[Closed] Equal pay in Sport

Equal pay in sports is in many cases, political correctness. That for me is disrespectful and counter productive. I work in finance and a women absolutely should be paid equally for equal work. However is sports its about performance and viewing figures / sponsorship and in the vast majority if sports its not the same.

Tennis: When the women do 5-set matches they've earned the same as the men.

Yet we have a separate category for women.

One of the key things that defines 'sport' is the idea of fair play and 'a level playing field' - in athletic and endurance events - such as cycle racing - physiologically a man will always have a better power to weight ration than a woman so a competition of that nature where men and women compete head to head wouldn't be 'fair'

Similarly we have categorisation of sports by age with junior and veteran categories for the same reason - to have fairer, closer competition, and is some sports you'll have classification by size or weight.

Fair rates of 'pay' are a different issue. Its not about a pay rate in the same way that a conventional job has a pay rate and scale. In an employment situation you get a wage for being good enough not for doing your best (all though those might be the same thing) and certainly no for [i]being[/i] the best.

Sport is about winning prizes, and the size of those prizes is dictated by the level of support that sport receives from spectators / fans / viewers, either from their ticket money of from the sponsors and advertisers that want to reach those fans. The money doesn't come from nowhere, its directly proportional to the volume of popular support that sport receives. The more fans there are the more profit motive there is to stage an event and the more prize money you can offer to attract the competitors this fans want to see.

So the big money is in being the best in the world in something that [i]everyone[/i] wants to watch you do. I remember a Ted Talk where Rodney Mullen talked about his skateboarding career and being 'the best in the world at something nobody was interested in anymore' which why he's not a multimillionaire even though there a very few people who are better at their sport than he was at his.

Keep it fair - just base the pay on the number of people who come to watch. Simples.....

Full equality

Tennis: When the women do 5-set matches they've earned the same as the men.

I suppose thats the point in a way - in tennis men and women don't compete against each other, but they compete in the same courts, in the same tournament in front of the same audience who've all paid for the same tickets. The mens matches might be longer than the womens, but competitors don't have to fill out a time sheet (although Isner and Mahut probably wish you did - [url= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isner–Mahut_match_at_the_2010_Wimbledon_Championships ]double bubble[/url] )

The value of prizes in professional sport are a surely a drop in the ocean compared to revenue. So why the use of revenue as a means to evaluate the 'fairness' of earnings...?

In terms of sponsorship,it would be interesting to compare a high-profile female female athletes earnings compared to a middle-ranking male in the same sport.

As for the 'when women play five sets' argument, when women have the choice of playing five sets that may be valid. I'm not sure they are offered the choice.

All a bit pointless though really, because even where women are shown to add equal financial value to the bottom line - they are still paid less on average. E.g. Female board members, CEO's etc...

I'd like to see a tour de france for unfit middle aged blokes

(using me as the living definition of the upper limit for admissible physiology)

All a bit pointless though really, because even where women are shown to add equal financial value to the bottom line - they are still paid less on average. E.g. Female board members, CEO's etc...

And they shouldn't be. I'm all for equal pay for everyone doing the same job but what seems to be being asked in sport is for is equal pay for people doing a lesser job in terms of actual performance/ viewing figures/revenue generated.

b0ll0cks

it's a self fulfilling prophesy - promote womens sport less, deprioritise them on the TV schedule then say 'oh no one watches it so it doesn't generate the same revenue, therefore you get less money'

pay them the same

[quote=edhornby ]b0ll0cks
it's a self fulfilling prophesy - promote womens sport less, deprioritise them on the TV schedule then say 'oh no one watches it so it doesn't generate the same revenue, therefore you get less money'
pay them the sameFootballers? Do you think the leading womens footballers should be paid as much as the leading men?

Who by?

it's a self fulfilling prophesy - promote womens sport less, deprioritise them on the TV schedule then say 'oh no one watches it so it doesn't generate the same revenue, therefore you get less money'

So these massive multinational sports and media organisations lose out on billions of pounds worth of income and profits just to spite women?

So these massive multinational sports and media organisations lose out on billions of pounds worth of income and profits just to spite women?

No. It's probably more to do with the fact they can't be arsed to support an emerging market for women's sport when they can continue to milk the male sport bandwagons they jumped on 70 odd years ago.

I'm just not convinced that the greedy buggers would pass up a money making opportunity.

I'd go as far as to say that Sky would sponsor and televise competitive daffodil growing if they thought it would turn a profit.

Its a bit of both

Men are physically stronger so when they do sport it will tend to be beter [ faster stronger not necessarily aesthetically] better so they will always attract the most fans - and i assume most sports fans are men - and therefore get the most money

That said we also do have an issue with the promotion of female sports stars and the pay they get

Even the very successful female track athletes wont be getting what their male counterparts do and this disparity does need addressing.

It's similar to what goes on in Hollywood with actors salaries. The woman are paid way less than the men, even when they have comparable box office appeal. Question is, why do they accept it?

The woman are paid way less than the men, even when they have comparable box office appeal.

Women's football top flight crowds? Last season the average crowd in the English Woman's Super League was 892. Their pay should reflect the size of crowds their game attracts.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/33501771

[quote=scotroutes ]Tennis: When the women do 5-set matches they've earned the same as the men.

I wonder how large a proportion of the total time they spend playing tennis as part of their "job" they spend playing matches, I wonder how much total time the women spend playing tennis compared to the men.

Though if you want to base pay on the amount of time they spend performing, presumably female downhill mountain bikers should be paid more than the men? Paula Radcliffe should be paid about 800 times what Usain Bolt is?

[quote=aracer ]I wonder how large a proportion of the total time they spend playing tennis as part of their "job" they spend playing matches, I wonder how much total time the women spend playing tennis compared to the menDunno. I don't watch them practising. Do the TV companies show it?

It's similar to what goes on in Hollywood with actors salaries. The woman are paid way less than the men, even when they have comparable box office appeal. Question is, why do they accept it?

Depends on what they think you will bring and what they can get away with, not always by gender.

John Travolta got only (ONLY!!!!) $150,000 for Pulp Fiction - much less than all the others including Uma Thurman.

Sean Astin (Sam Gamgee in LOTR) got only £250,000 for the 3 films; much less than Cate Blanchett.

Chris Evans (Captain America) got $300,000 for his first appearance and 3 million for Avengers. Scarlet Johanson got £6 million.

[quote=scotroutes ]I don't watch them practising. Do the TV companies show it?

You know when you see a TV newsreader perform for 30 minutes, that doesn't mean they get to snort coke for the other 23.5 hours a day.

There's a simple answer to this, keep woman specific sports, but allow any woman that fancies their chances to enter the mens event. If they're good enough they'll earn.

You can't go supplementing womans sport on the basis of equality, that's mental.

You know when you see a TV newsreader perform for 30 minutes, that doesn't mean they get to snort coke for the other 23.5 hours a day.

Not what I heard about Bill Turnbull.

I wonder how large a proportion of the total time they spend playing tennis as part of their "job" they spend playing matches, I wonder how much total time the women spend playing tennis compared to the men.

But the thing with tennis is that the women are still able to play doubles in the big tournaments whereas the men simply can't, if they are going to be competitive, enabling them to earn additional prize money.

The simple fact is sport is "eat what you kill" if people are paying to watch then you get a decent slice - people will only invest in promotion if they can see a pay back.

Its nowhere near as simple as numbers of people who come and watch, it's pretty obvious that promotion has a lot to do with. The sports that run men's and women's competitions concurrently, in the same venues and on the same broadcasts, like Tennis, and a few of the Olympic sports: Athletics, Swimming, Track cycling etc. all unsurprisingly generate a lot more interest in women's sports than those that are totally separate like football. That means that the female stars of those sports are household names, and people take an interest in their results. Consequently I suspect the prize money and pay is probably more equitable in those sports.

I bet if you had women's premier league matches played right before or after the men's fixtures, or a women's Tour de France run over similar stages, and all broadcast on the same channels you would see a very rapid growth in their followings. They might never reach the same level, but it would be a lot more even than it is now. As it is the women haven't had the chance to prove that people would want to watch them.

Drop a quick line to HoSport at he Beeb then, theyre a bit desperate for action these days. They could be the channel that satisfies the pent up craving for women's sport. Winners all round....

I bet if you had women's premier league matches played right before or after the men's fixtures, or a women's Tour de France run over similar stages

It's a reality in sport that viewing figures get you the money, women's fitba being associated with the men's wouldn't make a great deal of difference. It'd see a possibly see a very slight increase in interest, but certainly not enough to keep the TV companies interested in bidding for it regularly.

Heck if you're supplementing womens fitba, then I want scottish fitba supplemented. And by extention, I want supplemented, personally. Why should one aspect of society get a supplement and others not, after all we're all about equality are we not? If we're championing socialism for one aspect of society, then lets go the whole hog.

Plus, womens fitba is gumpff, that's just the reality. The product will need to vastly improve before the TV networks take an interest.

Also it's another reality in sport that if you want to earn you'll need to travel to earn, with the likes of womens fitba, well head off to america, they had decent viewing figures for the womens world cup just past, so there's obviously going to be a market developing there. I think you'll struggling in europe if big bucks is the aim.

surely this is best addressed by only having one category in a given sport and letting pure performance decide who wins and gets paid.

Like Formula 1? Look how that works out...

It wouldn't be very appealing to some females if it was mixed only. I think there is a place for gender specific sports if it encourages others to take part. I'm not advocating females and males shouldn't be allowed to race either I'm just saying there is a place for different categories.

They might never reach the same level, but it would be a lot more even than it is now

Have you ever watched it at club level? Viewing figures would be very low after the novelty wears off (don't think it would be cost effective) but I'm not against it being shown I just don't think it would get the exposure you reckon. Would be nice to see a match of day version though.

fitba

Equality is important and should be made to work.

it's a self fulfilling prophesy - promote womens sport less, deprioritise them on the TV schedule then say 'oh no one watches it so it doesn't generate the same revenue, therefore you get less money'

mikewsmith - Member
fitba
????
Equality is important and should be made to work.

There is no equality in sport, pretty much goes against the entire concept of it. Men don't get paid the same either.

football/fitba

Men don't get the same as?
Sport doesn't want to tackle the hard issue, one of the biggest problems is to fix pay equality is it will cost more, it will be a huge investment but as nobody is really bothering to try we won't get to see the rewards.

one of the biggest problems is to fix pay equality

They had pay equality in the 1960s when there was a max wage for footballers. Jimmy Hill fixed that though.

Equal pay in sport? Easy to say. Who is paying the money though? I'm sure the British tiddly winks team would like equal pay with male footballers as well. They don't have the audience figures or advertising pulling power either.

Even when strength and endurance are not factors I don't see campaigns to have equal competitions rather than separate male/female events. Curling or Olympic shooting events for example. Why not make those open events. Actually the shooting events were open events from 1968-1980. Were they changed because only two women were ever good enough to win medals?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_at_the_Summer_Olympics

Sport at top level is not about equality it's about measuring inequality.

You can't go supplementing womans sport on the basis of equality, that's mental.

So true. There's a huge movement going on with this one flaw, forcing equality is completely unequal.

Sport, is primarily a business not a sport in this context.

Pay per unique view is a consequence of that. If you want equality you need women's football/cycling etc to receive the same viewing levels. It's not a case of effort on the individuals part, it's about the individuals ability to generate revenue for the business. Whether women are getting paid equally per view is something I'd be interested to see more on. Tennis was mentioned earlier, would have thought viewing figures would have been pretty similar?

In an ideal world we'd all be paid for effort. But we're not.

If male footballers weren't paid such idiotic, ridiculously high salaries, there might be enough left over to increase the salaries of women footballers.

2015 mens' FA Cup final, attendance 89,283
2015 womens' FA Cup final, attendance 30,710
2014 mens' friendly v Norway had lower gate figures than the 2014 womens' friendly v Germany
I don't know the TV viewing figures, but on the Wembley gate figures alone you might expect the top women players to be paid a generous salary. But they aren't, not even close

I don't know why more women tennis players are not up in arms about not playing 5 sets. To me this is deeply patronising.

Female athletes should be permitted to take performance enhancing drugs so they can run as fast as men, and men should be made to throw underarm. We're lucky there's no shopping trolley events because we all saw how badly men performed on supermarket sweep..

Plus, womens fitba is gumpff, that's just the reality. The product will need to vastly improve before the TV networks take an interest.

So people will watch and like sports for a lot of different reasons, it's not just about athletic prowess in most cases. So a lot of women's sports would be successful and make money, IMHO, if more effort was made to develop and promote them in interesting ways.

IMHO, if more effort was made to develop and promote them in interesting ways.

So a lot of women's sports would be successful and make money, IMHO, if more effort was made to develop and promote them in interesting ways.

So enough (general) winging. Make the effort, promote the sport (as above there are TV channels starved (?) of decent live sport) and fill the latent demand. Everyone's a winner.

Either than or a nice windfall tax on all male professional sports men. That the normal answer... 😉

Firstly, as most paid sport is financed by sponsors, it's upvto them to pay what they want.
Equality. "Fair" is treating everyone the same. Women's sport is therefore unfair as in most cases the more competitive players, men , are excluded. You win some, lose some. Let's see men burning off a 14 year old Chinese girl in some gymnastics. I fail to see why women's sports are watered down. Can't they play 5 sets or do 4000 metres team pursuit?
Equal pay? Yes if those paying the bill agree and yes if the event is the same.

The governing bodies of sports are supposed to represent the interests of the players and fans. They have a responsibility to encourage kids to take up sports. Most of those kids will never become professionals, but those amateurs are the bulk of the players and fans. The revenues from sponsors and broadcasting are supposed to build the sport. Part of that is encouraging girls to take up sports. No, they won't be able to compete with men in most sports because of genetics, but that doesn't mean they try any less or are less deserving of consideration. The sponsors might have commercial interests at heart, but the governing bodies have a responsibility to treat women's sports equally. The governing bodies' responsibilities are not to make profits, but to ensure that the players and fans are treated equally and fairly. Why should women world champions have to fly economy class when their male counterparts have everything laid on by sponsors and governing bodies?

Tennis: When the women do 5-set matches they've earned the same as the men.

You could say equal money for equal effort - if you watch womens tennis live you will see how much effort they put in to a match - it can be exceptionally high unless there is a big gap in skills (which unfortunately there is as you go down the rankings).

I don't know why more women tennis players are not up in arms about not playing 5 sets. To me this is deeply patronising.

Five sets might be an issue therefore considering the effort level. Maybe there could be some other reworking of a set structure so a match can reach a middle group between the 3 and 5 sets.

For most sports if you really want to see how it is done technically then it is best to go see women play it live - the fact that they physically can't muscle their way through technical short comings (mostly) means that they have to execute it better.

If male footballers weren't paid such idiotic, ridiculously high salaries, there might be enough left over to increase the salaries of women footballers.

Tennis is a good case study, I've attended numerous ladies only tournaments as well as watched many ladies matches at grand slams. Ladies tennis can actually be more interesting especially on grass where its somewhat less power orientated. Tennis is one sport where ladies prize money is comparable.

Golf, ditto been to a few mens and ladies events. Whilst ladies are very skilled their level is way below the men and crowds are minimal, this does mean you can easily follow the best players but its not surprising they receive way less money.

Cycling, the ladies Olympic road race was far shorter and went past at a snails pace in comparison to the mens. On that basis I wouldn't pay much to watch ladies only events.

Altheltics, probably here the performance difference is quite marked.

So it really is about the revenue that can be generated. Men are notorious for not watching tv. Sport does drag them in so its not surprising advertisers will pay a premium and hence the sportsmens rewards are greater.

Men are notorious for not watching tv

Tell me you're joking.

2015 mens' FA Cup final, attendance 89,283
2015 womens' FA Cup final, attendance 30,710

What was the difference in average ticket price.

Cycling, the ladies Olympic road race was far shorter and went past at a snails pace in comparison to the mens. On that basis I wouldn't pay much to watch ladies only events

I still don't understand why the BBC doesn't bring back Grandstand promoting women's and minor sports

I still don't understand why the BBC doesn't bring back Grandstand promoting women's and minor sports

I'm from a sports obsessed family and this is an often discussed topic. Mum watches netball, and England netball do market international and Super League to recreational players but don't see much effort outside that, so despite getting Sky Sports coverage it stays niche as a spectator sport.

My girlfriend plays football but had no interested in the women's world cup (which did get good coverage and promotion) because she thought the games weren't worth watching as the players simply aren't as good as the men's game. The quality certainly has improved in recent years though. We've been to a couple of international women's rugby matches and they really are a poor standard.

[quote=mark88 ]Trans World SportNow you're just getting super-niche. Lets deal with womens sports first....

Vickypea and mikewsmith +1.

I love the reasons people use to stand up for inequality. It's absolutely amazing to me how people can see huge disparity as appropriate. Probably best at this point to forget that people used economically-based arguments to support colonialism and slavery - and saw it as 100% justifiable.

People only watch women's sport when there's nothing else on telly! 😉

...and on a serious note - I don't think women 'buy' into sport as much as men. Men are armchair experts, we have to have the latest kit, even for a round on the council golf course. They need the latest footy strip to go and watch their team.

In general men are suckers who can be sold anything! So the marketing and money is aimed directly at men.

My wife has never said to me - 'we really to spend £80 a month on Sky so we can watch sport all day'.

Equality is all very well but pro sport is primarily entertainment and the amount people/teams get paid is (at least partly) dependent on how many eyeballs they attract. I don't get paid for my mediocre cycling and running.

I always wondered if women don't watch sport because there is no women's sport on TV to watch when they are young and so get into the habit of watching.

[quote=andyfla ]I always wondered if women don't watch sport because there is no women's sport on TV to watch when they are young and so get into the habit of watching.There's definitely a chicken-and-egg thing going on.

If more women watched womens sports on TV, it would be worth more to the advertisers which would mean more income into the sport which would make more women want to compete (and mean that they could be better paid). It perhaps needs some "intervention" to get that ball rolling faster than it is.

(of course it would help if more men watched womens sports too but that's still not encouraging more women to compete and upping the standards)

Is there equal pay in sport.
Do all male footballers get paid the same. Do all male cyclists get paid the same, if not on what basis are their wages defined, is it due to market forces. Could the same reasoning be behind how much woman get paid rather than they get paid what they get paid because they are woman.

To watch Arsenal ladies £6 concessions £3

To watch Arsenal men's non members if tickets are available £27- £97 depending where you sit.

Google image Arsenal ladies game, in the majority of the pictures there are lots of empty seats this despite an adult ticket costing the same as cod and chips.

Start filling the stands and the TV companies may take more of an interest.

In general men are suckers who can be sold anything! So the marketing and money is aimed directly at men.

Women can also be persuaded to pay £2500.00 for a pair of Jimmy Choo heels.
And more for a bag to go with them.
It's all about where the marketing people decide focus their energy.

It's not just men that are suckers for marketing.

It wouldn't even necessarily need to be equal pay, just less of a huge gulf would be a start.

vickypea - Member
It wouldn't even necessarily need to be equal pay, just less of a huge gulf would be a start.

ffs, look at the tv deals english fitba gets. 5billion v 75million for scotland over 5 years.

inequality exists in the mens games. and it exists within leagues aswell, it's just the nature of the sport that the best dominate finances.

If womans football could provide the viewing figures they will get the money.

It's now over to you to promote your sport.

[url= http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-18882091 ]Explain this please.[/url]

holst - Member
Explain this please.

You can't fairly compare Arsenal ladies pay with Arsenal men's.

The question is do Arsenal ladies get paid the same as a men's team who generate the same money as they do. And at a gate fee of £6 i would say that team would be much lower down the leagues. And If that team on average gets paid more, you can claim sexism.

Do you think the Arsenal mens reserve/youth teams - who will be getting much lower gate receipts- possibly lower than the womens get paid more than the womens team?

Its not just the financial/support aspect though one cannot ignore this and it is a very important factor in it.Personally I think that is the primary cause though there's still some sexism at work.

you need to see both sides and also factor in it is probably harder for females to break into some sports - driving seems to be one as an example.

Ok seosamh77, I'll explain. About the same time as FIFA was spending tens of millions of dollars making [url= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Passions ]a propaganda movie that grossed $319 on its opening day[/url], the women's world cup holders had to fly economy class to compete at the Olympics. Nonsense like this happens because the administrators of major sports are corrupt old $%^@s who don't give a rat's &$#@ about the sport or the fans and they brush off criticisms with lame excuses about tv revenues and commercial concerns.

[url= http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/jan/14/female-f1-driver-bernie-ecclestone ]Here's another %@*$heel that should have been pensioned off decades ago.[/url]

Holst +1

[url= http://www.tsmplug.com/football/arsenal-players-salary-list-2014/ ]matchday and gate £93 million.[/url]

There are plenty of lower league teams that would love to see that money too. Get in the queue.

average attendance figures for Women's Super League One : 1,076
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/34447139

average attendance figures for the national leaugue (or whatever the popular term is these days): 1.906
http://european-football-statistics.co.uk/attn/aveengnl.htm

In the womans league earnings are around 15k to 25k

In the mens national the earnering are around 20k to 40k.

As you go down the leagues the men will get paid less and less, until they are paying for themselves.

seems reasonably comparable tbh.

I think we should distinguish between prize money and sponsorship when talking about sports "pay". There's a good case to be made that event organisers and governing bodies should offer the same prize money for men and women. I'm actually seeing this at a number of local bike races now. I think it encourages more women to compete and reinforces the perception that women's racing is just as serious as the men's.

Sponsorship is a commercial arrangement between a sponsor and a specific individual, usually for marketing purposes. The financial arrangement is determined by how valuable a sponsor thinks an individual athlete is, irrespective of gender. I would guess that Paula Radcliffe's appearance money and sponsorship remuneration for the London Marathon was much greater than some of the male competitors, because of her greater media value.

Youse are getting it backwards btw, it's not prize money or equal earnings is sport you should be griping about, that's irrelevant and a consequence of something else.

And that something else, is investment in grass roots, as opposed to championing the rights of individuals to earn extra cash.

Should there be extra investment in womans grass roots football, and promoting it at that level, yes absolutely imo. There needs to be more investment in the grass roots of mens football too, it's something these islands do very badly. Hence the need to import so many at the top level.

I can not get behind the idea of supplementing mediocare players wages. It's not where the focus should be at all, and it's a waste of resources. I can get behind grass roots development, in both mens, and possibly skewed in terms of womans football(in the short to medium term to give it a much needed boost). If womans football wants to get better, it'll need to invest in youth and massively expand the amount of women playing, that's down to investment to a point, but it's also a cultural change where you'll need to encourage young girls to play from a very early age.

Personally, it's a big task, and as I've mentioned, it's probably more likely to be successful in the likes of america or the scandinavian countries and their success will likely influence here, but that shouldn't mean that it shouldn't happen here..

How should it be funded? Well prize money to the top teams should be taxed for it to happen. But tbh, the greed in fitba is against you here. I think most football fans would agree, if given the choice, to take from the top and give to grass roots. But, in reality that's a difficult task.

^^ agreed - grass roots is incredibly important.

in the spirit of the above, I reckon it would be an interesting idea if there was a tax put on players wages by associations, say 2%, and that money invested directly back into grass roots.

How that money would be spent is up for debate, but I reckon it'd be a good idea.

A lady competitor in a local triathlon complained that the first ten men got prizes but only the first five women. The organiser replied that proportionally more women got prizes and that the podium prizes were identical. The war of words went on until the organiser said that he would no longer have a separate lady's category, make no distinction whatsoever on the basis of sex and would award prizes to the first fifteen whatever their sex. The top women then got involved and the original prize system retained.

Seosamh77 - fair comment but footy isn't my sport. I used to play in my 20s with men, but I don't even watch men's football any more because of the obscene amount of money the men are getting.
I do watch womens' cycling and athletics though.

To watch Arsenal ladies £6 concessions £3
To watch Arsenal men's non members if tickets are available £27- £97 depending where you sit.

If you look at cricket and rugby significant resources have been and continue to be put into the women's game at the grass roots level. At U13 there are 400K girls compared to 700K boys in rugby so there is plenty of grass routes support. Drop off levels are higher for females, partly because the additional investment is quite recent but also participation level for females does drop off more in every sport.

Drop off levels are higher for females

At the higher level

Australia's women's national football team has called off its entire tour of the United States as the pay dispute with the FFA continues to escalate.

The Matildas on Tuesday confirmed their withdrawal from a Sydney training camp ahead of the tour, and have now upped the ante in calling off their tour of the world champions.

Vivian said that at $21,000 (£10,100) a year for each player, there is no question the Matildas are underpaid.

"They don't even have yearly contracts, they have six month contracts and those six month contracts equate to about $10,500 (£5,050)," he said.

Throw in the other stuff about flights and travel being second class to that of the men (who could easily afford to pay their own way)

I can not get behind the idea of supplementing mediocare players wages. It's not where the focus should be at all, and it's a waste of resources.