- Thinking About It by Zee Feed
- Posts
- Evolving the equal pay argument
In our Friday Quiz, 83% of people got the question about the Matilda’s world cup pay wrong. Most guessed the gals would get around US$50k each, when in reality they each take home US$165,000 (AUD$258,000). It’s objectively a lot of money. But is it enough? That’s the real conversation we should be having when it comes to pay in sport – but we’re not, because the public discourse is still so focused on whether or not men get more.
I think now is the right time to evolve the way we think and talk about pay. Specifically: we need to stop comparing pay between women’s and men’s sport.
First of all, it’s too easy for haters & misogynists to argue against. We have to accept there is some truth to their reasoning why professional male athlete’s generally make more money. Typically, they do get higher ratings, more advertisers, bigger attendance figures, have bigger talent pools. These things are true. Not only do we look silly trying to insist otherwise, having the ‘facts’ on their side only convinces these kind of people they are right to view women’s sport as inferior. It’s a self-defeating argument.
By insisting men’s and women’s competitions be treated the same when it comes to pay, we obscure the real challenges that women’s codes face. Take soccer as an example. The reason the women’s game is not as the same level as the men’s is because women were literally banned from playing, all over the world from the 1920s to as late as the 1970s. In some countries, women are still banned from playing sport. Of course losing half a century of development has an impact on the talent pool today. Again, silly to pretend this is not a factor. As former Canberra United player Grace Gil told me, “We’re still playing catch up… we’re chasing our tail to get to a point where the women’s game would have been.”
The gaps in development can be so big, they’re almost different sports. We wouldn’t compare the top cricketer in Norway to the top cricketer in India. In many sports, pretending the men’s and women’s game are equal for the sake of the pay argument makes it harder to advocate for other changes the women’s codes still desperately need.
Focusing too heavily on pay as a binary man-vs-woman problem hides all the other factors that have nothing to do with gender at all. My family has personal experience with the pathway to elite athletics. Reaching the Olympics takes a lot of sacrifice, and the chance of being paid to make those sacrifices is slim-to-none. So you have still have to work, but because you need a lot of flexibility it’s likely to be a less stable or lower paid job. Basically, unless your family can afford to support you, competing in the sport is not an option. Talented athletes from low socioeconomic backgrounds are forced out, regardless of gender.
Really, pay in sport is a labor issue – so I’d like to see us focus the conversation more on sport as work. The work of an athlete has KPIs; what is required for them to deliver on those KPIs, and are they paid enough for the time, effort, and skill required to do it? We don’t need to make comparisons to other athletes to ask those questions. At the highest levels, athletes do a lot to build social cohesion and cultural significance that the government benefits from, and that should be counted too. Cathy Freeman deserves to be a billionaire based on what her athletic performance has done for Australia’s national identity.
To put this in real terms: each Matilda got paid $258,000. Their performance delivered a $7.6bn boost to the Australian economy. Did they get paid enough based on how much revenue their work generated for FIFA, for the Australian government, for Football Australia, for broadcasters, brands and sponsors? In my opinion, that’s a much better question to ask. How much the Socceroos get paid is entirely separate (and worth interrogating on its own).
Let’s reframe “female athletes don’t get paid as much as male athletes” to “these athletes don’t get paid enough.” It applies more readily across different sports, but also across industries where working individuals (like athletes) are generating a lot of money for big organisations (like FIFA) but not seeing their fair share.
Good stuff on Zee Feed rn:
This is a great piece pointing out one small word that minimises women’s achievements, in sport and other industries too. I’ve 100% been guilty of saying this, and I bet you have as well. A five-minute read worth discussing! CLICK HERE TO READ.
Smart stuff on the Internet 💭
All the stuff I found on the web that made me think, smile, or have an ‘aha!’ moment. Spend your Sunday reading them – you'll be better off for it:
Boy Problems on Mother Jones
Must-read for anyone with boys or men in their life (so, all of us): “[Manosphere figures] market to a real crisis among men. But they offer a flimsy absolution, despite all the talk of grit: The problem with boys, the manosphere says, is actually just women. ‘They promised that if I followed what they said I’d fix my life,’ Mark remembered. ‘But I just felt lonely as fuck.’”
How Social Media Destroyed the Tween Experience on Infinite Scroll podcast
My pals Lauren, Jordy & the incredible internet journalist Taylor Lorenz discuss how there is no more culture for tweens! Social media has meant that tweens, teens and adults now dress, look and talk the same way & it’s a problem.
The myth of inclusive beauty on Paradigm Shift substack & podcast
Obsessed with Ayanda’s mind. The podcast goes deeper but the essay has good snippets (both linked). “True inclusion would not ask us to alter, modify and optimise ourselves, true inclusion would not ask us to be profitable… Beauty is a fundamentally exclusive attribute. It marks something distinctive or special. It cannot include everyone.”
f