The Instigator
tmar19652
Pro (for)
Winning
11 Points
The Contender
arusse02
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Female athletes should not make as much money as male athletes

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
tmar19652
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/21/2012 Category: Sports
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,725 times Debate No: 28504
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)

 

tmar19652

Pro

I feel that female athletes should not make as much money as male athletes.
Also the first round is for acceptance purposes only.
arusse02

Con

Since the first round is for acceptance, I will not post any arguments here.
Debate Round No. 1
tmar19652

Pro

I feel that female athletes should not make as much money as male athletes.

First, Male athletes post much better times in track events, jump higher and farther, and also throw farther. Men’s tennis players are much better, and I would love to see a women’s football (not soccer) team beat a men’s football team (even the Miami dolphins!). For example the mens world record in the 100m is 9.58s and the womens record is 10.47s. If men perform so much better, shouldn’t they be paid based on merit?
Other Examples(Men’s Vs Women’s Records)
Mile World Record: 3:43.13 Vs 4:12.56
Marathon World Record:2:03:38 Vs 2:15:25
Shot Put World Record: 23.12m vs 22.63m
Decathlon World Record: 9039pts vs 8358pts
Also the men’s marathon world record pace is the same as the women’s 5k world record pace.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org...
So if the men compete at a much higher level, then they deserve higher pay. You can make the argument that they run equal distances so they should be paid the same amount, but the men do much higher quality work, such as sustaining the womens 5k world record pace for over 8 times as long(marathon).



Second, far less people attend women's sports compared to men's. When Seattle had a basketball team (The Supersonics) attendance was twice as high as the Seattle Storm's. If twice as many people are filling the stands of the NBA versus the WNBA then it's no wonder they are bringing in less revenue. But it's not just the amount of fans in the stands, it's also a matter of ticket prices. The average attendance for a WNBA game is 8,000 people and the average ticket cost is around fifteen dollars. That's about $120,000 per game. Averaging out to a little over $4,000,000 a season. However, half of the WNBA's games are away games so they only see about $2,000,000 a year in ticket sales. How does that compare to the NBA? The average ticket cost of an NBA game is around $50 (a lot more than the WNBA) and average attendance for the 2009-2010 season was around 16,000. Double that of the WNBA. So that's $800,000 on average per game. Times that by the 41 home games, they play in the regular season and we come to $32,800,000 of yearly ticket sales per team. That is over 16 times the amount the WNBA brings in. And that is just ticket sales. Far more NBA games are televised compared with the WNBA. The average NBA team brings in about $15,000,000 in pure revenue, that means after all expenses (such as salary, taxes, promotions, etc). The WNBA doesn't even turn a profit. How do they stay afloat? The NBA subsidizes the WNBA with about $12 million per year. Therefore men bring in more money and deserve more pay.
Sources:
http://nbahoopsonline.com......
http://www.buzzle.com...
http://www.altiusdirectory.com...

arusse02

Con

First, I would like to call attention to the debate title, in particular the word should. Should is a relative term that expresses obligation or condition, according to Merriam Webster. Should can include what is fair, what is economical, and what is just rather than only considering performance. In terms of fairness, women should be paid as much; Women have been traditionally suppressed in sports, with women's professional sports only coming into fruition during the late 1960's (Wikipedia 1). In contrast, professional men's sports have existed since the ancient Greeks, and therefore its no surprise that men have a large lead in professional sports, since they have been around a lot longer. We don't know what women's sports would be like today if there had been an equal amount of attention to women's sports since the time of the ancient greeks. In order to give women a chance, some initial money is needed in order to attract female athletes and garner public attention. It also does public good by alienating gender roles and making women in general feel equal to men. Should men also be paid more in the work force, because traditionally more men have worked than women? Of course not--gender equality is an important societal value in the United States, and promoting fairness is usually a good thing.

Addressing the economical side, the wnba is a relatively new market. Like all business ventures, some initial investment is needed in order to generate profit in the long run. With more and more women becoming involved in sports in first world countries everyday, its an emerging new market that NBA business officials are trying to capitalize on. In 20 years, professional women's sports will likely make substantial profit, and the investment will pay off, since it will be more appealing to women (the other 50% of the worlds population). Therefore, sports should pay women equal amounts compared to men in order to expand a new market and make more profit in the long run.

Men also have an unfair chemical advantage known as testosterone, which is know to increase muscle density, volume, and overall strength. The playing field is not fair, and yet by your logic, someone taking steroids should be paid more than someone who isn't taking them because it simply made them stronger. If women took heavy testosterone, they would probably be just as effective as men. However, that would make them deformed, and start to look more like men, so because of gender roles, women often don't do this. In other words, not everything is about maximum performance, else performance enhancing drugs would be the legal norm. Its about fair and even competition between people. Paying for athletes is about relative competition in a bracket. Yes professional women's teams couldn't beat men's professional teams now, but that doesn't mean the competition between women isn't worthwhile, or that women wouldn't win in the future if they were given a chance, especially in sports like Golf, nascar, etc that don't require having more strength than someone else.

I would also like to show that women have unexplored potential in many sports (total pro sports)
1. Jackie Mitchell struck out Babe Ruth and Lou Gehrig back to back
2. Babe Zaharias competed against her PGA tour men counterparts
3. Seana Hogan holds the distinction of setting the overall ultra cycling record time for the distance between Los Angeles and San Francisco. In 1996, she rode that in an incredible 19 hours 11 minutes. To this day, no one (man or woman) has ridden that route faster.

The list goes on, but the main point is that female athletes don't receive as much attention as male athletes due to gender roles and the history of the suppression of women. Female athletes have the ability to compete with men in a variety of sports, except they lack brute strength since they have estrogen instead of testosterone. Paying more because someone is stronger is stupid--the strategy and skill is much more important than beating some heads together. THe WNBA doesn't have a female shack, and women don't usually weigh 350 pounds, but they run equally intelligent plays, and implement similarly effective strategies. However, they might have been more competitive in general if women were given equal opportunity to men and gender roles didn't exist throughout history. Paying women equally shows a progressive society, which wants to give equal opportunity and fairness to all its citizens.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_professional_sports
2. http://www.totalprosports.com...
Debate Round No. 2
tmar19652

Pro


Thank you con for your argument, but I now must respectfully poke gaping holes in your logic



  • “In terms of fairness, women should be paid as much; Women have been traditionally suppressed in sports, with women's professional sports only coming into fruition during the late 1960's (Wikipedia 1). In contrast, professional men's sports have existed since the ancient Greeks, and therefore its no surprise that men have a large lead in professional sports, since they have been around a lot longer. We don't know what women's sports would be like today if there had been an equal amount of attention to women's sports since the time of the ancient greeks. In order to give women a chance, some initial money is needed in order to attract female athletes and garner public attention. It also does public good by alienating gender roles and making women in general feel equal to men. Should men also be paid more in the work force, because traditionally more men have worked than women? Of course not--gender equality is an important societal value in the United States, and promoting fairness is usually a good thing.”


- This is a moot point because you did not prove why it is fair to pay female athletes equally to men. You made a point about pay equality in the workforce, but in the workforce, women largely do equal work to men, whereas in athletics, a professional women often competes on the same level as high school or college men. For example, the women’s world record in the mile run is 4:12.56 and in the 2012 high school spring track season, more than 50 high school boys ran faster than this(Some of them as young as sophomores in high school). It does not seem fair at all to pay women equally for subpar performances, does it?


- Source:http://www.milesplit.com...



  • “Addressing the economical side, the wnba is a relatively new market. Like all business ventures, some initial investment is needed in order to generate profit in the long run. With more and more women becoming involved in sports in first world countries everyday, its an emerging new market that NBA business officials are trying to capitalize on. In 20 years, professional women's sports will likely make substantial profit, and the investment will pay off, since it will be more appealing to women (the other 50% of the worlds population). Therefore, sports should pay women equal amounts compared to men in order to expand a new market and make more profit in the long run.”


- This does not show that female athletes deserve equal pay either. There is no guarantee that the WNBA or any women’s sport will turn a profit in 20 years. You also did not show that women’s sports would be more appealing to women. Therefore, this is also a moot point.



  • Con also said that testosterone is an unfair advantage and that gender roles keep women from performing well in sports. But why is testosterone an unfair advantage, this is like saying that having a photographic memory is an unfair advantage in school. Should athletes not be allowed to use the talents they were born with? No, they should use their talents to the fullest and they will be paid based on performance, whether or not the women can “keep up”. Also, no-one forces women to conform to gender roles, they can do whatever they want, they choose to conform if they do so.

  • Also you said that sports like golf and NASCAR require less strength to succeed and therefore women have a better chance to succeed. However, I have done the NASCAR experience in Disneyworld, and you have to wrestle with the wheel to make those cars turn. And if they don’t require strength, then why doesn’t Danica Patrick win NASCAR Races, or Michelle Wie win men’s golf tournaments? Maybe because they are not as great of athletes as the men they compete against, so they do not deserve equal pay for their worse performances.

  • “The list goes on, but the main point is that female athletes don't receive as much attention as male athletes due to gender roles and the history of the suppression of women.”


- Is it at all possible that Female athletes do not get the same attention because they are in a vast majority, worse athletes than men? I know that when I watch pro marathons, I watch the men finish and then tune out because I do not want to wait 15 minutes to watch the pro women finish behind hundreds of amateur men.


MY CASE



  • Female athletes that compete with male athletes usually do not achieve the highest level of success. Babe Zaharias never won a PGA tour event against men. Jackie Mitchell may have gotten lucky in striking out Babe Ruth and Lou Gehrig, because even the greatest baseball players only get hits 1 out of every 3 tries (I would be impressed if she struck either one out three times in a game), but she did not demonstrate a long record of striking out men. Seana Hogan is a brute athlete, but she competes in ultra cycling, a sport usually done by a very few as a hobby, or retired pro cyclists as exhibitions. She competes in a sport that receives very little coverage and has few participants, so she is not a very good example. I would also bet that Bradley Wiggins, or Fabian Cancellara could destroy her record if they tried in their primes, instead of at 50 years old.

  • Even Billy Jean Kings win in the battle of the sexes meant nothing for equal pay. This article from Wikipedia demonstrates my opinion.


- “A few critics were less than impressed by King's victory. King was 26 years younger, and some experts claimed that it was more an age versus youth game. According to Jack Kramer, "I don't think Billie Jean played all that well. She hit a lot of short balls which Bobby could have taken advantage of had he been in shape.”


- Also remember that Bobby Riggs was well past his prime at over 50 years old.



  • Also, If women want to win the same amount of prize money that men make, they can compete against men for that prize money. Since women really cannot compete against men and play at a much lower level of competition, they get a lower amount of prize money. That is what fair actually is. Women should not be accommodated because they can’t perform as well as men.

  • I agree with equal pay for equal work, but female athletes do subpar work as compared to men and therefore do not deserve equal pay!


arusse02

Con

arusse02 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
tmar19652

Pro

Please extend my arguments to this round.
arusse02

Con

arusse02 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
arusse02

Con

arusse02 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by wrichcirw 4 years ago
wrichcirw
I like women's tennis better than men's tennis. Men hit the ball so hard that it's less of a match than a twitching contest. Women's tennis on the other hand does involve a lot more of what people would consider an actual tennis game, and it can actually be followed on television.
Posted by fulltimestudent 4 years ago
fulltimestudent
Despite being a full throttle feminist..i generally agree with tmar. Popular athletics that bring in $$ r *generally* male sports..and popularity usually determins market value. All that said..there r some sports that women do well in and should be paid accordingly ..all that said, at the end of the day, the amt to be paid should be determined by the one(s) payin
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by DoctorDeku 4 years ago
DoctorDeku
tmar19652arusse02Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit
Vote Placed by 1Devilsadvocate 4 years ago
1Devilsadvocate
tmar19652arusse02Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: F.F.