Equal pay for Australia's soccer players

[krypton iodine sulfur]

Heavyweights like Sugar Ray Leonard, Manny Pacquaio, Oscar de la Hoya, and Floyd Mayweather Jr?

N.B. Two of them fought for the largest purse of all time. One of them is the highest compensated of all time (though I am not sure if that is adjusted for inflation).

No doubt heavyweight is a spectacle and a draw, but when you look at highest compensated boxers and most watched bouts of all time, it spans a number of classes.

If people find entertainment value in the different weight classes--great! If the biggest purses went to lower weight divisions-- great! It means that weight division had particular popular appeal at the time and/or individual boxers were popular, and people were attracted to it with their eyeballs and tickets.

But I can hardly believe any decisions about purses were made based on assuming all the weight classes ought be treated equally. They clearly are not.

The point is, there isn't consistency in what athletes are paid and why. You're trying to apply criteria which you think make sense, but which likely don't add up in reality. Athletes petition for the wages they want to earn or feel they can earn. They may get paid that; they may not. They may think it is fair; they may not.

In the case of the Australian women's team, they argued for pay equity and they got it. Good for them. End of story. Whatever criteria you want to impose on the situation just weren't applicable this time around, and if we look across sport in general, we can probably find endless inconsistency.

 

[Metaphor]

If one has to ask why is it relevant to have more information about a situation, then I'd have to say one is incapable of reasoning, let alone reasoning about fairness.

I didn't say it was irrelevant to have more information, I said not having as much information did not render me incapable of reasoning about fairness.

Since there is little reason to think that labor markets are competitive and that labor is an undifferentiated product, there is little reason to apply basic economic analysis to the situation.

Labour markets aren't competitive? Do you mean to say they're not perfectly competitive?

Blatant misrepresentation of the arguments of others is both uncivil and intellectually dishonest.

I made an observation about your behaviour on the forum, not a misrepresentation of your 'argument'.

Which, from our posting history, appears to be never.

Why would I post about all the situations in life where men are not getting a raw deal? Do you expect feminists to post about all the situations in life where women are not getting a raw deal?

If their success induces more youths to join the federation.

Nothing is being undercounted, or at least not relatively undercounted. The compensation of the national men's team is never framed in terms of knock-on effects of 'youths' joining the sport. It is neither measured nor credited.

There is no female equivalent. Duh.

Why not? Are women incapable of playing American Football and forbidden by law from doing so?

Or is American Football really the sport where men and women are not equal, but in every other sport, they are?

There is nothing moral in any direction about market outcomes, so your response is moot. Market outcomes are market outcomes. If the men soccer players in Australia voluntarily agreed with this equal pay, then I fail to see how it is any concern of anyone else or how anyone could make some moral judgment about it.

Of course I can make moral judgments, including about other people's decisions that I think are stupid and harmful but I would nevertheless not interfere with (and some I would interfere with, by force of law).

 

[Metaphor]

Heavyweights like Sugar Ray Leonard, Manny Pacquaio, Oscar de la Hoya, and Floyd Mayweather Jr?

N.B. Two of them fought for the largest purse of all time. One of them is the highest compensated of all time (though I am not sure if that is adjusted for inflation).

No doubt heavyweight is a spectacle and a draw, but when you look at highest compensated boxers and most watched bouts of all time, it spans a number of classes.

If people find entertainment value in the different weight classes--great! If the biggest purses went to lower weight divisions-- great! It means that weight division had particular popular appeal at the time and/or individual boxers were popular, and people were attracted to it with their eyeballs and tickets.

But I can hardly believe any decisions about purses were made based on assuming all the weight classes ought be treated equally. They clearly are not.

The point is, there isn't consistency in what athletes are paid and why. You're trying to apply criteria which you think make sense, but which likely don't add up in reality. Athletes petition for the wages they want to earn or feel they can earn. They may get paid that; they may not. They may think it is fair; they may not.

In the case of the Australian women's team, they argued for pay equity and they got it. Good for them. End of story. Whatever criteria you want to impose on the situation just weren't applicable this time around, and if we look across sport in general, we can probably find endless inconsistency.

I don't doubt there's inconsistency. I don't even doubt there isn't some cross-compensation of less popular divisions within a sport and even cross-compensation between sports. None of that, it seems to me, means you should abandon general principles about compensation in the entertainment industry (which sports is).

Why do some footballers earn more than others? Why are some more revered than others? Because they provide a product and people are willing to pay for it. They are compensated in proportion to the value they bring to people. (That seems a good a moral principle as any to guide monetary compensation, since we should encourage people to produce the highest value thing they can produce, because that increases happiness the most).

But the national female soccer team is not producing the same value as the national male soccer team--as measured by popular appeal and commercial revenue, yet the national male soccer team are giving up part of the value they create to cross-subsidise women for producing a product that appeals to fewer people. I can't examine their minds but I doubt this was a popular decision with the on-the-ground male players. Indeed, one of the arguments about compensating the women more than the revenue they currently bring in seems to be that it will earn the corporation that pays them more money. Yet it isn't the corporation paying the price of the investment, but the male players playing in a different league. Usually, corporations cutting salaries to workers isn't regarded as desirable--unless, as in this case, it's women who benefit and men who pay the price.

 

[dismal]

Let me get this straight - you are whining about the Australian women getting the same share of their national team's revenue as the men?

No. Women previously got a 30% share of the revenue they generated by playing in the women's national team. Men also got a share (I don't know what) of the revenue they generated for playing in the men's national team.

But this new deal means that any revenue generated by either team will be put into a shared pool of revenue and paid out to the men's and women's team according to performance within their respective leagues, despite the revenue generated by men's soccer being approximately ten times as much as women's.

The women are being given charity.

You poor triggered soul. Women football players, who play better in women football than Aussie men do in men football, getting paid the same. The horror. The travesty!

Oh good Higgins is calling people “triggered” as a form of argument again. Brilliant!

 

[dismal]

Heavyweights like Sugar Ray Leonard, Manny Pacquaio, Oscar de la Hoya, and Floyd Mayweather Jr?

N.B. Two of them fought for the largest purse of all time. One of them is the highest compensated of all time (though I am not sure if that is adjusted for inflation).

No doubt heavyweight is a spectacle and a draw, but when you look at highest compensated boxers and most watched bouts of all time, it spans a number of classes.

If people find entertainment value in the different weight classes--great! If the biggest purses went to lower weight divisions-- great! It means that weight division had particular popular appeal at the time and/or individual boxers were popular, and people were attracted to it with their eyeballs and tickets.

But I can hardly believe any decisions about purses were made based on assuming all the weight classes ought be treated equally. They clearly are not.

The point is, there isn't consistency in what athletes are paid and why. You're trying to apply criteria which you think make sense, but which likely don't add up in reality. Athletes petition for the wages they want to earn or feel they can earn. They may get paid that; they may not. They may think it is fair; they may not.

In the case of the Australian women's team, they argued for pay equity and they got it. Good for them. End of story. Whatever criteria you want to impose on the situation just weren't applicable this time around, and if we look across sport in general, we can probably find endless inconsistency.

I prefer to look at it as a sad reflection of the reflexive stupidity of society that people are able to convince themselves there should be equality of outcomes of any kind in sports.

 

[ZiprHead]

You poor triggered soul. Women football players, who play better in women football than Aussie men do in men football, getting paid the same. The horror. The travesty!

Oh good Higgins is calling people “triggered” as a form of argument again. Brilliant!

It's pretty damned obvious that metaphor was triggered by it when he started this bitchfest.

 

[laughing dog]

I didn't say it was irrelevant to have more information, I said not having as much information did not render me incapable of reasoning about fairness.

While it may not stop reasoning about fairness, it makes the reasoning less convincing.

Labour markets aren't competitive? Do you mean to say they're not perfectly competitive?

No.

I made an observation about your behaviour on the forum, not a misrepresentation of your 'argument'.

It was a misrepresentation of both.

Why would I post about all the situations in life where men are not getting a raw deal?

Um, what prompted that straw man? Surely something is occurring in the world that is interesting or disturbing that does not involve men getting a raw deal.

Do you expect feminists to post about all the situations in life where women are not getting a raw deal?

Actually, there are feminists who do post about the positive achievements of women and men.

Nothing is being undercounted, or at least not relatively undercounted. The compensation of the national men's team is never framed in terms of knock-on effects of 'youths' joining the sport. It is neither measured nor credited.

By george, I think you are getting it.

Why not? Are women incapable of playing American Football and forbidden by law from doing so?

Or is American Football really the sport where men and women are not equal, but in every other sport, they are?

Because women have not historically played football either due to a lack of interest or institutional discrimination.

Of course I can make moral judgments, including about other people's decisions that I think are stupid and harmful but I would nevertheless not interfere with (and some I would interfere with, by force of law).

Of course there is nothing preventing you from making as many vacuous or stupid moral judgments you wish.

 

[Metaphor]

You poor triggered soul. Women football players, who play better in women football than Aussie men do in men football, getting paid the same. The horror. The travesty!

Oh good Higgins is calling people “triggered” as a form of argument again. Brilliant!

It's pretty damned obvious that metaphor was triggered by it when he started this bitchfest.

If it's "obvious" I'm "triggered", what value is there in pointing it out? What does it add to the dialogue? Jimmy's--or yours--evaluation of my (imagined) emotional state, is not an argument. It's simply an uncivil drive-by attack meant to be malicious and upsetting.

Would it please you if it upset me? Or is the purpose merely to inform others that I'm regularly triggered, which is important, for some reason, for people to know, even though it's "obvious" anyway?

 

[Metaphor]

While it may not stop reasoning about fairness, it makes the reasoning less convincing.

There could very well be hidden premises I'm unaware of. But I can certainly evaluate the stated premises on their merits.

It was a misrepresentation of both.

If I am to believe that characterising your ideological enemies consistently as 'blathering' and 'mewling' is not uncivil, then I will tell you plainly I don't believe it.

Um, what prompted that straw man? Surely something is occurring in the world that is interesting or disturbing that does not involve men getting a raw deal.

You made an idiotic claim that "from my posting history", it was reasonable to infer that men always get a raw deal in every situation. I've never said it, it does not follow from my posting history, and I don't believe it.

Actually, there are feminists who do post about the positive achievements of women and men.

Good...for them, I guess? Do you want to answer the question? Do you criticise feminists who only make posts--or indeed make their entire life about--the raw deal that women get?

By george, I think you are getting it.

I really am not. If they are not measured or credited for the male players nor the female players, how on earth can you imagine that the knock on effects for the female players justify higher compensation for them?

Of course there is nothing preventing you from making as many vacuous or stupid moral judgments you wish.

I would hope to make sound and considered ones. You should try it out.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

I prefer to look at it as a sad reflection of the reflexive stupidity of society that people are able to convince themselves there should be equality of outcomes of any kind in sports.

I don't really know what point you are making, to be honest. Depending on how you view the situation, numerous things could be defined as 'outcomes' here. Which outcomes are you talking about?

The FFA has desired outcomes for their national teams, and for the development of football at various levels all across Australia. This is part of an investment in achieving those outcomes. Compensation is more of an input than an outcome here, unless, perhaps, you define the purpose of national teams as getting paid.

 

[ruby sparks]

I do wonder: what do you determine to be the correct level of reaction to the story? Obviously posting it, and making a single jab at the reasoning behind it is 'over-reacting'.

Well, that, and the fact that you're somewhat obsessed by it.

And elsewhere, going as far as saying that western civilisation is in the grip of a feminist delusion. Talking about Canada reaping a whirlwind. It's basically all over-reacting. It is the very definition of triggered, and male fragility. And embarrassing to watch.

 

[ruby sparks]

Someone being paid more than the revenue they generate is market distorting and destroys wealth.

Even in terms of developing future business opportunities and investment generally, that is complete bollocks.

 

[ruby sparks]

In other contexts, cross-subsidising one business with the revenues from another are usually regarded as anticompetitive.

More bollocks.

 

[Metaphor]

In other contexts, cross-subsidising one business with the revenues from another are usually regarded as anticompetitive.

More bollocks.

I don't know what universe you live in, but apparently it ain't the one where Microsoft was sued by the DoJ for exactly that and where Amazon is doing exactly that right now.

 

[Metaphor]

I do wonder: what do you determine to be the correct level of reaction to the story? Obviously posting it, and making a single jab at the reasoning behind it is 'over-reacting'.

Well, that, and the fact that you're somewhat obsessed by it.

And elsewhere, going as far as saying that western civilisation is in the grip of a feminist delusion. Talking about Canada reaping a whirlwind. It's basically all over-reacting. It is the very definition of triggered, and male fragility. And embarrassing to watch.

Put me on ignore if it's uncomfortable for you to read. Or just don't read my posts. It's a free-ish world.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It's pretty damned obvious that metaphor was triggered by it when he started this bitchfest.

If it's "obvious" I'm "triggered", what value is there in pointing it out? What does it add to the dialogue? Jimmy's--or yours--evaluation of my (imagined) emotional state, is not an argument. It's simply an uncivil drive-by attack meant to be malicious and upsetting.

Malicious? Gosh you are sensitive.

Would it please you if it upset me? Or is the purpose merely to inform others that I'm regularly triggered, which is important, for some reason, for people to know, even though it's "obvious" anyway?

Would it make you feel better if a bunch of incels banded together to force the Aussie football association to reduce compensation to the Women's national team? After all, what is a free market worth if men can't control it?

 

[laughing dog]

In other contexts, cross-subsidising one business with the revenues from another are usually regarded as anticompetitive.

More bollocks.

I don't know what universe you live in, but apparently it ain't the one where Microsoft was sued by the DoJ for exactly that and where Amazon is doing exactly that right now.

You are mistaken. The DOJ sued Microsoft claiming that Microsoft's practice of forcing customers to buy bundles of products was an anticompetitive practice. The bundling was not driven by cross-subsidization.

 

[Trausti]

Equality is not about equality.

 

[dismal]

You poor triggered soul. Women football players, who play better in women football than Aussie men do in men football, getting paid the same. The horror. The travesty!

I don't think it's being taken far enough. Why don't all national football teams get paid the same as each other? Why can't the World Cup prize money be shared equally with every team, and maybe the audience too?

Yep, anything but paying women equally with the men.

Exactly! You nailed it. There is no reason why people in different competitions should be paid equally. There is no reason why people in the same competition should be paid equally.

Maybe the women should be paid more than men. Maybe some women should be paid more than others. Equality has no place in it at all.

 

[dismal]

I prefer to look at it as a sad reflection of the reflexive stupidity of society that people are able to convince themselves there should be equality of outcomes of any kind in sports.

I don't really know what point you are making, to be honest. Depending on how you view the situation, numerous things could be defined as 'outcomes' here. Which outcomes are you talking about?

The FFA has desired outcomes for their national teams, and for the development of football at various levels all across Australia. This is part of an investment in achieving those outcomes. Compensation is more of an input than an outcome here, unless, perhaps, you define the purpose of national teams as getting paid.

I put "outcomes" in there to soften the absolute statement "there is no place for equality in sports".

I believe in equality of opportunity. For example, I think women should be able to play for the (not necessarily men's) National team. I think all athletes should be able to negotiate for whatever salary someone will willingly pay them.

I think athletes of all 58 genders should equally be laughed out of court if they try to convince someone it is their right to earn the same as some other athlete in some other competition.