comment: >
  
  What is a "man's sport", compared to a "female sport"?
context: /u/Sicily_Long (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.
  All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
  Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
  ^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >
  
  At least in the case of the WNBA, men actually support and watch the WNBA more than women. The WBNA could be more successful if more men watched the WNBA, even if there wasn't a change in women's viewership and support. The flaw in this is the belief that there is some obligation by men to support the WNBA and make it successful out of some patriarchal compensation, or by women to support the WNBA and make it successful out of some feminist sisterhood.
  Neither men or women have any obligation to watch a sporting division that they do not enjoy, regardless of the gender of the players and any gender politics surrounding it. The WNBA is a business, and it and its players are the ones with both the opportunity and obligation to grow their marketshare. WNBA players will be paid more when they earn more. It's literally in their Collective Bargaining Agreement.
  Instead they've chosen to argue that they only want pay structure equity while comparing their 60 million in annual revenue and -10 million in uncovered expenditures (which is subsidized by the NBA) to the NBA's +6 billion in revenue, while ignoring that they only pull minor league numbers and yet are paid 3-4x minor league salaries.
  It isn't up to women to support female sports. It's up to sports fans to watch the sports that they enjoy, and female sporting leagues and competitors to provide performances which attract viewers. >
  
  Well put. It's entertainment at the end of the day. The only time someone has an obligation to support is when they complain about salaries, but aren't going to games. >
  
  I'm about to say something very controversial.   The types of sports women and men have been drawn to over the years are very different.  I consider gymnastics, figure skating, ballet, and anything with horses to be very enjoyable athletic pursuits to watch.  Disney on Ice brings in over a billion dollars per year in ticket sales and probably spurs purchases of Frozen fanwear.  I bet Simone Biles influences more purchases than her endorsement money reflects, but if I want to buy a Simone Biles shirt, I gotta go to etsy.  Women's tennis and golf are doing okay.  But overall women's sports have not been fully developed or corporately exploited.  Instead, there is an effort to take traditional men's sports and insert women.  Unfortunately, I think many audiences would rather watch men excelling at men's sports.  I think soccer may eventually be an exception due to universal appeal. >
  
  This delta has been rejected. The length of your comment suggests that you haven't properly explained how /u/ScurvyDervish changed your view (comment rule 4).
  DeltaBot is able to rescan edited comments. Please edit your comment with the required explanation.
  ^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >
  
  To partially address the topic, there is frequently a misunderstanding caused by the difference in pay structure specifically chosen by female athletes vs those chosen by male athletes.
  Men frequently utilize a high risk-high reward pay-for-play model - They only received compensation if they get called up. If they are injured, too bad -- they miss out. 
  Women frequently opt for more financial security; a system that included guaranteed (but lower) salaries for a subset of players, as well as game bonuses. If a player was under contract - they would still receive the guaranteed salary even if they didn't get called in for whatever reason. >
  
  Men and women spend the same money. It’s not that women aren’t supporting women’s sports. It’s that nobody, regardless of gender, are supporting women’s sports. The inverse is also true; Men’s sports aren’t just supported by men, they’re supported more by all genders than the women’s sports. >
  
  Men and women don't spend the same money. Women spend a LOT more money than men. >
  
  You make it sound like women just go around throwing cash at stupid shit when the article clearly states women are being exploited for their money. 
  I don't think this is the argument you want to make here. >
  
  Yes just like the article states, women are being exploited by purchasing overpriced shampoo and handbags. I can’t believe society puts chemicals in the $6 male shampoo which makes it poisonous to women. >
  
  There’s nothing stopping men from using women’s hair care products. Most men don’t care to protect their hair and will use harmful shampoos and conditioners (if at all).
  It’s not that men’s shampoo is harmful to women, it’s that most men’s shampoo is harmful to everyone but men just don’t care. >
  
  
  It’s not that men’s shampoo is harmful to women
  
  He was making a joke >
  
  This is CMV, it wasn’t just a joke, it was a joke with a point. A point being that men’s shampoo isn’t harmful to women and that they shouldn’t be afraid to buy men’s shampoo. 
  Which is nonsense as I already explained. >
  
  The quality of shampoo should not be given by how harmful it is, to me, living in Europe, this notion was completely new, what i noticed here is that: 
  Low quality shampoos have little degreasing power, 
  Hgh quality shampoos have high degreasing power, 
  Woman's high quality shampoos have coconut oil in it. 
  I guess in the us low quality shampoo manufacturers find more profitable to use potentially harmful substances than to sell a product that works poorly. People, please, shampoo it's a virtually useless product, y'all should not buy it at, all rather than possibly compromising on yours own's health. >
  
  ? The main purpose of shampoo is to essentially remove buildup from your scalp.
  The problem with shampoos is actually specifically that removal of buildup, if it’s too strong it strips your hair of its natural oils it needs.
  “Low quality” shampoos are exactly the ones with the highest “degreasing power” >
  
  
  “Low quality” shampoos are exactly the ones with the highest “degreasing power”
  
  I did not explain myself properly, with low quality, low degreasing power i mean a product that really doesn't do shit. With high quality, high (higher i should have said) degreasing power i mean a product that does the job like it is supposed to do. not dish soap. 
  
  ? The main purpose of shampoo is to essentially remove buildup from your scalp.
  
  Yeah, thank you, but do you actually need it? Will not using it give you a mysterious illness? Is it extremely antigenic not to use it? No, so now that i've read how unregulated chemicals are in the us i think i would just rinse my hair with water rather than risking exposing my skin for years to a possibly even carcinogenic substance. >
  
  Former woman athlete here and I can say that women are not supporting sports, indeed. Men championships are more expensive and that's okay. Let's try to make ourselves better instead of wanting others to get worse. >
  
  I think you are putting too much emphasis on who is supporting who. Sports, at the end of the day, is entertainment. You watch sports because you enjoy watching the game played at a high level, thus are willing to spend money and time on it. The fact of the matter is, a lot of women’s sports are just not near the quality of men’s sports from a consumer standpoint. The WNBA is the best example. Lower scoring, slower paced, smaller ball, closer three point line than the NBA. Let’s say there was a second men’s league with the same quality of the product being put out for the fans as the WNBA. Would anyone choose to watch that when you have the actual NBA as an option? It’s not like the G league is bringing in much money/attendance and it’s still a better quality or product. Also what makes a basketball crowd go absolute wild? Huge slam dunks, which more or less never happens in the WNBA. 
  Now this isn’t even true in every case at all. Look at MMA. Some of the highest selling ppv cards and most watched TV events ever have been headlined or co-headlined by women’s fights. They are also on the same cards as men’s fights. Tennis is another example. If you surveyed everyone in America and asked them to name one tennis player, men or women, the overwhelming majority would like say Serena Williams. 
  So the women’s sports leagues that aren’t making money aren’t really because of their gender, it’s because of the quality of product they are putting out for the fans. >
  
  1) you’re considering only one sports whereas other sports like women’s tennis are just as popular as their male counterparts
  2) women’s sports aren’t as popular because in general the potential around the world for a woman to become an athlete essentially doesn’t exist outside of the industrialized world at all, women are treated as second class citizens in a healthy portion of the world where they’re not allowed to drive or attend school let alone wear appropriate athletic clothing accordingly, that limits markets
  3) specifically for the wnba the athletes don’t have an opportunity to market themselves and create a brand like their male counterparts because in the off season they’re playing overseas in order to get more money, most athletes are on a livable wage in the wnba but it’s not luxurious by any means
  4) women’s sports are very popular specifically around the Olympics, women’s gymnastics, women’s volleyball, women’s beach volleyball among several others but Olympics sports in general don’t get the recognition other professional sports do outside of the Olympics that goes for men and women
  5) there also is the whole motherhood thing, male athletes make enough and their bodies do not go through massive changes during child birth to allow male athletes to dominate and be successful we’ll into their 40s, this isn’t the case for their female counterparts yes serena was able to come back to tennis after the birth of her child but she was nowhere near as dominant, you can see it in other sports too where it’s just really really really hard to get your body back to the point of being one of the best in the world after a 9 month layoff
  In sum, no there isn’t one reason female athletes aren’t paid the same and a lot of it has to do with market share but as illustrated above there’s a tonnnnnnnn of other reasons too including longevity >
  
  Why is that though? 
  Like do you think things like access make it harder? 
  For example, in the year where the women’s euros were shown on major channels in the UK and televised live, 1 in 4 people in the UK watched live. Which is comparable to the mens. 
  Before that they were not majorly advertised or televised. If I want to watch women’s league… how do I? Do they get any where near the advertising even slightly? No. 
  Is it impacted by women not being allowed to play in the same stadiums as men, making it consistently harder for people to show up?
  Is it impacted by commentators who show less enthusasism for the reason being they are women playing? 
  Is it impacted by women being barred from these sports within the last century? With women being actively surpressed and pushed aside for their male counterparts? 
  Do you think their achievements being overwritten by men impacts this? For example, where people were claiming Andy Murrary was the player with the most gold medals in Tennis, he wasn’t Serena and Venus Williams were. Or where recently people claim that multiple male football players have the most trophies and are the highest stat wise, they aren’t, Putellas is. 
  Do you think that a thread throughout culture as seeing woman as the secondary sex effects how we treat women and treat their endevaours in all accounts?
  do you think it is effectsd by how we treat youth leagues? For example not offering girls to play? Not giving then access to the same sports as men? And giving access later in life? 
  For example, 10 years ago, in my hometown there was and is a prominent youth football club. Prominent enough scouts from premier league clubs come for youth players. 
  I was only allowed to play in the boys team until it got “serious” (until scouts began watching matches. There were no girls equivilant. Now there is, and they have a A team and B team for each age group. But, this isn’t common people travel hours to play, and the people that often have to travel multiple hours are girls. Do you think this has a carry on effect? 
  Compared to boys where in a town of approx 40k have 4 different teams avaliable to join, where these hurdles to jump are not there.
  EDIT: 
  I am not saying women’s sports should be paid the same. I am saying I think these reasons are a stronger case rather than there isn’t enough woman to woman solidarity
  I also do not know american football or basketball. Those sre not sports in my country.
  Also… Capitalism and buisnesses existing does not mean the owners and people involved are devoid of bias. Remember, buisnesses used to turn away paying customers because of their prejudice. Capitalism existing does not mean people couldn’t possibly be sexist etc. >
  
  !delta
  I think that women’s sports does have less of a history than men’s sports which could play into the support. How long do you think it will take women’s sports to take hold now that opportunities are more abundant? >
  
  decades at least, you need the grassroots level of girls to get into the sports who are only just now seeing them on TV and seeing it as a potential career path. >
  
  The WNBA is sitting on 26 seasons. They play off set from the NBA so the seasons/games don’t cancel the other out. The WNBA still hemorrhages money. How many decades will it take? >
  
  26 seasons is 26 years?
  How many 26 year olds have kids these days?
  Sports are a generational thing. You learn the sports you play from your parents and you play with friends who have learned from their parents
  The single most important statistic to predict if someone is going to become a successful professional athlete is if their parents were one (training routine is well known, other connections for training and opportunities, then some genetics)
  We are at what generation two of professional women's basketball?
  Like most sporting stories, to become wildly popular it needs a star athlete who can be watched by families together and have movies made about their underdog story >
  
  Ok, fine. You think the 26 years is not enough time. What about the women's March madness? It pulls in a 1/3rd of the viewership as the men's tournament. It been around for 40 years.
  They technically are the same sport. But in no way are they the same game. >
  
  WNBA would be be over the moon if they brought in 1/3 of nba revenues >
  
  Naw, they'd still be ungrateful. >
  
  It's not about gender supporting their own, it's about the sport itself and which is more entertaining.
  Basketball - men's sports are more entertaining because it's more physical/aggressive and they dunk.
  Tennis - it's an even sport because the way the men and women play are pretty evenly entertaining. Some women even play better than the men, and they're often watched.
  Most sports are dominated by men not because other men support it, it's because men are genetically/biology stronger (most of the time) that there's a lot more variables and possibilities that can happen, like how men continually break the world record for swimming or running. People care about record breaking results, regardless of gender - if a woman broke the world record (for all, not exclusive to girls) then she'd have more viewership.
  And note, the salary discrepancy in WNBA is because of the revenue. The NBA is actually subsidizing the WNBA. >
  
  
  Some women even play better than the men, and they're often watched.
  
  I don’t think this is really true at the top levels of tennis. Probably the 100 best men could each beat the #1 best women every time. I think sometimes you can watch games with mixed gender doubles, and basically a woman can never return a serve by a man. >
  
  Try like top 700 maybe even more. >
  
  
  Why are corporations going to invest money into lucrative endorsements, television deals, marketing, etc, if women don’t care about it? As Bill Burr pointed out, and polls prove, women are much more likely to watch Real Housewives and or the Kardashians; and those women make millions if not billions.
  
  if women prefer the Kardashians then the solution is market women's sports to men because men prefer sports. would be foolish to rely on a demographic that prefers watching soap operas instead of the one that prefers watching football. >
  
  men don't want to watch women's sports, this mostly applies to teams sports. 
  it's for a variety of reasons, it could be argued that sexism is one. but imo sexism accounts for a inconsequential amount of their lack of viewership. 
  performance is the number 1 reason imo.
  do people really believe that if women were more atheletic then men that nobody would watch due to sexism?  
  even the most sexist men i know would still watch women if they are doing something physically impressive. >
  
  If quality of the product was the main determination in how many people watch the games, then why are college sports so popular? They are not as good at the sport as professionals, yet a ton of people still watch them. >
  
  I think the main draw of college sport is familiarity. If I go to my nearest professional football team’s game they have millions of supporters and I will likely never interact with the players on the pitch. If I go watch my local college play, I could very likely have a beer with them after the match. The issue is that the average college football team is on par with or better than the average professional women’s football team in terms of quality, which doesn’t give me a good incentive to watch the women’s game. (No disrespect to the women players though, they are still miles better than the average Joe!) >
  
  I am not trying to compare the skill levels between college men and professional women, I am just pointing out that playing at the highest level is not a requirement for having a lot of fans. If fans only wanted to watch the very best, they wouldn’t watch college sports.. so there has to be something else that is the cause. >
  
  Some of that is representation too.  People will cheer for their tier-3 team if they represent the highest level of competition that *represents you*.
  Like some small town in England will have fans simply because it represents the local populace.
  College alumni often feel similar, and sometimes college ARE the highest level of competition as I said above.
  There is no sport or region in which a women's team isn't worse than multiple other teams representing the same geography or group (that I'm aware of).
  The women's national team in in almost all sports gets mauled by high school boys, so it's hard to feel as "represented" by them. >
  
  I sincerely doubt the revenue cares for the genitals of where the money came from.
  They don't earn as much because they're not as attractive for sponsors, whom the money the sponsors are after comes from is not irrelevant. >
  
  People watch what interests them. There are pro badminton players that are just as skilled at their craft as Lebron James is at Basketball. But, Americans don’t watch it. So there’s no money in it, in America. Women’s sports are similar. The audience is much smaller, which means less advertising, less sponsorships. Women golfers and tennis players seem to do well. It depends on the sport. 
  You can’t force people to care about something. Athletes are paid based on the popularity of the sport and the amount of revenue it generates based on viewership. >
  
  Women in sports (wnba for example) aren’t asking to make the same money as men, they want the same percentage as their male counterparts. They currently aren’t getting that. >
  
  
  Now this is not to say that support for female leagues falls entirely on females, but if we want to compare it to male sports, which is marketed to and primarily supported by men, then the preponderance of the responsibility does.
  
  The logic there is that since men sport mens sports, women should support women's sports.  Right?
  But why should men support mens sports?  And is it even true?  I couldn't find any statics about the gender makeup of different fan bases.  the WNBA is not popular, but women's tennis is.
  my intuition is that since most sports fans are men, most viewers of women's sports are probably also men.  But I can't prove it. >
  
  Your intuition is correct wrt the WNBA. More men watch than women >
  
  For the most part, there are no such things as men’s sports. Those competitions are typically open to everyone but at that elite level it’s only men who can compete. People of all genders like to watch the best of the best for entertainment which is why those competitions get more viewers than the artificially created women’s-only sports. >
  
  I'm all for enterprise. I way am.  But the market has spoken.  TV shows often get canceled after horrible reviews.  New ones pop up that can attract and audience. I don't go to men's basketball games when I can watch it on my couch for the cost of a monthly cable bill.  They're exciting around the playoffs, like all male dominated sports.  With that, I don't think I'll ever go to a women's basket ball game after trying to watch one or two.  Boring.  The women are athletic, don't get me wrong, but I rarely hear about slam dunks after stealing a ball, dribbling crazy humanly possible and flying from the free throw line with an overhand center net slam dunk. Their wild personalized ball handling are incredible and then again, the occasional fights. I'm not alone in my thinking. And not just my gender.  Women are not supporting women's pro basketball in America.  It's bizarre to watch a women's basketball game that's part of national organization for more than 25 years. Don't ask for equality or equity.  I'm for equity and equality in OPPORTUNITY  to flourish, but not at the outcomes.  Ask how you can make your industry a better product to attract a paying audience.   Right now, your audience size is reflecting the attraction to your product.  2 cents, only. >
  
  This is actually true. The reality is that most people that watch sports are guys, and we’d much rather watch guys play sports than girls. 
  Women on the other hand don’t watch sports as much. I’ll keep it real, every girl I know watches love island, kardashians, rupauls drag race, etc. for some reason most women rather watch reality TV than wnba, and most men would rather watch nba than wnba. 
  I had an argument with my sister about why wnba players get paid less and I made the point that all these feminists argue for wnba players all day, but when the time comes they don’t even watch their games. They constantly complain how the nba players need to sacrifice their own salary and fund the wnba players, but these girls won’t even take time out of their day to watch a single wnba game. They’d much rather find out who Kim or kourtney is dating now. The harsh truth is that WNBA is really difficult to market to the regular tv watcher because it’s not as flashy as the nba. The people Ik that watch it are all basketball fundamental nerds. People that super deep into the technicalities of basketball. It’s always people that play basketball or coach it. I can even watch it because I’m into basketball on that level. But the avg nba watcher that just likes to watch lebron dunk on people and never plays ball couldn’t sit through wnba becuase it lacks that excitement. The average woman who can’t even sit through an exciting nba game, will def have even less interest in the wnba, yet they have the audacity to fight for them instead of becoming that audience the league needs to pay the players. It’s stupid. >
  
  Enterteinment gives lots of money but to get the money someone has to watch the show you give. 
  So you earn depending on that. People not seeimg woman sport and demanding that they should get more money makes absolutly no sense. And is just virtue signalling. >
  
  It's not about supporting one sex vs another. The question people need to ask themselves is why would people watch women's sports as much as men's and for the same reason? It's like expecting the lower leagues to be as popular as the higher leagues and calling it unfair if they aren't. >
  
  
  Tell me why this opinion is wrong.
  
  Is there anyone who thinks women get paid less for a reason other than less people watch women's sports? I guess I am confused as to who you expect to change your view. It might help to offer examples of what you have seen or read that say otherwise as a frame of reference. >
  
  Some argue it's because of discrimination of women and because of this, should be compensated. >
  
  Then you look at the WNBA and find out that they get paid way more per view than the NBA. >
  
  The WNBA actually lose a pretty fat amount of money every year. To the point of like 88,000 a player in the negative >
  
  There are no male sports. There are sports, and there are woman sports. Because women are allowed to play "men's version of a sport", they just can't play as good. And men just watch the best teams out there, not a 'limited league'.
  It's foolish to expect someone (women, for example) to watch women sports out of solidarity. Because men don't watch sports out of solidarity.
  I watch sports because it's fun to watch. And the only female sport that I watch is woman's chess. Cuz I'm not that good, and their games are easier to follow. >
  
  The reason that there are no "male sports" is most sports are designed to showcase skills that men tend to have.
  For example, women tend to be able to keep a consistant pace in marathons better than men, tend to be suited more for endurance, and recover from fatigue faster.  Additionally, balance is different, and flexibility  tends to benefit woman.
  So, yes, there is "open" and "womens", but that ignores that "the sport was designed for men playing it" angle. >
  
  So what is an exciting sport that is an opportunity for women to excel over men? Because keeping the most consistent pace in a long/ultra-long distance race isn't exactly the most exciting measure of success.
  There are very few sports which play to a woman's strengths that a man wouldn't still manage to dominate. The issue isn't just that most major sports were designed by and for men, it's that male advantage is so widespread that it is almost impossible to design a sport that women would be better at.
  For a sport to be optimized for female bodies, it needs to play to the advantages of a lower body weight/smaller frame while also not benefiting from higher upper body strength, or just be super-long endurance. That means team sports are out, leaving a few gymnastic events where male competitors could still probably be competitive, and ultra-long distance races. >
  
  I think Ultra Long Distance sports would be fun. Tune in hours later and be like "oh shit, the men all collapsed but the goat Tina Riley is still going strong!" I picture like a Forrest Gump cross country (literally) thing. >
  
  ULD races can be fun to watch short clips of, but no one is going to watch a 24 hour race in full, and it doesn't have the traction to maintain a large viewership. >
  
  yeah but you asked what's exciting and women can compete, not what's a sport that will maintain a large viewership >
  
  Is a sport that people only tune in for brief moments to see if anything interesting has happened in the last 5 hours actually "exciting"?
  Ultra long distance races make for good human interest stories after the fact, if something actually happened during the race other than the racers running for a really long time, or if one of them has an interesting backstory. Beyond that, it's just "wow, that's really impressive. Anyway..." >
  
  I mean running in general doesn't have a good audance following because it is..... A bit boring. 
  There are lots of people who enjoy running and very low barriers of entry ( easy rules, different length races ) but that doesn't translate into viewing figures yet pretty much every lad who enjoys rugby, cricket ,tennis , soccer watches this and follows a team. >
  
  Absolutely. There's a reason that Usain Bolt was so popular and yet I can't think of a runner in a +800m or longer race who's a household name. Long distance running becomes uninteresting real quick, and remains so until the first few finishers enter the final kick, then it becomes boring again. >
  
  Agree,
  Even then Usain bolt is the one of the Rare ones. He has loads of charisma and was the GOAT of running and ehas huge market appeal. 
  The 2nd best runner is who? >
  
  The problem with women's sports is that they try to be too much like men when they are absolutely not. For the WNBA, maybe 1 or 2 people can dunk? And that's just barely getting a hand on the rim? Not exciting. In the NBA you have a handful of men who CANNOT dunk. If the WNBA made it so that the sport is different enough for women that they can make it entertaining, such as lowering the rim, then I think they would be better off. The women's sports are ignoring the basic biology that makes the top 1% in women's sports significantly inferior to the top 10% of men. >
  
  No, it's because men are better at most sports because they're bigger, stronger and faster and thus most people (men and women), find it more entertaining to watch. People want to watch the best. >
  
  Occam's razor but people will come up with stupid bullshit to cause drama and be opressed. >
  
  The best athletes make the most money. People want to watch the best humans at a sport. 
  So you'll never have the same support for womens sport cause it will never be as good as mens sports. 
  People just need to get over it. There are other ways to live a happy life other than being a rich athlete. >
  
  I disagree that it’s about “the best athletes”. I think it’s more that so many women didn’t play sports and don’t understand the rules of the game, so who cares now? Vs men who played on teams and played casually and probably even bonded with their male relatives watching sports while women served their snacks in the background. >
  
  
  ”. I think it’s more that so many women didn’t play sports
  
  I'm sorry every girl in the UK payed football, hockey, netball ect in school. I don't know about the whole world but I imagine that is similar. 
  
  while women served their snacks in the background.
  
  Maybe 100 years ago. Not in the last 30 years. >
  
  You’re right, I’m thinking more of American football, serving snacks for men during TV games, men watching football all day on Thanksgiving while the women make the meal, all part of common American life now and certainly within the last 30 years. They didn’t even have a Super Bowl or TV for watching sports 100 years ago. 
  Never played soccer or hockey and never heard of netball ¯_(ツ)_/¯ >
  
  In this context hockey = Field Hockey >
  
  
  They desperately need more investment….
  
  I don't necessarily disagree that they could use some marketing.
  But you said that right after pointing out that they lost to a U15 FC Dallas boys team. This is not a marketing issue. This is a biology issue. Boys are just faster, stronger and more agile. No amount of marketing is going to fix that. >
  
  A professional world champion women’s team with better coaches and better equipment would/should easily be able to outsmart 14 year old boys. Despite the biological differences. >
  
  Why do you think this? It isn't just soccer. It happens in quite literally every major sport. The Canada women's hockey teams play in the men's junior high school club leagues and lose all the time. That is roughly their competitive level. >
  
  They’re playing the same sport, with the same requirement of skill level. It takes women the same amount of time out of the day to train, the same food and work out plans, the same equipment, the same number of off-team support members like coaches and managers, the same travel, the same schedule, the same everything. You don’t pay people off their viewership. That’s like saying if you have one male McDonald’s employee, and one female McDonald’s employee, you’re going to pay them based on how many people come to their drive through window, not on their merit or what it takes to do their job. People choosing to go to the man’s window more often doesn’t make his job any harder than hers, it just means people like him more. 
  If you’re going to say the wage gap is acceptable, womens sports and the skill, talent, and physical toll should be lesser than men’s and reflect their pay grade then. 
  I also find it so interesting you say, “if WOMEN want them to be paid equally”. You’re making this a “women’s issue” of feminism or something, and it’s a weird way to expose your actual feelings. Because why wouldn’t men want equal pay for everyone unless there’s misogyny involved? Why does them getting equal pay without equal viewership UPSET you? How does it even affect you or ANY man on earth if a male and female basketball player have the same amount of money in their bank accounts? >
  
  Don’t blame this on simply women not supporting female leagues. Unfortunately, female leagues simply do not pull in enough revenue to support higher salaries. But the lack of revenue is driven by lack of support across the board. Both male and female. I don’t know what could solve this. >
  
  Why does it need to be solved? >
  
  I know a lot of female players are upset they do not make the same as their male counterparts. Same effort but less money. Once the franchises start bringing in comparable revenue we will likely see salaries level off. >
  
  Anyone who uses "effort" to justify what a profession is worth and not the value that profession generates cannot be taken seriously. >
  
  I saw an interview with a WNBA player recently (don't remember the name, my apologies) in which she stated that the issue wasn't that they wanted the same pay as male players, but that they wanted the same percentage cut of sales. They receive a base salary, whereas male players receive a cut of ticket and merch sales.
  Its really easy to get lost in the popularity comparison, I did too for a long time, but it allows leagues to structurally undercompensate women athletes >
  
  That ignores a very important point. The WNBA does not make any $. Any merch sales they do make go towards recouping some of the $ lost. They lose about $10,000,000 a year. Meanwhile the NBA is massively profitable.
  The salaries cost WNBA $15mil a year and they lose $10mil. They would lose even more if they didn't include merch sales in that final figure. 
  It not a reasonable request as long as the WNBA is not profitable. If anything they should be thanking their lucky stars that the mens league is willing to subsidize them. >
  
  Women sports aren’t nearly as produced as men’s sports. If women’s sports was as produced and competitive as men’s sports I’m sure more people would watch. But game tickets can be expensive, so why spend money on the less played up version? The only way women’s sports will be more watched is if it’s more interesting, and it won’t be more watched without more money, and it won’t make more money without being watched more. You see how this goes in a circle. You’re basically saying people should “invest” in women’s sports but why would anyone do that when men’s sports is an already existing, better option? >
  
  What production values are you suggesting that women's sports need to be comparable? If women's sports have comparable performances by the competitors and lower ticket prices, wouldn't fans see that as a bargain and flock to fill the seats? Or do they need more t-shirt cannons and better mascots? >
  
  I’m talking on screen visuals, the quality of the sports casters, etc, and yeah better tshirt cannons and mascots I guess. All of that stuff attracts viewers, and male sports have more money so better all that stuff, which attracts more viewers, gaining more money, and so on forever. And on top of that I’d argue that women’s sports don’t have a comparable performance. The men being bigger and faster, hitting eachother harder, throwing the ball farther, faster, all that stuff makes for a more interesting viewing experience, especially in direct comparison to women’s sports. >
  
  Top level of any sports should always be compensated based on their ability to generate revenue. They are the 1% of the sport anyway who made it. 
  But the grassroots is where the majority of people who want to take part in sports are. You don't want pay disparity at this level --- equal facilities, opportunity and support for those who don't make it should be here. 
  Again this won't happen on its own because the male version of sports is more competitive so the pressure focus and competition is much higher in the male sport because of the money involved.
  But this is where women sport needs to be artificially compensated --- like a start up burning money, hoping to become successful.
  Also no one watches sports out of solidarity. People watch sport for entertainment. Viewer gender doesn't matter. >
  
  The people complaining about how much women athletes make are usually the people who don’t watch sports at all, let alone women’s. I agree with the idea that we should do away with gendered sports entirely. Let the whiny people in the wnba see how good they are against men. I bet the pay complaints stop, because they wouldn’t have a job >
  
  No they just want men to do it for them like usual. >
  
  
  ...  Why are corporations going to invest money into lucrative endorsements, television deals, marketing, etc, if women don’t care about it? ...
  
  I imagine that the NBA funds the WNBA to maintain a politically correct image.
  
  ... If women want female athletes to get paid like men, they need to put their money where their mouth is.  ...
  
  I don't want people to get cancer.   Does that mean that I should donate all of my money to anti-cancer research?
  The reality of life is that we don't always get what we want.   I don't see why we should begrudge people who have fantasies about the social significance of women's sports any more than people who fantasize about being astronauts or pro athletes. >
  
  I wanted to chime in about fan culture, as someone who is a huge fan of the NWSL and women’s soccer in general and a cis woman. I live somewhere with an NWSL team and an MLS counterpart, and frankly, i just don’t feel like I fit in with the fans of the men’s team. There’s a lot of gate keeping in fan culture, as well as toxic masculinity that make pursuing interest in these teams a lot more work for women. 
  I’m of the opinion that the apparent lack of interest in sports from women comes from being essentially boxed out of the male dominated fandoms that sports teams create. That isn’t to say that there aren’t female sports fans of these teams, there certainly are!! But they aren’t immune from taking part in the gatekeeping and toxic masculinity as well, because that’s kind of how those fan cultures are? 
  Discovering women’s soccer and how much more inclusive the fan experience is has been a (no pun intended) game changer for me personally. It is CERTAINLY not perfect, definitely a lot of problematic discourse and obsession with specific players, but a much better fit for myself as a cis woman looking to support sports teams. 
  That said, I’ve encountered a ton of the issues that make being a fan difficult that other folks have brought up in this thread, accessibility being a huge one. For WoSo, it’s gotten better, but there’s a long way to go. Men’s teams have whole TV channels and shows dedicate to just chatting about what’s going on in teams/leagues, whereas I have to know who to follow on Twitter and seek out podcasts by passionate people who are huge fans themselves, certainly not getting paid the big bucks to do it. 
  As a teen, I loved soccer and played, but I had no idea when USWNT games were being played outside of the Olympics and World Cup, or that the second iteration of a U.S. domestic league for women was in the process of collapse. Women’s pro soccer essentially didn’t exist for me, who lived in a small town with very little opportunity outside playing AYSO and high school. It took the third iteration of a pro league (the NWSL) to get to its 7th season I think to get a media deal that wasn’t completely fucking annoying to get access to and watch. I wasn’t even aware of the league before then, I got invited to some games in 2019 and I was in my late 20’s by then!! 
  Anyway, my point is that women don’t support sports, not because they aren’t or wouldn’t be interested, but because the patriarchal history and nature of organized sports has systematically made it a “men’s space” forever, and that was  a conscious choice for decades!!! It takes a lot of emotional energy for a woman to fight to be taken seriously in any male dominated space, even if it’s just a recreational fandom. Nothing kills the fun faster than someone talking down to you about something you enjoy because they assume you don’t know what you’re talking about, or you can’t be a “true fan” because you haven’t been a fan since birth, or even getting annoyed for asking questions to learn more. 
  I digress, go Thorns, fuck MP. >
  
  Exactly! Women would watch dramas like Kardashian and other similar shit, rather than watching inspirational content. >
  
  I don’t even like women commentators on televised men’s sports. That’s just a preference issue.  I don’t like to watch women’s sports nor do I like women commentators in the booth during men’s sports.  It’s a preference.  And that’s okay. People are allowed to have preferences.  And clearly, I am not in the minority, or this CMV wouldn’t exist.  
  If women want more women sports, turn off the kardashians and start watching some women’s sports.  Buy some memorabilia, get some season tickets.  Because that’s how women’s sports will grow.  Not by forcing people to watch things they don’t want to watch, or by taking monies from what’s profitable and giving it to what’s not.  That’s pretty basic stuff there, once you disentangle all the feelings and virtue signaling. >
  
  The WNBA has lost an average of $10 million per season since inception. The league has never returned a profit. If salaries were based on a percentage of revenue, WNBA players would have to pay to play. >
  
  Revenue is total money taken in before expenses. So the -$10 million would be after expenses, and therefore not revenue. >
  
  Okay, so after salaries are paid, the league is losing money. The players get a paycheck to lose money for investors. >
  
  
  Okay, so after salaries are paid, the league is losing money.
  
  I'm not sure if paychecks alone move the league into the red. But certainly after ALL expenses are paid the league is negative without considering externalities. 
  I was just correcting the comment about revenue. Every business makes positive revenue by definition (unless they literally sell 0 things). >
  
  Just going to point this out: women’s National soccer teams are an exception to the rule, not the norm. >
  
  Depending on the sport, women’s sports could be more entertaining to watch. But overall it is due to lack performance vis a vis men. It’s simply not as impressive. While I would likely not be able to perform on the level of elite female athletes, when compared to elite male athletes there is a clear schism in quality >
  
  Why would we want there to be just as much money in female sports? When we should want there to be less money in sports in general. It's ridiculous and most of it goes to rich people's pockets, just making them richer >
  
  I mean yeah, supply and demand. It’s not like the salaries to athletes are regulated by the government. I really don’t understand why people find this so unreasonable. Sincerely, a feminist >
  
  Hot take: most people watch sports because it is exciting and not because they are fans of the sport. 
  I think that’s important to distinguish. Although there are many people who are die hard fans and understand the intricacies of each sport, there are even more people who watch for the freak athleticism or who get behind the excitement of a live crowd. 
  This is coming from a big fan of sports in general, women’s sports included (mainly basketball and soccer). It is a completely different game and when you’re breaking down the competitive play in these leagues, the play making is beautiful. 
  On the other end of the spectrum, you have many people that watch football because of the dominating athleticism of Derrick Henry or playmaking/ vision of Pat Mahomes, etc. And then you have Steph Curry and Dame hitting half court shots regularly - not to mention these 7+ foot athletes that can handle the ball and shoot 3s.. They are absolute freaks. 
  But when you have people watching strictly for entertainment and not for the love of the game, we see a huge disparity in views/ support. And I think the people watching for entertainment heavily outweigh the true fans of the sport. >
  
  I won't change a view I agree with >
  
  Glad you said Bill Burr >
  
  The issue is completely unrelated to any genders who are watching any competition. 
  Let's get a few things straight: We're talking about the entertainment industry, where people decide to spend their time to get entertained and get in touch with a sport because it generates value for them.
  People usually have a limited amount of free time which they can dedicate to such activities, which means all those sports are competiting against each other. 
  About 99% of those viewers couldn't care less about skills of athletes. They are not good enough themselves to judge that, they are not involved enough with the sport, all they care about is being entertained. I can show how that's true: Cristiano Ronaldo once masked up and played with a ball in a pedestrian area. nobody cared. Literally nobody cared. There was a multiple Ballon d'Or winner pulling the craziest tricks and people just moved past without even looking.
  So what drives people to those events? Brands.
  The bigger the involved brands are, the more attention an event will generate. Which btw also becomes apparent in the video I linked. Once CR7 took the mask off he got immediately surrounded by a bunch of people. It didn't even matter that he couldn't play with the ball anymore, they were attracted to his brand and not to his skills.
  Brands need time to grow, which is why some female league don't get any attention when they get out of the box. 
  However, that doesn't mean that nobody cares about women. Look at tennis, swimming, skiing - there are plenty of sports which have a long history and support women categories for decades. People watch them. In some sports like swimming you can even make objective comparisons and clearly see that women are slower, but as I've already mentioned, nobody cares. 
  People care about entertainment, and you get the biggest "wow" effect when you watch sports/leagues/clubs that are big brands due to their decades long history.
  To round this up: 
  
  If women want female athletes to get paid like men, they need to put their money where their mouth is.
  
  This, is completely irrelevant. Only because people spend money on something it doesn't change how said sport/league is perceived by the public. It's not sustainable and wouldn't change a lot. You'd see the same effect like we saw it in football in the past few decades, where some rich companies or people bought out clubs to funnel money into them. At the beginning, this even deeply hurt those brands (clubs) and people spoke out against them, didn't want to support them and said their success isn't justified. It took many many years until some of them recovered.
  You'd get the same result when you start a movement where women start to put their money into those leagues, more than you'd judge as usual. People would come out against this and say whose clubs/league don't deserve the money, because they didn't earn it and they'd have an even harder time to stay afloat. >
  
  There's a reason sport is segregated. Naturally for that reason, Male sports are going to be more competitive and attract more fans. >
  
  I think it’s uncomfortably and awkwardly simple: men hit harder, run faster, and throw farther than women do. 
  If you want to watch a contest of speed and strength, then you get more of both at a men’s event.  Awkward to say but statistically true.
  Women’s events are fun to watch and can be very entertaining, don’t get me wrong, and probably give better entertainment value for the ticket price. >
  
  I've seen this debunked so many times now lol, and although I can't speak for other sports I know that the US national women's soccer team gets paid more than the men's soccer team.  Simply for the fact that the women's team wanted a monthly salary (which they got) whereas the mens team only gets paid per game they play. Adding everything up the women end up getting paid more.
  AGAIN, I'm not speaking about other sports, but I dont think it's because women dont support female sports teams. Here's a video of you'd like more details. >
  
  Why would female athletes be playing for women, or female leagues geared towards women?
  Do you watch men's sports because you are male?
  This doesn't make sense. >
  
  Someone watched the Bill Burr red rocks netflix special. >
  
  Someone watched Bill Burr's latest Netflix special