Submitted by throwaway1215123 t3_yewdej in worldnews
Comments
Deztenor t1_iu0u2al wrote
People want a cause to fight for. Whether or not the cause makes sense doesn't seem to be a concern anymore. The demand for inequality and racism exceeds the supply.
Mothrahlurker t1_iu1gpfv wrote
People playing for the national team don't have different match fees, your comment makes no sense.
[deleted] t1_iu4glrb wrote
[deleted]
Mothrahlurker t1_iu4lf95 wrote
It's literally what the article is about, there is only a difference between men and women.
plumquat t1_iu0wu2k wrote
Well they're going to play with trans women so that conservative men start caring about women's sports.
[deleted] t1_iu1rcy1 wrote
[deleted]
plumquat t1_iu371gg wrote
It's just a joke. It's like the conservative men are complaining about equal pay for women in sports because they don't care about women's sports unless there's trans women involved and then they're telling their neighbors dog about it.
Men tend to have low emotional intelligence but is this that sexual competition with women thing. So it's an opportunity to tell women about male physical superiority. Idk why men are like that. I wish you could stop putting women down to jerk off your egos, and mind your own business. Its the world were raised in. Did they lower men's pay. No? Well then eyes front dickbag. You know? It's like a nice thing. So you're shitty that direction, but act like a white knight in the same sentence if there's a trans woman. It's funny.
[deleted] t1_iu3hccg wrote
[deleted]
tobesteve t1_iu2mbn5 wrote
I don't think conservatives care much about trans people.
plumquat t1_iu346og wrote
I don't think conservatives care much for trans people.
jeanclaude1990 t1_iu14dcb wrote
The tennis one always gets me, most men's matches are 5 sets where the women's matches are 3 yet, for Wimbledon at least, they get paid the same
Roronoa_Zaraki t1_iu191g0 wrote
All slams it's the same now. Yet the women's side brings in 30% of the men's. Djokovic actually has a good point that he doesn't want equal pay because paying male and female players the same actually anchors the men's side's pay, and they aren't earning as much as they could, because they can afford to pay the men more but not the women, and he's not talking about at the top level, he means that guys going out in qualifying and R1 could be paid more but the tennis boards are saving money through the guise of 'equality'.
GothicGolem29 t1_iu3lua7 wrote
I mean tbf u never hear the mens players complain and it doesn’t affect the men to give them the same pay
WOKinTOK-sleptafter t1_iu4tc8c wrote
Probably because they would be laughed at and told to suck it up cuz women have it worse.
GothicGolem29 t1_iu9oqyo wrote
Not sure they would tbh many people hold these views
Mostly_Aquitted t1_iu1d71l wrote
I don’t really agree with this on the national stage though. National teams really are mainly for prestige in the grand scheme of things, and as such the players should be compensated equitably.
Not specifically discussing this case here, just in general.
MagmaWhales t1_iu1qkef wrote
Ok but a lot revenue is still generated and the difference in contributions to revenue is night and day
Hoobleton t1_iu1x6in wrote
And the contracts the men get are worth more than the ones the women get, this is just match fees, which are a minority of the players’ income. You don’t have to worry yourself, men will still be paid more.
MagmaWhales t1_iu1xp93 wrote
Ok yeah, base level international match fees shouldn't be too different. I thought it was the contracts which would be a farce.
Hoobleton t1_iu1yea4 wrote
It is the first sentence of the article…
CesarTheGeezer t1_iu1vurp wrote
>National teams really are mainly for prestige
I'm pretty sure there is prize money.
Roronoa_Zaraki t1_iu3rm2j wrote
But if the mens national teams bring in huge crowds and TV ratings which they do in a lot sports Cricket, rugby, soccer, shouldn't the men who bring those crowds in be paid more because they earn the organisation more?
[deleted] t1_iu2aten wrote
I disagree. There is a national team, and a women's national team. If you want to be paid like you play for the national team, make the actual national team.
alias241 t1_iu1gci9 wrote
This is AKA corporate socialism. The way pay levels are standardized based on years worked, and once you hit a "ceiling" your pay growth slows. Guess what...this actually happens in the real world, unless you're more equal than the others.
sharrrper t1_iu0rr1b wrote
Can't read the article through the paywall but heard about this on the radio this morning and my understanding is this is specifically for players on the national teams.
As in the standard fee paid to the players for international test matches while representing India will be the same for both the men's and the women's teams.
It doesn't mean like private clubs or leagues or however cricket in general is structured in India (I'm definitely no expert on that subject) are all going to have to pay male and female players equal.
-Not-Racist- t1_iu0xuid wrote
Yes, BCCI will pay women Cricketers who play for team India in international cricket the same as they the men playing international cricket for India.
And not just test matches, ODIs and T20s as well. Women's team plays like 1 test match in 2-3 years, men's team plays around 15-16 every year.
They are going to start a League for women like IPL, big cash money league. All teams are allotted the exact same budget and then Players are auctioned into teams so whatever Budget is decided by BCCI will again decide how much money they get.
--The__Dude-- t1_iu0ztc5 wrote
On the national team that makes sense
Hoobleton t1_iu1xhbz wrote
It also doesn’t apply to the players’ salaries, only the match fees. So everyone bleating about them being paid the same despite differing revenues has fundamentally misunderstood the facts of the story.
Aleyla t1_iu14vn5 wrote
Sounds reasonable then.
bertiebasit t1_iu0zuwx wrote
A very misleading headline…this is the match fee NOT the playing contracts
JohnDoe_2408 t1_iu1qa4q wrote
Still a big deal given how badly they've been paid so far. Haven't read the article yet, but I think it's a 500% increase.
qaizr t1_iu22dlu wrote
The thing is they only get the fee when they have a match and they have much fewer matches then the men do
JohnDoe_2408 t1_iu23cbj wrote
If you're going to shift the goalpost like that, completely ignoring the substantial equalization, I can also bring up the fact that women's cricket generates substantially less ticket sales, sponsorships, TV ad revenue, etc. I'm not saying that those things shouldn't change, and hopefully the new league will change that, but don't negate something that people have worked so hard to get to.
KodylHamster t1_iu535nx wrote
All that is a matter of popularity. If Indian feminists want the pay to increase, they need to start watching female sports, buy the merch and get drunk in the bar while bitching about the referees.
qaizr t1_iu25h9c wrote
just repeating what I heard on NPR this morning. I don't really care about this story tbh
edit: typo
slikid_ t1_iu2qmux wrote
🤣
A_random_zy t1_iu3rv6q wrote
Because less people watch women's cricket then men's cricket.
Niflheim-Dragon t1_iu0x7fi wrote
This is just the international match fees not the annual contract salary which is paid to cricketers by the Indian cricket board . The contract salary of the men's national team is about 10-15 times higher which is fair IMO .
-Not-Racist- t1_iu0y18i wrote
It's actually still unfair for the men's if you measure the Revenue
SirThrowsAlot22 t1_iu149pg wrote
If its true then its a joke. They are not generating same revenue, they are not playing cricket of the same level and yet they are being paid equally? Please dont!!!!
Hoobleton t1_iu1o7ov wrote
They’re both playing cricket at the international level, yes.
Why should international sport only be about revenue anyway?
They also aren’t being paid equally, this relates only to match fees, which is a small proportion of player earnings. We’re talking about $3,600 per player per match here (up to around $18,000 for a 5 day match, which are very rare for the women to play). BCCI is worth billions of dollars, it’s nothing on their spreadsheet while opening up opportunities for so many women players.
MagmaWhales t1_iu1qxdb wrote
Where does the money to pay them come from?
Hoobleton t1_iu1vip6 wrote
Cricket fans, broadcast deals and sponsors, I suppose.
BCCI makes virtually unlimited money, so they’re using it to support a rapidly emerging segment of the sport.
MagmaWhales t1_iu1xfyu wrote
Yes and the men's team is attracting virtually all of the fans, broadcasters and sponsors, which leads to BCCI having that much money. For the people complaning about women's team not being paid enough, the solution is extremely simple. If you care that much, subscribe to channels that broadcast women's matches and watch every single game. Buy tickets for as many matches as you can and support the team. Buy their official merchandise in large quantities. Purchase goods from their sponsors so they get better deals and attract more sponsors. If all the people complaining actually cared about the womens team instead of virtue signalling online, women's cricket would be in amazing shape.
casperthewondercat t1_iu3u7m1 wrote
The scenario is slowly changing in India. Women's matches are grabbing more eyeballs. They are broadcast on the same channels, media is giving them more coverage and viewership has gone up.
Of course, they don't command the same attention that the men's team has but I've genuinely seen people who follow the women's cricket matches and discuss them.
Hoobleton t1_iu1y70s wrote
> Buy tickets for as many matches as you can and support the team.
Might help when the BCCI put on a women’s IPL eh? Or organise a home test?
Women’s cricket will be in amazing shape when the players, particularly up and coming players, can afford to play it full time. That comes from investment. It’s a pattern we’ve seen across women’s cricket teams: the teams that pay the players more improve the most and attract new fans. An increase in funding from the governing body is pretty well evidenced to be the best way to improve women’s cricket teams.
CesarTheGeezer t1_iu1w2qu wrote
>They’re both playing cricket at the international level, yes.
Correct, but the women arent playing mens cricket.
Hoobleton t1_iu1wvk4 wrote
And the men aren’t playing women’s cricket…?
Malamores t1_iu26y23 wrote
Yeah but they could if they wanted to, not vice versa. The men could just tie up one arm and only use the other.
CesarTheGeezer t1_iu32oe0 wrote
And mens cricket generates more income. Male models earn 15% of their female counterparts, should the women subsidise the male models?
Hoobleton t1_iu3ewhy wrote
You realise that the women’s salaries are staying at around 10% of the men’s and this only applies to match fees, right? Or did you not even read the first sentence of the article?
CesarTheGeezer t1_iu45ni1 wrote
You didn't answer my question: should the women subsidise the male models?
[deleted] t1_iu1w611 wrote
[deleted]
AutoModerator t1_iu098n3 wrote
Hi throwaway1215123. Your submission from bloomberg.com is behind a metered paywall. A metered paywall allows users to view a specific number of articles before requiring paid subscription. Articles posted to /r/worldnews should be accessible to everyone. While your submission was not removed, it has been flaired and users are discouraged from upvoting it or commenting on it. For more information see our wiki page on paywalls. Please try to find another source. If there is no other news site reporting on the story, contact the moderators.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
Xilizhra t1_iu15mcb wrote
Well, a good thing, all in all. Weird-ass sexism from Reddit aside.
frickin_icarus t1_iu0f11f wrote
This’ll last all of about 6 matches haha
Good_Nyborg t1_iu3nyq8 wrote
They should have gone with Cricketeer. Sounds much cooler.
[deleted] t1_iu1v6h0 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_iu3y6xj wrote
[removed]
StrategicTension t1_iu3drhv wrote
*crickets*
46dad t1_iu2ihx9 wrote
Oh boy! I bet the WNBA gets the same deal!
RoyalSniper24 t1_iu2m1pf wrote
No they won't. Fees of some players are more than WNBA budget.
46dad t1_iu2xv7g wrote
I know. One thing about sports: people won’t pay for an inferior product.
nice_cunt69 t1_iu3k3bt wrote
Who pays for sports anymore
InternalEagle5200 t1_iu3pmn5 wrote
Nah. Nobody cares about watching women play basketball. That includes women. It's been subsidized by the NBA for years. Terrible product that doesn't make money. Nobody in that league is going to make NBA money.
csandazoltan t1_iu3mo9t wrote
Can't read the article...
Is it because nobody watches cricket equally in both gender league?
CRimson9943 t1_iu3yu45 wrote
You clearly haven't seen enough countries
csandazoltan t1_iu3yxis wrote
I have a map...
and it was meant as a joke... Here most people doesn't even know that sport even exist.
DaughterofSin t1_iu1sq0f wrote
That’s awesome! India leading the way with sexual equality. The West is falling behind while the Emerging Markets forge ahead
Geesemeece t1_iu25j2n wrote
Are you serious?
Malamores t1_iu27bkz wrote
Probably, plenty of mental people on reddit
Terrible_Artichoke59 t1_iu2l9wg wrote
There's a lot of bots spreading bs from what i read in this comment section
DaughterofSin t1_iu31if1 wrote
Am I serious that there should be equality between the sexes? Yes, I am serious, bro.
Geesemeece t1_iu34vqr wrote
You have no idea what it's like for women in India. Instead of patting yourself on the back for your extremely commonplace views, maybe you should educate yourself.
DaughterofSin t1_iu789nn wrote
Some of the most bold feminist grassroots actions have come out of India in the past decade. India has a LOT to work on for women’s rights. But at least they’re doing it. Good. For. Them. If a few dozen women getting equal pay for equal work and equal representation of their country makes you this upset, you should educate yourself on your own fragile ego.
Geesemeece t1_iu83d3v wrote
They need bold action because the situation is so dire.
kyunirider t1_iu122ez wrote
Why does the logo look like someone on all fours with a small head getting whipped on the ass maybe it’s just me but I can’t unsee it now.
Flower_Murderer t1_iu16bfi wrote
This is great. Now if only the game made this much sense.
bebop_eh t1_iu2buv8 wrote
Still Better than baseball...
Flower_Murderer t1_iu2c3nu wrote
I don't like baseball, so I agree.
kos1111 t1_iu2w1qu wrote
or american "football" which is played with hands
Flower_Murderer t1_iu2w8vo wrote
Not that it'll make me much more popular, but Munich all the way.
[deleted] t1_iu21nob wrote
[deleted]
CRimson9943 t1_iu395y5 wrote
No, they are not even if it is why would it make any difference
Akahige1990 t1_iu1ii7q wrote
...wait, you're telling me cricket still exists? I thought everyone involved would have died of boredom by now....
AnIntellectualBadass t1_iu2azvd wrote
Boredom? Lol I guess you haven't heard of the T20 cricket. It's anything but boring. The T20 World cup is currently going on in Australia and the hype is crazy. Check out the highlights of recent Ind vs Pak game that took place in Melbourne cricket ground and you will see how crazy and amazing cricket can be.
KRyptoknight26 t1_iu2zyla wrote
Don't bother bro. Must likely an American. They can't see beyond their own shadows, let them enjoy their inter-state "world cups"
A_random_zy t1_iu3tum7 wrote
It probably has the most number of fans than any other sport out there.
Roronoa_Zaraki t1_iu0t7qh wrote
Simply don't understand this, same with tennis, it should always be about how much money they bring into the organisation, not the job they do, on that notion, every lawyer at a law firm should be paid the same, every model in every magazine, every actor in a film, regardless of ability and money generated.