comment: >
  
  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.
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