.

I forgot about this thread. Some cringy white knight ****.

i have this arguement with my sister all the time. our (canada's) women's team does much better than the men's team does, like, they're actually decent. but ofc despite being a top 5 ranked team by FIFA The FIFA Women's World Ranking - FIFA.com they make significantly less. i try to explain to her why it has very little to do with sexism in the sport itself and more to do with the fact that the vast majority of spectators consider men's sports to be more entertaining, but she doesn't get it. i don't necessarily think one sex should make more than the other but considering athletes are primarily paid through private businesses owners, tv revenue, sponsorships, etc, popularity essentially defines how much income you have.

i think a large part of this stretches past skill as well, as an athlete who has a large following, regardless of how good he is, is more likely to attract the big brand names. i think Paul Pogba is the best example I can think of. he's a great player, but atm he is not on the same level as a Luka Modric or Radja Nainggolan imo. Yet, I can almost guarantee he makes more money than the pair of them (Radja for sure, would assume Luka too) because of his personality and antics that have led him to his many brand deals.

I don't know why female leagues aren't more popular. Sweaty ladies > sweaty dudes.

Thing is Q, they don't do significantly better because you can't compare like for like. The Canadian women don't compete in the same competitions, they compete against other women in women's competitions. The men compete against other men at the very top level. The women's World Cup is not the World Cup.

It would be like saying the England u20s are better than the full side because they just won the World Cup :D

And yeah Pogba is a funny one. MU paid ninety million British pounds for an emoji.

Just imagine how that snatch smells after a game though...

Like success?

If by success you mean old sushi then yes.

i get what you're saying but in this case i think you're wrong. i'm not saying the Canadian women's team is better than the men's, i'm saying the Canadian women's team is actually a threat to win the tournament every time they play whereas the canadian men can barely win a game. personally i would rather watch the women play because who wants to watch your own nation get smacked aroud 5-0 every game?

the way people who make the argument for equal pay see it is as if athletes get paid for performance, which is obviously only half true. yeah, teams will pay them more if they're performing well, but that makes up such a small portion of their actual earnings.

like i said, it's not the sport being sexist. it's the fact that nobody cares about 2nd tier leagues. just compared the numbers from the Championship to the Prem, it becomes clear it's not about sex. it's about fans wanting to feel like they're watching the best teams in the world.

It's a different tournament and competition though so 'doing better' means nothing. The men would be winning the Women's World Cup.

You could only say they are doing better if you look at results written on some paper and see 2-0, 2-1, 3-0 wins as opposed to the men's 5-0 defeats. But in that respect, my local Sunday League team is also doing better than the Canadian men because they don't lose 5-0 every game.

In relation to pay they need to 'do better' in the competitions the men play in.

I'm not disagreeing with you btw Q as I know we're on the same side, just adding to the discussion tbh.