10-18-2016, 07:31 AM
(10-17-2016, 10:42 PM)Navy Maven link Wrote:I chose the rookie as the lowest paid player on an AFL list. The lowest paid player in the AFL is earning more than double the proposed figure of the highest paid womens player, and over 11 times more than the regular draftees.
Even with your argument of the women only doing a 6 month season compared to the men doing 10, that still doesn't add up. And $5000 for 6 months work, that's absurd. I know that the women will have added flexibility to work on top of playing, but their options will be limited given they'll need to find a job to fit around their training and travel commitments for half of the year.
I don't agree with the argument of equal pay for equal play when it isn't the players dictating how long their season is. I have no doubt that all of these players would make the same commitment in terms of time as the men if given that option. I dare say most of the players will also play for their regular clubs throughout winter also (for no monetary return).
As for Wimbledon, I agree in part to what you're saying, however I don't think the women should be paid less, simply they should play 5 sets also.
As i said, i agree the money is a bit stiff, but nobody is forcing them to take it. They are not slaves and are making a choice of their own free will.
They are doing so knowing they are likely to earn more in the future.
Don't forget it was in our lifetime that the men had to have a job outside of football to support themselves.