“Equal pay for equal work should be a fundamental principle of our economy,” bellowed President Obama on Tuesday while commemorating Equal Pay Day. “It’s the idea that whether you’re a high school teacher, a business executive, or a professional soccer player or tennis player, your work should be equally valued and rewarded, whether you are a man or a woman.” Somebody get this guy an editor. He could do with a researcher, too, if the soccer mention was a shout-out to the complaint the U.S. women’s soccer players brought to the Equal Employment Commission. They have had enough of getting paid less than male soccer players, and the left is taking the ball and running with it.
Unfortunately, breaking down exactly who earns more and why involves boring man stuff like running numbers. The U.S. Soccer Federation figured they would take in about $24M last year but were surprised to discover they earned almost twice that and women earned $5.8M more than men. There are dozens of other factors involved in this supposed coup. The Women’s World Cup brought in a lot of money, but the whole event was so expensive it actually lost money. Women get a base salary whereas men don’t. Obama can pretend it’s as simple as equal work for equal pay, but it’s not even close. Even The Guardian admits that the pay structure is a “tangled web.”. . . The demand for women’s soccer is definitely on the rise, but it’s still in its infancy and dwarfed overall by the men’s, especially when you factor in the rest of the world. Manchester City is the richest club in England. They’re in the semifinals of the Champions League and also own New York City FC in the MLS. The average gate at the Etihad Stadium is around 50,000, while the women’s Man U is lucky to get 2K.
Well, that's the Brits, and those sexist limeys have had a male advantage in the sport ever since the first Celt whopped off enemy tribesman's head, and kicked on down the hill. Women just aren't into that sort of thing. They'd rather use poison.In the US, soccer isn't that big a deal yet, and with schools pushing soccer as an alternative to (American) foot ball, it's been more equally split between men and women. However, that's changing thanks to our porous southern border. But I'm going to guess that the Latinos are not going to be buying a lot of tickets to the women's games.
The U.S. women’s soccer controversy isn’t an example of sexist oppression. It’s a new team in a culture of sport that goes back at least 100 years demanding instant gratification after having a good year. Oh, and one more thing. The deal they’re complaining about was set up by their union. . . . I haven’t heard this many complaints come from the island of Lesbos since we sent half a million refugees there.
So next time, girls, demand a better deal. The only way I pay any of it is through my cable package.To question any of this is to deny women their equality. Sorry, ladies, if you want to play with the big boys, you’re going to get hurt. Apparently even their injuries are the result of sexism. Most of us assume the higher rate of concussions and knee injuries comes from the fact that women are different from men. They’re not. It’s the artificial turf that keeps hurting women. . . . Poor babies. I come from a world of real soccer, where men would play in thunderstorms on pitches that looked like mud pits. Real soccer doesn’t include bitching about a rash. It doesn’t include any injuries. When Bert Trautmann broke his neck in 1956 he played through, hoping it would get better. When Stuart Pearce broke his leg in 2000 he tried to run it off. Feminists would like to subject women to these same kinds of standards. That’s downright dangerous.As I said, I'm not a follower of soccer. Both my sons played it, but I could never get past the offsides rule.
Wombat-socho has the giant "Rule 5 Sunday: Blue Shirt Double-Dip Edition" ready at The Other McCain.
No comments:
Post a Comment