folks standing in line on opening weekend she's not gonna pull as much cash as *example* Robert Downey Jr.,. Mr. Downey is killer cuz he's an action star, can do comedy and rocks the heck out an indie movie. also, he's a "personality"

to me, the main fail happens to be the quality of women are given. really good actresses are relegated to love interest of the lead male. or, tortured-angsty woman with a life of sorrow.

films like Bridesmaids *even if i hated it*, woman fronted actions flicks... are gonna be necessary to change attitudes. and female film makers stepping away from 3 hour dramas that are glorified PSAs for being a victim. *personally thinks the message is ultimately self destructive*

random note: woman are starting to catch attention to the work they put into a role. mostly is the physical transformation, playing it ugly.. but it's a start.

random note two: the place of woman in the big movie system as kinda gone backward. in the beginning women were paid more, had better roles and onscreen roles were on a more equal footing with the male lead.
 

luka82

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2007
Posts
5,058
Media
0
Likes
44
Points
193
Age
41
Location
somewhere
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
because of all these factors, i think its a bit of a stretch to say the least to try and say this is a form of sexism
But it is! if women had the same rights from the beginning, we wouldn`t have this convo, now.

hmmm for true? cuz action movie blockbuster type rolls put asses in the seats, Mr. Luka.

when it comes to entertainment/sports/sports entertainment i can't really blame the industry, i kinda have to see what the audience is buying.

with movies pay scale is based on how well a face/name can carry a film. unless a female lead can have folks standing in line on opening weekend she's not gonna pull as much cash as *example* Robert Downey Jr.,. Mr. Downey is killer cuz he's an action star, can do comedy and rocks the heck out an indie movie. also, he's a "personality"

to me, the main fail happens to be the quality of women are given. really good actresses are relegated to love interest of the lead male. or, tortured-angsty woman with a life of sorrow.

films like Bridesmaids *even if i hated it*, woman fronted actions flicks... are gonna be necessary to change attitudes. and female film makers stepping away from 3 hour dramas that are glorified PSAs for being a victim. *personally thinks the message is ultimately self destructive*

random note: woman are starting to catch attention to the work they put into a role. mostly is the physical transformation, playing it ugly.. but it's a start.

random note two: the place of woman in the big movie system as kinda gone backward. in the beginning women were paid more, had better roles and onscreen roles were on a more equal footing with the male lead.
I agree.
But it`s a shame that women have to take small steps in the 21st century. :frown1:
 

MickeyLee

Mythical Member
Staff
Moderator
Gold
Platinum Gold
Joined
Nov 3, 2008
Posts
33,739
Media
7
Likes
49,861
Points
618
Location
neverhood
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
:hug: even small steps advance opportunities, Mr. Luka.
sucks, is frustrating, exhausting sometimes for ladies pushing against old conceptions... still, each generation of girls know her bar can be set higher :smile:
 

sbat

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2010
Posts
2,295
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
73
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
hmmm for true? cuz action movie blockbuster type rolls put asses in the seats, Mr. Luka.

when it comes to entertainment/sports/sports entertainment i can't really blame the industry, i kinda have to see what the audience is buying.

with movies pay scale is based on how well a face/name can carry a film. unless a female lead can have folks standing in line on opening weekend she's not gonna pull as much cash as *example* Robert Downey Jr.,. Mr. Downey is killer cuz he's an action star, can do comedy and rocks the heck out an indie movie. also, he's a "personality"

to me, the main fail happens to be the quality of women are given. really good actresses are relegated to love interest of the lead male. or, tortured-angsty woman with a life of sorrow.

films like Bridesmaids *even if i hated it*, woman fronted actions flicks... are gonna be necessary to change attitudes. and female film makers stepping away from 3 hour dramas that are glorified PSAs for being a victim. *personally thinks the message is ultimately self destructive*

random note: woman are starting to catch attention to the work they put into a role. mostly is the physical transformation, playing it ugly.. but it's a start.

random note two: the place of woman in the big movie system as kinda gone backward. in the beginning women were paid more, had better roles and onscreen roles were on a more equal footing with the male lead.

Abolish Lifetime Network?
 

MickeyLee

Mythical Member
Staff
Moderator
Gold
Platinum Gold
Joined
Nov 3, 2008
Posts
33,739
Media
7
Likes
49,861
Points
618
Location
neverhood
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Lifetime Network is uber damaging to the female collective consciousness. least wise in my less than humble opinion.

burn it all! 'cept for Project Runway.
i love me some Project Runway
 

sbat

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2010
Posts
2,295
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
73
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
But it is! if women had the same rights from the beginning, we wouldn`t have this convo, now.

Less about rights, more about economics. If a woman <insert profession> draws a crowd of 20 paying $20/each and a man <insert same profession> draws a crowd of 1000 paying $20/each, why is the woman entitled to be paid the same? Your point would make more sense if they were drawing equivalent crowds who paid equivalent ticket prices.

Also, I think you're robbing women of something by forcing market/economic equality by fiat rather than enabling them to attain that status through their own effort and ingenuity. You'd also be undermining the whole egalitarian intent behind feminism.


But it`s a shame that women have to take small steps in the 21st century. :frown1:

A journey of 10 thousand miles starts with a single step.
 

Catchoftheday

Superior Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2007
Posts
20,165
Media
0
Likes
3,547
Points
333
Location
England (United Kingdom)
Sexuality
Unsure
Maria Sharapova and she is No. 26 on the list.
There are 25 men in front of her and if she wasn`t that attractive she wouldn`t even be that high.
Any thoughts?
Lets face it, the men in front of her aren`t there because they are more attractive (maybe Beckham :biggrin1:), but because we live in a fucking male dominated world!

There are hundreds of men who could beat this lady at tennis.
 

camer999

Sexy Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Dec 6, 2011
Posts
337
Media
11
Likes
45
Points
213
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Not sexist, the population is merely more interested in male sports because males are naturally faster/stronger, so the game is faster paced and more exciting. More people= more payment from advertising, more merchandise being sold, and finally bigger paychecks to the athletes
 

luka82

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2007
Posts
5,058
Media
0
Likes
44
Points
193
Age
41
Location
somewhere
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Less about rights, more about economics. If a woman <insert profession> draws a crowd of 20 paying $20/each and a man <insert same profession> draws a crowd of 1000 paying $20/each, why is the woman entitled to be paid the same? Your point would make more sense if they were drawing equivalent crowds who paid equivalent ticket prices.

Also, I think you're robbing women of something by forcing market/economic equality by fiat rather than enabling them to attain that status through their own effort and ingenuity. You'd also be undermining the whole egalitarian intent behind feminism.




A journey of 10 thousand miles starts with a single step.
it`s exactly about rights.
Do I have to say again that if the women enjoyed the same status like men from the beginning we wouldn`t have to have this convo. :smile:
When women`s tennis was more popular than men`s and that actually happened when the men were led by Safin, Rios and I must say Rodick (big name in the States and some European countries) and the rest of the company, and women on the other hand had household names like Hingis, Davenport, Seles, the Williams sisters, Sanchez, Pierce, women still got less money than men. The stands were full, the crowd adored these women, every and each of them had a strong personality on and off the court, they still made less money then the men. And at that time there were less combined events.
So, tell me when will women have their egalitarian rights, when we, the men, keep denying them the same? (NOT ALL MEN IN GENERAL)
 
Last edited:

luka82

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2007
Posts
5,058
Media
0
Likes
44
Points
193
Age
41
Location
somewhere
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Not sexist, the population is merely more interested in male sports because males are naturally faster/stronger, so the game is faster paced and more exciting. More people= more payment from advertising, more merchandise being sold, and finally bigger paychecks to the athletes
Have you ever seen Sharapova, Kvitova, Pierce, Davenport, Seles, the Williams Sisters play?
These women know how to hit the ball and they know how to hit it flat and with power.
My point is - Women should not be like men! They should be equally payed for the hard work they put into that athlete life.
 

camer999

Sexy Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Dec 6, 2011
Posts
337
Media
11
Likes
45
Points
213
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Yes, I'm sure there are all great, but again there is a reason male and female divisions exist. That and where are they going to pull the money from? Like I said before male sports are more popular=more cash=better paid athletes.
 

luka82

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2007
Posts
5,058
Media
0
Likes
44
Points
193
Age
41
Location
somewhere
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Yes, I'm sure there are all great, but again there is a reason male and female divisions exist. That and where are they going to pull the money from? Like I said before male sports are more popular=more cash=better paid athletes.
I understand that.
But as I stated before, even when women become more popular then men they get payed less.
 

sbat

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2010
Posts
2,295
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
73
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
it`s exactly about rights.
Do I have to say again that if the women enjoyed the same status like men from the beginning we wouldn`t have to have this convo. :smile:
When women`s tennis was more popular than men`s and that actually happened when the men were led by Safin, Rios and I must say Rodick (big name in the States and some European countries) and the rest of the company, and women on the other hand had household names like Hingis, Davenport, Seles, the Williams sisters, Sanchez, Pierce, women still got less money than men. The stands were full, the crowd adored these women, every and each of them had a strong personality on and off the court, they still made less money then the men. And at that time there were less combined events.
So, tell me when will women have their egalitarian rights, when we, the men, keep denying them the same? (NOT ALL MEN IN GENERAL)

It is economics luka. MickeyLee even made the point that the concept of the very highly paid professional athlete at all is something that arose within the last 30 or so years. It's a relatively new thing. These athletes' pay (not counting endorsements) is proportional to the size of the pot (talking money here) of their competition. The women's game generates less money, so even when you have a lot of dominant women, the men got paid more.

When more and more women start exercising the growing economic power that they are beginning to get in the arena of sports (right now, men spend way more money than women do, hence the business is more influenced by male tastes), then we'll start seeing more pay parity. Again, its up to women to make it happen. Title IX and public (PC) support provide an empowering environment, now women fans have to exercise their economic muscle. Let's see women start buying teams (it's already happening), start pouring money into new professional leagues for women's sports, etc.
 

B_BeGina2848

Just Browsing
Joined
Jun 14, 2012
Posts
31
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
41
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
But it is! if women had the same rights from the beginning, we wouldn`t have this convo, now.

what does women's rights have anything to do with the popularity and salary of a particular athlete.

if that were true, it would also be true for black people, and we all know that black athletes are getting paid the same, if not more than white athletes (look at the NBA and NFL).

It isn't sexist that the majority of people would generally rather watch sports where men are competing than women. the same way that it isn't sexist that the majority of female pornstars get paid much more than male porn stars in straight porn. People watch sports to watch men compete because, in general, men are more athletic than women. the same way people, for the most part, watch porn for the hot women, the guy is just a prop at most. it's just what is popular. This is evident because a WNBA team would not be able to afford to pay a player with a Kobe Bryant salary because that team doesn't generate enough income to sustain it. The LA Lakers, one of the biggest teams in the biggest league in the world can afford that because of the HUGE amounts of money players like Kobe Bryant bring in to the team by winning championships, making allstar games, being on commercials etc.
 

B_BeGina2848

Just Browsing
Joined
Jun 14, 2012
Posts
31
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
41
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Have you ever seen Sharapova, Kvitova, Pierce, Davenport, Seles, the Williams Sisters play?
These women know how to hit the ball and they know how to hit it flat and with power.
My point is - Women should not be like men! They should be equally payed for the hard work they put into that athlete life.

nobody is disagreeing about that, they are all definitely amazing at what they do, however, it is simply based on economics. Whoever generates more money will make more money. And that has nothing to do with race, gender or anything else other than athletic ability, success from the player and the money they generate from fans. If anything, I think this is one of the few places in society where I think the money is spread correctly (except for college athletes, they're getting FUCKED).
 

luka82

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2007
Posts
5,058
Media
0
Likes
44
Points
193
Age
41
Location
somewhere
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
nobody is disagreeing about that, they are all definitely amazing at what they do, however, it is simply based on economics. Whoever generates more money will make more money. And that has nothing to do with race, gender or anything else other than athletic ability, success from the player and the money they generate from fans. If anything, I think this is one of the few places in society where I think the money is spread correctly (except for college athletes, they're getting FUCKED).
But it isn`t.
Women just do not get payed more.
Even when they achieve more.
So you guys look at tennis and think - Women enjoy the same rights as men. I look at tennis and think - When women even become more popular than men they make less money.
 
Last edited:

B_BeGina2848

Just Browsing
Joined
Jun 14, 2012
Posts
31
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
41
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
But it isn`t.
Women just do not get payed more.
Even when they achieve more.
So you guys look at tennis and think - Women enjoy the same rights as men. I look at tennis and think - When women even become more popular than men they make less money.

how is it not based on economics? what if tomorrow, all of a sudden the WNBA skyrockets in popularity and the roles are now reversed, would it be sexist then? personally, i say no, the people have chosen which they prefer to invest their money in and the players should be paid accordingly.

and yes, they do enjoy the same rights. male tennis players are allowed to pursue their career in tennis and make a living. female tennis players are allowed to pursue their career in tennis and make a living. what is unfair about that?

and if you still think it is sexist, how would you go about making it fair?
 

camer999

Sexy Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Dec 6, 2011
Posts
337
Media
11
Likes
45
Points
213
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
But it isn`t.
Women just do not get payed more.
Even when they achieve more.
So you guys look at tennis and think - Women enjoy the same rights as men. I look at tennis and think - When women even become more popular than men they make less money.
Simple, because even they as one person is more popular than most males in the sport. The division they are in simply does not.