There a massive difference between the two sports for one. Theres also a massive difference in the supporter numbers for each sport. If the womens game grew to thebsame stature then by all means, it should be equal but not when they are miles apart.
Do they though? Tennis for instance, where the whining women's lib merchants make the most noise, is played over three sets for women and five for men. In the tournaments that count at least. Golf; with every respect to professional women's golf, no one is interested and a club golfer like me plays on a course of similar length to women's pros. Men, however, you can add a 1000 yards. And about a million degrees of difficulty. And don't get me started on women's football. Might as well watch monkeys playing tennis.
But they aren't very good at it in comparison, hence the need for women-only sport in the first place.
Same with golf what? They play over the same course only take about 30 shots more? It's not the same spectacle. Ultimately sport is about bums on seats and that is the proof of everything. It's why actors on the west end get paid more than hacks at the local church hall. Even though 'they do the same job'.
I think whether it 'should' be closer or not is largely a moot point. It won't be closer until more people start watching women's football, as all the prize money in football comes from the people buying tickets, the broadcasters paying for the rights, and the sponsors paying to associate themselves with the teams and competitions. The quality of the football on offer is important, but the main thing is how many people watch it. Rugby league is tougher, faster and more entertaining to watch (imo) than union, but more people watch union so the union players earn more. Most of the sports where the prize money is similar are either those like bowls and skating, where the physical strength difference has almost no impact, or those like tennis and athletics where male and female events take place simultaneously - you buy a ticket for a court seat at Wimbledon and you usually end up watching an equal number of male and female matches. Roughly same number of people watching each, so similar prize money on offer. Football doesn't really have that option, as the support is too partisan and the quality is too different. A fan of Federer won't mind watching some women play whilst waiting to watch him, but they won't have the women's and men's FA Cup final on the same day as the teams will have different fans. And like Chief says, most people don't see women's football as worth watching, so won't go and watch a women's game on its own.
But not to the same level. The CEO of Apple does the same job as the CEO of Bargain Booze. But they don't earn the same. Same way Falcao earns a whole load more as a striker for Utd than someone doing the same job for Scunthorpe. And yes, I did put Scunthorpe in purely because it amuses me when it's caught by the swear filter
no way in football between men and women. If the womens game were to attract the same sponsorship and tv deals then of course they should get the same ..but they dont so should not get the same deals..
It's a bit of a catch 22 for Women's football though, many of the top English Women's teams IIRC are non-professional clubs as there's no money in the game and there's no money in the game because the quality isn't good enough. It needs investment in the players & coaches to get professional leagues going so the quality is good enough to attract more sponsors etc. I've heard that the USA has a high quality professional women's league, so it's possible with the right investment and the right business plan I suspect.
The prize should be comparable to the amount of money the sport generates. Female sports tend to generate less income, hence smaller prize pots. Male footballers get paid so much because football generates so much money, female footballers get paid less because ladies football makes less money. It's pretty cut and dry. In instances where the female version of the sport is making as much or more money than the male equivalent, then the prize pots should be equal, there is no excuse for women getting smaller prizes in that instance. But the prize money HAS to be dictated by the amount of money the event generates.......its the only way to do it sensibly.
Basic supply and demand at play, not sexism Women's sport is largely s**te, and therefore the audiences aren't there for it and thus the sponsorship and TV interest is far less, ergo it pays less. So in short, pipe down split arses.
It'd be interesting to see how popular ladies only tennis events would be. The ladies have managed to argue for equal money despite doing 3/5ths of the work (in slams) yet as a (casual) tennis fan I couldn't give a rat's arse about the ladies side. They can be entertaining matches but the pinnacle in tennis is the mens' final in the grand slams. That's surely the big draw currently and historically. Therefore I think the only reason they managed to get equal prize money is being part of the same tournament which can't happen in football terms. I agree with the general consensus that prize money should linked to the appeal and profitability of that sport. I don't expect conference footballers to get paid the same as premier league stars because the product is not as good or as profitable.
So the lesson from this story is...... If these people want equal prizes for female sport, then they need to start supporting female sporting events more. Attend more ladies football games, buy more merchandise etc. The only way they will ever get more money is if the sports generates more money.....
