The post that was quoted here has been removedI suppose the difficulty of comparing tennis to porn ~ in terms of what the OP is getting at ~ is this: is male + male porn (as a product for porn consumers) in direct competition with male + female porn for the attention of those porn consumers? And are the participants paid (more or less) depending on how well they do?
22 Mar 16
There are far less men in porn compared to women. *If* men do get paid more, I'm guessing it's because women are a dime a dozen in the porn industry. But a man who's not only the right size, but keep himself aroused despite the business-like atmosphere (behind the scenes, it's anything but erotic; comparable to manual labor) is a rare commodity.
As far as the OP, it only makes sense that those involved in men's tennis (or basketball, or football) get paid more than those only involved in female versions. If there was a women's sport that generated more money than the men's, but without the women being paid more, people would be outraged.
22 Mar 16
Originally posted by FMFI don't have numbers, but it seems there are plenty of recognizable female stars, and plenty of interest in women's matches. That is sufficient justification for equal pay to me.
Personally. I am inclined to agree. But I am curious as to whether 'equal earnings' makes business sense or whether my preference (and yours) actually has an ethical basis.
22 Mar 16
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemFor the sake of argument, if the TV audience for men's tennis is twice the size of that for women's tennis, and the broadcaster is able to charge a lot more for advertising and sponsorship associated with - and placed in - the coverage of the men's tournament than for a comparable (or perhaps simultaneous) women's tournament, would the men players be justified in arguing for their winnings and fees to reflect the fact that more lucrative business is founded on the entertainment they provide?
I don't have numbers, but it seems there are plenty of recognizable female stars, and plenty of interest in women's matches. That is sufficient justification for equal pay to me.
22 Mar 16
Originally posted by FMFThey'd have to consider the public relations hit the sport would take for rolling back a politically fashionable reform. If that wasn't too bad, then maybe.
For the sake of argument, if the TV audience for men's tennis is twice the size of that for women's tennis, and the broadcaster is able to charge a lot more for advertising and sponsorship associated with - and placed in - the coverage of the men's tournament than for a comparable (or perhaps simultaneous) women's tournament, would the men players be justified i ...[text shortened]... s to reflect the fact that more lucrative business is founded on the entertainment they provide?
A thought that just hit me - in UFC, Rhonda Rousey proved that a woman can be a bigger draw than any man in the sport. I think it's fair that she got paid well for it, even to the point of getting more than most [or all?!] of the men.
The usual principal driving equal pay for women is 'equal pay for equal work'. In the case of athletes with varying levels of performance, one may argue that work is no longer equal-enough at some point without being a misogynist. The trouble comes when one argues that all men should out-earn all women. No longer is it just Novak Djokovic making more money than Vika Azarenka - now there are men on the tour far less known than the top women, and making twice as much.
22 Mar 16
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemHere's an idea. How about competitors ~ regardless of whether they are male or female ~ set a tariff for their performance.
They'd have to consider the public relations hit the sport would take for rolling back a politically fashionable reform. If that wasn't too bad, then maybe.
A thought that just hit me - in UFC, Rhonda Rousey proved that a woman can be a bigger draw than any man in the sport. I think it's fair that she got paid well for it, even to the point of gett ...[text shortened]... nka - now there are men on the tour far less known than the top women, and making twice as much.
For example: $2,000 for playing in the first round; $30,000 for reaching the fourth round; $100,000 for going out in the Q-Finals etc. etc. [There would be increasing kitties for each round advanced]. And they set their own prize money for if they win ~ say, in this case, $500,000.
A lowly player might ask for $100 (nominal fee) for playing in the first round; $5,000 for reaching the fourth round; $20,000 for going out in the Q-Finals and $100,000 if they win.
The tournament organizers could shop around for talent and crowd pleasing participants and make their own calculations of income from sponsors, advertising, broadcasting, bums on seats ~ and set it against the expense of paying out winnings ~ and put it all in the context of the prestige they wish to conjure up for their event.
In this way, men and women could demand what they were worth in a competitive market.