Men getting paid more in athletics is reasonable
Debate Rounds (5)
If you accept then then post your first argument in this round. Don't accept if you are too stupid to understand facts or compile a valid argument or if you are not that engaged in the topic. I don't like forfeits. Let the games begin.
I am going to argue that there is no justification for men in sport to be paid more than women, and my basic argument is this: men and women within sport are doing the same job.
Firstly, male and female athletes train for the same amount of time. Male and female pro soccer players will officially train for the same amount of time per week (about 3 hours per day), and their matches are of equal length as men. We have to realise that both male and female athletes are doing this as their job, and therefore they need to be making money while they are at work in order to earn a living for themselves or their families. Therefore since they both are at work (i.e. competing or training) for the same amount of time per week, they justifiably should receive equal salaries since they are in the same jobs as men. You wouldn't expect a female secretary to earn less than a male secretary, because they are both in the same job. In fact there are laws which prohibit against unequal pay based on gender (Equal Pay Act 1963) The truth is that women put just as much time and effort into their athletic careers as men, and I know this from personal experience, having been a member of the Great Britain rowing team: often the women would push themselves harder than the men. Therefore should they not receive equal pay for working the same hours? Now my opponent may make the argument that women in tennis play less sets than men, and therefore do not play as much as men. However this is based firstly on the assumption that women are incapable of playing the full 5 sets, which is simply not true. Women play the same length soccer matches as men, and often end up scoring more goals. They run the same length marathons, so the fact that it is assumed they can't handle the full 5 sets is a sexist assumption. I therefore do not believe that women being paid less than men in sport can be justified by an argument which is based on a fundamentally unjustifiable point.
Secondly, I feel the most major argument that my opponent will use to support his argument is that men's sport is watched far more than women's sport (in most cases). This is an indisputable fact, and really it is the key reason why men do earn more in sport than women: there's simply more money in men's sport. In fact, in sports where there is equal interest in both the male and female sides, pay is often equal. Tennis is a very good example of this, in fact. Now I don't dispute the argument that, even if you think women should be paid equally as men in sport, there simply isn't enough money in the system for it to be possible. However I do not believe this is a justifiable reason, as the title of the debate states, for not paying women the same as men, because the men and women are still doing the same job. Just because men can be paid more than women doesn't mean it is right or justifiable for them to receive more pay. The reason why more people watch men's sport is because there is a perception that it is more intense, more exciting and ultimately more entertaining. However in all the sports I have watched - both male and female - I have never personally found this to be the case. Moreover, when I bring friends who don't think women's sport is as interesting as men's sport to women's rugby matches, they actually enjoy themselves a huge amount, and when I ask them if they found it any less entertaining they say it was as enjoyable as watching men's sport. Now I know this is a very personal example, but I feel it is a shared opinion of women's sport when compared with men's sport: that it is as entertaining, however it just doesn't receive the same viewer-base or interest, as male sport has a more long-standing place in society. Therefore, since evidence proves that women's sport with as much viewing as men's sport is equally profitable for the athletes, and that there is a perception in society that women's sport is less entertaining because they are women and "not as strong as men" (an inherently sexist argument), I once again believe this is not a justifiable reason for women receiving less pay than men in sports, since the argument upon which it is based [women's sport is less interesting for people in society] is itself unjustifiable.
Athletes of all genders should receive the same pay (within their individual sports), because they are doing the same job, regardless of perceptions about whether one gender is stronger or faster or better than the other. And I would just like to clarify that an argument claiming it is justifiable which is based off an unjustifiable precedent cannot be justified as water-tight.
If you have two companies within the same industry, let's use Pepsi and coke as an example, would you pay both cfo's the same amount if the cfo of coke is having twice the production? All else held equal
The unbiased answer to this question is no. If one cfo is giving you twice the production you will pay him/her more for superior performance. Likewise, if men's basketball is giving you more production it follows that the source of that production should be compensated accordingly. Whether or not the same hours and dedication are put in is irrelevant. The result is all that matters. For example, if two college students spend the same hours studying but on constantly gets A's and the other B's, would you say it's unfair or unreasonable? I would answer no to this and point out that one student must be more gifted in the classroom . There is nothing unfair about this unless you were to suggest that effort and hardworking are all that matter.
Similarly, male athletes are paid big money for performance. Regardless of your argument stating some women sports are equally enjoyable, it is a fact that men are physically superior in nearly every sense and the gap isn't small. We jump higher, run faster, have more endurance, and are stronger. These facts are indisputable. It is also a fact that these elements make for more exciting and intense gameplay on every level. If you look up yiutube highlights of PPP warner football or even high school football and compare to nfl highlights, the difference that speed and power make become clear.
That said, the difference in pay should seem more or less justifiable unless you are lobbying for a Marxist system where individual achievement is downplayed and compensation is equal out of virtue.
Now to address your argument about the CFOs: no, you would not pay both the CFOs the same, but the CFOs don't have the same job (they work for different companies). Moreover, base pay is not based on performance in normal jobs, but rather hours worked. You're using the example of a CFO, which is obviously an incredibly unrepresentative career as it's at the top of the business. The workers lower down won't get paid for their performance, they'll be paid for their hours worked. Female soccer players often don't make enough for soccer to be their full time job, and the same goes for rugby player. That means they don't earn enough to make ends-meat through their sport. How is that justifiable when male soccer players are making multiple times the minimum wage per week? The female and male soccer players have the same jobs and work for the same companies (i.e their team), and the same goes for all female athletes in all sports.
Now you argue that male athletes should be paid for performance, but that is simply not true. How come soccer players earn such huge salaries, while triathletes earn next to nothing? Triathletes are better performing athletes by far compared to soccer players, yet their salary would fit within a week of most soccer players' salaries. Soccer players are laughable athletes compared to rowers too, as I've seen first hand. We don't live in a world where it is justifiable to pay the employee who performs better over 12 times the salary of the employee who performs less well, when both employees have the same job. Performance counts for something, but not such a difference in salary, especially when you are discriminating against the fact that female athletes will never be able to perform at the level of male athletes, as you correctly asserted.
And we should really ask what is meant by performance here. Are you saying that women should be held back from sport because they are less physically able than men? That would be a deeply sexist stance to take, because it means that in your view, women should never be able to earn the same as men in sport simply because they are women, and since you cannot justify that argument, you cannot justify any argument that supports itself on it. Female athletes compete as women and are not pitted against men, and therefore a performance by a woman which is mid level among men is extremely impressive and should be celebrated as such.
What you are arguing is that women CAN be paid less than men, because of supply and demand, but not that it is JUSTIFIABLE to pay women less. I agree that many of your arguments are valid, however they do not morally justify the fact than in 30% of sports women earn less than men. The truth is that women are doing the same jobs for the same companies, and they are performing at high levels, whether male or female. The fact that you would hold back women because they are not able to perform at the level of men is not justification for paying them less, because that would be a stark example of sexism, and you cannot base an argument off such as weak premise as sexism. Therefore, an argument which is based off of sexist precedents cannot stand as being justifiable. Please consider that in your next argument, as you seem to have missed that point in your last one.
Goodgame forfeited this round.
Goodgame forfeited this round.
Goodgame forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by lannan13 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||4|
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.