The Instigator
tmar19652
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points
The Contender
runnersva1
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Should female athletes get paid as much as male athletes

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 1 vote the winner is...
tmar19652
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/5/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 10,458 times Debate No: 28918
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)

 

tmar19652

Con

I feel that female athletes should not make as much money as male athletes.
Also the first round is for acceptance purposes only.
runnersva1

Pro

I accept this challenge for this debate.
Debate Round No. 1
tmar19652

Con

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 men’s world record in the 100m is 9.58s and the women’s record is 10.47s. If men perform so much better, shouldn’t they be paid based on merit? In athletics, a professional woman 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? 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 women’s 5k world record pace for over 8 times as long(marathon).

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


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
Just for comparative purposes, the men’s marathon world record pace (~42k) is the same as the women’s 5k world record pace.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org......

Second, far less people attend women's sporting events 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. However, 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 is 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 be be paid more
Sources:
http://nbahoopsonline.com.........
http://www.buzzle.com......
http://www.altiusdirectory.com......

runnersva1

Pro

Although I acknowledge you understand your points, I disagree with your standpoint. In regard to your first point, to say that men should be paid more because women aren't as fast or "as good" as the male athletes is unfair because women cannot control the way they are built.
One source states, "Several anatomical differences contribute to the athleticism differences between sexes. Most women have a higher percentage of body fat than men, which is caused by the essential fat that women carry in their breasts and thighs. Another important factor to is the difference in size of organs. In general, men have larger hearts and lungs, increasing their ability to deliver oxygen and blood to working muscles. Author Nadya Sweden, in the book "Women's Sports Medicine and Rehabilitation," says women, on average, are 3 to 4 inches shorter, 25 to 30 lbs. lighter, have 8 percent to 10 percent more body fat, 40 to 45 fewer pounds of fat-free mass, shorter extremities and less muscle."

I personally admire female athletes for being able to succeed as much as they do. Maybe men can out-run quite a few more women than women can out-run the men, but being paid should be centraled around the amount of work in my opinion.

If women are working just as many hours and puting forth the same amount of effort as men, they deserve to be paid just as much. Women cannot control the way their body is built. If the fastest woman in the world can run the 100m dash in 10.59 seconds, then obviously that is their max. Women have yet to beat this record, so it's evident that no matter how much they train, women can't increase their speed much more due to their body anatomy. It isn't a controlled issue. Therefore, their pay should not be based on such a factor.

The same source states, "A difference in sport performance can also have to do with the anatomy of a muscle. The physiological characteristics of muscle fiber between a male and female athlete's body do not differ significantly. However, the difference comes in the response to training. Most muscular hypertrophy is stimulated by the release of testosterone and androgen. Women have less of these hormones and more estrogen, which can actually inhibit muscular growth."

To compare men to women in sports is like comparing a woman police officer to a male one. The women are putting in just as many hours as the men, but the men are called to more cases because they're stronger. Therefore, they should be paid more than the women? I don't think so. Women work just as hard as men. Their muscle anatomy should have nothing to do with their pay role. If that's the best they can do, then great! Cheers to Florence Griffith Joyner who ran that 100m dash in 10.59 seconds.

It's discrimination. The amount of people in the stands at men vs women games is irrelevant. Last time I checked, athletes don't get paid for their moms and friends coming out to watch them play.
Debate Round No. 2
tmar19652

Con


First, my opponent did not source any of their arguments about anatomical differences, so therefore these arguments are null.


Second, their argument about personally admiring female athletes is no more than an unsubstantiated opinion used in an effort to appeal to pathos.


Rebuttals



  1. “If women are working just as many hours and putting forth the same amount of effort as men, they deserve to be paid just as much.”



  • Female athletes may put in the same number of hours, but they put-out subpar performances. For example, Let’s say Melinda and Billy both work 60 hours a week at an investment banking company. Melinda closes 10 deals worth $10 million total, and Billy closes 8 deals worth $8 million total. By your logic Jimmy and Melinda deserve to be paid the same amount of money because they work the same number of hours. So your argument for equal hours of training for equal pay does not hold water.



  1. “If the fastest woman in the world can run the 100m dash in 10.59 seconds, then obviously that is their max. Women have yet to beat this record, so it's evident that no matter how much they train, women can't increase their speed much more due to their body anatomy. It isn't a controlled issue. Therefore, their pay should not be based on such a factor.”



  • Let’s say Jessica and Bob both study calculus for 10 hours a week. Jessica was born extremely smart and Bob was born moderately intelligent. By your logic, they should both be awarded the same grade on all of their calculus tests because Bob was not born as smart as Jessica. So you argument does not hold any clout because even though Jessica and Bob were born with different body anatomies, they will, and should receive different grades (School equivalent of Pay)

  • In addition, different men are born with different biological advantages. So should the Man who runs a 3:50 mile as his “max” be paid the same as a man who runs a 4:00 mile as his “max”, the answer is no because athletes are paid based on performance.



  1. Pro also said that testosterone is an unfair advantage in sports. Nevertheless, 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”.

  2. “To compare men to women in sports is like comparing a woman police officer to a male one. The women are putting in just as many hours as the men, but the men are called to more cases because they're stronger. Therefore, they should be paid more than the women? I don't think so. Women work just as hard as men.



  • If the men are called to more cases than the women are, then they deserve to be paid more. Even though both worked the same number of hours, the men put in higher quality work than the women by working more cases. If the women were incapable of doing those cases, then they should not be paid for work they did not do. 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!



  1. “If that's the best they can do, then great! Cheers to Florence Griffith Joyner who ran that 100m dash in 10.59 seconds.”



  • This argument does not hold up in the performance-based world of pro sports. If you can’t keep up, then you get left behind in pay. Flo-Jo would be more than a second behind Usain Bolt, but you argue that they should get equal pay? Bolt should be paid more because he does better quality work and faster times in track and field are more marketable.



  1. “It's discrimination. The amount of people in the stands at men vs women games is irrelevant. Last time I checked, athletes don't get paid for their moms and friends coming out to watch them play.”



  • This argument (aside from many RationalMadman arguments) is possibly the worst argument I have ever seen on DDO. Athletes get paid based on how many people they can bring into stadiums and how many people that will watch them on TV. WNBA games averaged just 413,000 viewers, compared to 1.46 million viewers for NBA games (http://outsports.com...). This means the men’s better performances attract more viewers, which means more advertising money.

  • In addition, for your discrimination point, it would be discrimination against men to have equal pay in this case. Would it not seem wrong to say to LeBron James that he would be receiving the same pay as Candace Parker even though he brought in more than triple the viewership and has several times the fan base size as Parker?



  1. In addition, 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, that would be the definition of discrimination.



So, I have shown why female athletes do not deserve equal pay, and Pro has simply tried to win on the basis of pathos and un-sourced statistics.


runnersva1

Pro

First, let me formally apologize for not including my sources. Once I had submitted my argument, I realized I forgot to paste my sources. I immediately posted one to the comment board of this debate. Please accept my apologies.

Rebuttals:

-The topic in which you chose for this argument exclusively states that male athletes should be paid more than female athletes. Therefore, you are proposing that if a male athlete is insufficient, then he should still be paid more than a woman because he is a male. If you do not agree with this statement, you should have clarified the motive of this debate because the topic clearly states the male population, no mater your abilities, if you are an athlete, you should be paid more than a woman athlete.

-You said, "Let"s say Jessica and Bob both study calculus for 10 hours a week. Jessica was born extremely smart and Bob was born moderately intelligent. By your logic, they should both be awarded the same grade on all of their calculus tests because Bob was not born as smart as Jessica. So you argument does not hold any clout because even though Jessica and Bob were born with different body anatomies, they will, and should receive different grades (School equivalent of Pay)."

In defense to you believing men as a whole should be paid more than men...
If the woman receives a better grade, she would receive the better average. Pertaining to sports, if the woman puts forth a better performance than the male, then she therefore deserves to be paid more. On your side of the argument, you are saying that no matter the situation, all men should be paid more than women if they are an athlete. This is exactly why I said, "It's discrimination." Because it is. You cannot choose to pay someone solely because of their gender. Performance is the key reason why an athlete should be paid. True, male athletes have physical advantages, but if a woman happens to be faster or better, she deserves the higher pay. You supported this argument when you said,
"In addition, different men are born with different biological advantages. So should the Man who runs a 3:50 mile as his "max" be paid the same as a man who runs a 4:00 mile as his "max", the answer is no because athletes are paid based on performance."

If you believe men should be paid more than women athletes, then you are contradicting yourself because you said that athletes should be paid based in performance. This should include all athletes, not exclusively males.

-"Athletes get paid based on how many people they can bring into stadiums and how many people that will watch them on TV. WNBA games averaged just 413,000 viewers, compared to 1.46 million viewers for NBA games (http://outsports.com.........). This means the men"s better performances attract more viewers, which means more advertising money."
Although this may be true, we are talking about individual male players. The guy sitting on the bench at the NBA games should not be paid more than the star player on the WNBA team. That's not right. Being a man doesn't entitle you to better pay. Your performance does. If you sit on he bench for the whole season, you better not be getting paid more than the woman scoring her team 20 points each game.

-My opponent said, "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'".

Of course they should use their talents they were born with! But just because men are men and women are women, that is not a reason as to how they should be paid. Their performance abilities are how they should be paid. Period, so I'd like to correct myself when I said "but being paid should be centraled around the amount of work in my opinion."

-One source I came across says, "Sue Bird, a member of the Seattle Storm in the WNBA, has been called a poster child for women"s athletics. Unfortunately for her, that fame hasn't exactly translated into tremendous riches. At the beginning of her maiden year in the hoops league, she made just $57,500. Eventually, her salary increased, but not above $87,000, which, according to InsideHoops.com, was the maximum pay in the WNBA. She and her teammates received a $10,000 bonus for winning the league title in 2004.Compare the salaries of Bird and her fellow WNBA stars to those in the NBA and you"ll see the gender gap is as big as the Grand Canyon. According to the Women"s Sports Foundation, the average NBA salary rose to $3.17 million per player in the 1999-2000 season, while the average WNBA salary was about $55,000. That means the men made almost 60 times more than the women. A few WNBA players earn more than $100,000 a year, but that is only because they have side jobs, such as playing in other leagues or helping with WNBA marketing efforts."
Read more at: http://www.askmen.com......

That article justifies the fact that women are being paid in a discriminating manner. Bird is an exceptional basketball player, but she continuously makes less than other male players who are just as good. In my opinion, as a woman, I think it's completely unfair for people to be paid based on gender. Now, if Bird was an unsuccessful player, I'd understand, but she isn't. Therefore, she should be making just as much as the star player in the men's team.

-Another source (http://www.womenssportsfoundation.org...) records, "For a WNBA player in the 2005 season, the minimum salary was $31,200, the maximum salary was $89,000, and the team salary cap was $673,000. For NBA players in the 2004-2005 season, the minimum salary was $385,277, the maximum salary was $15.355 million, and the team salary cap was $46 million." Some of the stats for the WNBA team are equal to if not better than NBA stars, so why aren't they being paid equally? Inequality in athletic pay requiring gender is wrong.

Complaints have been made from women in regards to being paid unfairly due to gender: http://upload.athleticbusiness.com...

-Overall, I think your topic is vague. If you truly believe that men as a whole, despite the circumstances, should be paid more than women, I think you need to analyze why you feel men are superior to women. It's about performance. I don't understand why you (also) said it is about performance, but then this debate is about men getting paid more than women no matter what.. That is all. Thank you for inviting me to this debate.

More debates regarding the problem with being paid based on performance can be found on this site if you're interested in some further reading on this topic: http://lawprofessors.typepad.com...
Debate Round No. 3
tmar19652

Con


“The topic in which you chose for this argument exclusively states that male athletes should be paid more than female athletes. Therefore, you are proposing that if a male athlete is insufficient, then he should still be paid more than a woman because he is a male. If you do not agree with this statement, you should have clarified the motive of this debate because the topic clearly states the male population, no mater your abilities, if you are an athlete, you should be paid more than a woman athlete.”



  • A pro athlete is defined as an athlete that receives pay for their performances (http://en.wikipedia.org...). So, while I am flattered that you consider the entire male population professional athletes, in reality only the cream of the crop can earn money by participating in sports, and therefore only those men and women apply to this debate because they are the only ones that earn money by competing.

  • Also, Just In case you missed my line about equal pay, here it is in bold (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!)

  • I will also add in this line from my 3rd round arguments (In addition, 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.), So I have been arguing for pay according to abilities.)


“The topic in which you chose for this argument exclusively states that male athletes should be paid more than female athletes. Therefore, you are proposing that if a male athlete is insufficient, then he should still be paid more than a woman because he is a male. If you do not agree with this statement, you should have clarified the motive of this debate because the topic clearly states the male population, no mater your abilities, if you are an athlete, you should be paid more than a woman athlete.”



  • Once again disproved by my line from the 3rd round, 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!

  • I also included this line which disproves your point about male athletes exclusively being paid more (In addition, 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.), So I have been arguing for pay according to abilities.


You also argued “True, male athletes have physical advantages, but if a woman happens to be faster or better, she deserves the higher pay.”, but I said this in round 3 (In addition, 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.).


“Although this may be true, we are talking about individual male players. The guy sitting on the bench at the NBA games should not be paid more than the star player on the WNBA team. That's not right. Being a man doesn't entitle you to better pay. Your performance does. If you sit on he bench for the whole season, you better not be getting paid more than the woman scoring her team 20 points each game.”



  • This is a bad point because the NBA has both more games, and stiffer competition. In the WNBA, there are only a handful of women who can dunk, however many high school boys are able to dunk. People who can dunk in the NBA are a dime-a-dozen, while they are superstars in the WNBA. So even the worst players in the NBA still perform better than the best women in the WNBA. Also, the WNBA has never pulled a profit as a whole, so according pay based on performance, which includes building a fan base, these professional women should be earning nothing (http://ijsf.wordpress.com...).


“That article justifies the fact that women are being paid in a discriminating manner. Bird is an exceptional basketball player, but she continuously makes less than other male players who are just as good. In my opinion, as a woman, I think it's completely unfair for people to be paid based on gender. Now, if Bird was an unsuccessful player, I'd understand, but she isn't. Therefore, she should be making just as much as the star player in the men's team.”



  • Can you prove that bird could even compete in college men’s basketball. She is 5’9” and 150lbs (http://en.wikipedia.org...), she does not stand a chance against any college or professional men’s basketball player. And If you say she should be paid as much as a “star” like LeBron James (who could destroy her 1 on 1), then your pay for performance system discriminates against men.






Throughout this debate, I have argued for pay based on performance, and since professional female athletes perform worse in general, they deserve to be paid less. This is evident in the fact that Venus Williams could not beat the 203rd ranked man in the world in a tennis match, yet she would earn equal money as world number 1 for winning Wimbledon as a men’s number 1. I have disproved pro’s entire case and they have resorted to semantics (which I also disproved) in an effort to stave-off a loss. I urge you to vote con for this debate, as I have made several points that went un-refuted, and disproved my opponent’s case, and semantics.


runnersva1

Pro

runnersva1 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by runnersva1 4 years ago
runnersva1
http://www.livestrong.com... source for my Round 1 debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by 1Devilsadvocate 4 years ago
1Devilsadvocate
tmar19652runnersva1Tied
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.