Effect of Feminism. They also make the sport itself less money by having fewer viewers and fans.. TENNIS PLAYERS RECEIVE THE SAME PAN' AS .', lill WI HIE PLAYIN Effect of Feminism They also make the sport itself less money by having fewer viewers and fans TENNIS PLAYERS RECEIVE THE SAME PAN' AS ' lill WI HIE PLAYIN
Upload
Login or register
Hide Comments
Leave a comment Refresh Comments (238)
[ 238 comments ]
> hey anon, wanna give your opinion?
asd
#28 - shroomftw
Reply +30 123456789123345869
(06/14/2013) [-]
Women basketball players get paid less than male basketball players and they play equal amount of games, get the **** over it. This is a ****** example
Women basketball players get paid less than male basketball players and they play equal amount of games, get the **** over it. This is a ****** example
User avatar #63 to #28 - damandan
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(06/14/2013) [-]
Yes because the WNBA brings in the same amount of money as the NBA and everyone packs the stadium for the WNBA
User avatar #71 to #28 - KazumaKyu
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(06/14/2013) [-]
I think people playing sports should just make less money across the board. They play a game (and do it well), and that's all well and good, but why is it that a ******* athlete makes several million dollars a year? I could see maybe 2 or 3 million a year for those who play hard-contact sports (as insurance, should they be injured or crippled while playing), but anything more than that is just ridiculous. There is simply no reason for which people should be making 50 million dollars a year.

Hell, in as far as making too much money goes, athletes are almost as bad as the useless lumps in Congress. All those job benefits AND a massive salary? It's not like they do anything to deserve it.
User avatar #228 to #71 - ilikeweed
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(06/15/2013) [-]
I don't think you understand how it works.
They're not paid hat much just because we think they should get paid that much.
They're good at what they do and make the nba and nfl billions by drawing in a fan base and viewers. It'd be ridiculous if the athletes doing all the work only got paid an average salary to sacrifice their bodies and pretty much dedicate 15 years of their life to nothing but that sport while the nba or whatever just keeps all the money.
#185 to #28 - newall
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(06/14/2013) [-]
they also get less viewers, and thus, less sponsors, therefor less pay.

That's how the world works, you earn more, if you're making your boss more.
User avatar #233 to #185 - shroomftw
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(06/16/2013) [-]
So people would rather watch women's tennis rather then men, same applies there
#238 to #233 - newall
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(06/16/2013) [-]
i'm not sure you understand the concept.

WOMEN's tennis, and WOMEN's basketball both get less views than their MEN's counterparts, which is why they earn less.
it's nothing to do with sexism, it's capitalism.

less views = smaller advertisment/broadcasting contracts = less pay for everyone involved, not just the players.
User avatar #239 to #238 - shroomftw
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(06/16/2013) [-]
Yeah but women in tennis don't get paid more than men...
#240 to #239 - newall
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(06/16/2013) [-]
no, they get payed the same, because people who don't understand how televised sports contracts work, complained it was sexism.
User avatar #241 to #240 - shroomftw
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(06/16/2013) [-]
It's not sexism OP's just a massive massive massive faggot
#242 to #241 - newall
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(06/16/2013) [-]
i know it's not sexism, that's what i've been trying to explain this whole time.
User avatar #244 to #242 - shroomftw
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(06/16/2013) [-]
That's what my original comment was trying to say
#245 to #244 - newall
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(06/16/2013) [-]
what OP is saying, is that women tennis players, don't play as much tennis, and yet are payed the same, EVEN THOUGH the men's games are watched more, bring in higher contracts and earn the companies more money.

What YOU said, is that female NBA players get payed less than Male NBA players, which is fair, because they earn less.

TLDR; female tennis players SHOULD earn less, but don't, Female NBA players SHOULD earn less, and do.
User avatar #246 to #245 - shroomftw
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(06/16/2013) [-]
Men do make more but just not in prize money... Women can't play as much or they'll faint or some ****. I honestly don't care if women get paid as much as men, that's usually not the case cuz men are better at sports in most cases and make a lot more, even in tennis even if the Grand Slam tournaments prize money is the same.
#46 to #28 - ronyx
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/14/2013) [-]
That's because nobody gives a flying **** about women's basketball.    
True story.
That's because nobody gives a flying **** about women's basketball.
True story.
#48 to #28 - anon id: dae0fd94
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/14/2013) [-]
they get paid less because there is alot less viewership and they play on a level much lower than men, its not sexism its elitism, its like saying how come some asian grocery makes less money than woolworths or walmart that is because you are comparing some low tier with a high tier. Men's tennis to women's tennis is like comparing men to boys, men train with professional male tennis player hit partners women can barely beat male junior players, even kim clisters a professional grandslam champion said during her relationship with lleyton hewitt she could barely win and hold a point against him. I believe equal pay for equal work but AT AN EQUAL LEVEL. FFS it's like saying how come some female soccer players aren't getting paid as highly as messi or c.ronaldo its obvious, so dont you dare compare some **** tier WNBA with NBA and say some equal pay nonsense.
User avatar #234 to #48 - shroomftw
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/16/2013) [-]
So this is also elitism and not sexism
User avatar #59 to #28 - offsprings
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/14/2013) [-]
They play for 40 minutes. NBA players play for 48. That doesn't sound like much, but through the whole season that's 82 games, that's a 660 minute difference, or about 14 games more. I think they deserve a little more money.
User avatar #60 to #59 - offsprings
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(06/14/2013) [-]
"They" being NBA players.
#98 to #28 - anon id: 3c25139d
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/14/2013) [-]
I wasn't aware normal people watch Women's Basketball.
#155 to #28 - anon id: 5048cbf8
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/14/2013) [-]
Lol isn't that obvious??? Nobody watches wnba and women are **** at basketball.
User avatar #37 to #28 - Thenewguygunther
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(06/14/2013) [-]
while i do believe WNBA players should get payed far more than what they do, especially considering that their male counterparts receive massive multi-million dollar contracts (the average WNBA salary is 72k, average NBA is 5.15 mil) the WNBA season is only 34 games long while the NBA season is 82
#72 to #28 - ilikeweed
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(06/14/2013) [-]
There's a reason for that.   
the WNBA doesn't have nearly as large a fan base as the NBA.   
the NBA sells more tickets, more jerseys, and easily has more viewers.   
this means that the NBA earns more money than the WNBA.   
   
the more money you have. the more money you can spend.   
boom.
There's a reason for that.
the WNBA doesn't have nearly as large a fan base as the NBA.
the NBA sells more tickets, more jerseys, and easily has more viewers.
this means that the NBA earns more money than the WNBA.

the more money you have. the more money you can spend.
boom.

User avatar #30 to #28 - flemsdfer
Reply +11 123456789123345869
(06/14/2013) [-]
It's only a "******" example because it makes a good point. Honestly women should be treated like men in society. Everyone is expected to do the same work. Everyone gets the same pay, same benefits. Period. True equality.
User avatar #31 to #30 - shroomftw
Reply -3 123456789123345869
(06/14/2013) [-]
While I agree with your point, this is still a bad example. Serena William gets paid more than most tennis players, what is that, racism?
User avatar #32 to #31 - flemsdfer
Reply -6 123456789123345869
(06/14/2013) [-]
I doubt it's due to her being caucasian.
User avatar #33 to #32 - shroomftw
Reply -4 123456789123345869
(06/14/2013) [-]
She's not caucasian. And maybe she gets paid more because she's better and people prefer to watch her and she gets paid more for ads etc...

Would you rather watch sweaty men grunt and slap balls for hours or women?
User avatar #35 to #33 - flemsdfer
Reply -7 123456789123345869
(06/14/2013) [-]
I'd rather watch neither. Tennis doesn't interest me in the slightest and I already think any pay they get is too much, but for the reasons at hand I'm just disagreeing with any discrimination between men and women.
User avatar #38 to #35 - shroomftw
Reply -4 123456789123345869
(06/14/2013) [-]
Well equality is a good thing, but still they don't get paid more cuz they're women they get paid more because their salary depends on what people want not what gender they are
User avatar #39 to #38 - flemsdfer
Reply -6 123456789123345869
(06/14/2013) [-]
Well as I said tennis doesn't interest me so of course I don't know that much about it. If they get paid based on just whatever then I guess the discrimination point is moot. OP led me to believe that gender played a part in it.
User avatar #40 to #39 - shroomftw
Reply -5 123456789123345869
(06/14/2013) [-]
OP is a faggot
#41 to #40 - flemsdfer
Reply -6 123456789123345869
(06/14/2013) [-]
Agreed
Agreed
User avatar #42 to #41 - shroomftw
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/14/2013) [-]
And that's that, g'night
User avatar #148 to #42 - rieskimo
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(06/14/2013) [-]
I'm going to assume reading this little thread that you didn't read the description where OP mentions that the females have fewer viewers and fans and therefor further validates that it is ******** that females get paid more.
User avatar #235 to #148 - shroomftw
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/16/2013) [-]
Prize money in these tournaments was historically higher for men. In 1973, the U.S. Open started giving male and female winners the same amount. It took until 2000, however, for the Australian Open to offer equal prize money. Roland Garros (the French Open) and Wimbledon finally began giving equal prize money to men and women in 2007.

Never trust op
User avatar #34 to #28 - RandomAnonGuy
Reply +12 123456789123345869
(06/14/2013) [-]
There's a womens basketball?
#45 to #28 - Nerdcrazy
Reply +129 123456789123345869
(06/14/2013) [-]
They get paid less because the viewing audience is much much smaller, so the television contracts with the league are much smaller. So then the teams get less money and cannot afford to pay them as much as male basketball players.
#142 to #45 - panacea
+4 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #183 to #142 - Timmietim
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(06/14/2013) [-]
Well we like the moans and short skirts..
#147 to #142 - atma
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(06/14/2013) [-]
I was going to say "no, that's why OP is upset," but then I realized that I don't know.
That might be the reason.
#209 to #142 - anon id: 1d4b2fad
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/14/2013) [-]
That's the point, The audiences are probably the same but they get paid more to do manly grunts and show manly legs..
User avatar #236 to #45 - shroomftw
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(06/16/2013) [-]
Prize money in these tournaments was historically higher for men. In 1973, the U.S. Open started giving male and female winners the same amount. It took until 2000, however, for the Australian Open to offer equal prize money. Roland Garros (the French Open) and Wimbledon finally began giving equal prize money to men and women in 2007.

FYI

#247 to #236 - Nerdcrazy
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/17/2013) [-]
Probably because the women's tournaments didn't draw in an equal crowd. Paying someone less because they're a woman is wrong, however paying them less because they draw in less revenue is business.
#162 to #45 - anon id: 9fe43c3a
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/14/2013) [-]
Maybe the reason women get paid more is because more people like to tune in to watch.

Who doesn't like women's tennis? Short skirts, nice legs, women grunting and moaning...
User avatar #85 to #45 - genasi
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/14/2013) [-]
This. I think one of the problems is they play with pretty much the same rules. The basket is just too damn high, so in all of WNBA's history there's been like six recorded dunks. Of course this wouldn't suddenly draw in millions of viewers but let's be honest: We all like watching a guy (or girl) raping the defense and slamming the ball into the basket with a satisfying "THUMP". They should really consider lowering the thing a couple of inches for women
#90 to #85 - anon id: 49d38abc
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/14/2013) [-]
Shut up white skin this thread is for blue names
User avatar #96 to #90 - usernameluisdjlols
Reply +7 123456789123345869
(06/14/2013) [-]
says the anon
User avatar #2 - walkerjam
Reply +108 123456789123345869
(06/13/2013) [-]
Like in Sweden, we have a Royal family. We recently (in the Seventies or Eighties I think) changed so that the youngest kid of the King and Queen will be the successor, regardless of gender, previously, it was the first male kid.
BUT, and here's the kicker; when a male successor get married, the wife will eventually become the queen. When a female successor get married, the husband will never be a king, and will have to settle for prince. Where's the logic in that one?
Equal Rights for the Royal Weds!
I have no knowledge in the subject of royal families at all so if there's a good explanation as to why it is like that I apologize.
#57 to #2 - anon id: 65849345
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/14/2013) [-]
ugh that royal bullcrap is just getting out of hand, we should just cancel remove the king tbh
#70 to #2 - anon id: df9c5b33
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/14/2013) [-]
How about you quit feeding the most expensive welfare leeches in your ******* country?
#139 to #70 - skarre
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(06/14/2013) [-]
Pleb tier republican..
#174 to #139 - walkerjam
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/14/2013) [-]
Indeed.
They will never experience this awesomeness.
User avatar #73 to #2 - auda
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/14/2013) [-]
I thought the rules of succession in Sweden was the absolute cognatic primogeniture. Meaning the oldest child will inherit the title of King/Queen no matter the gender. Seeing a rule of succession using ultimogeniture isn't common and not used very often. I might be mistaken.
#76 to #2 - anon id: bcc4c0dd
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/14/2013) [-]
You are correct. However there is a reson for it. And that is that the King is the "ruler" of the monarchi. He is the ones that signs stuff and goes to events, opens new sports stadiums and what ever kings do these days(I have no idea). But if the King dies, that responsibility goes to the Queen.
So when a Prince marries, he has a gets a queen, and can reign til he dies. But when a Princess marries and becomes Queen, her husband is only a Prince because she is supposed to rule the nation and not him. Yp\ou can only have a Queen regent f there is no King. So to make it possible for a first born daughter to become regent, her husband can't be given the titel of "king". It's stupid, yes, but that is the reason for it
User avatar #82 to #2 - jabbadoo
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(06/14/2013) [-]
Actually, it's the Oldest kid, the first born, who is the successer. And secondly, it's because King is ranked higher than Queen, so if the queen is said to be the ruler, as Victoria here in Sweden, if her husband became King, that would mean he would be the ruler. So, therefore he stays prince and the wifes of a king become queen, since, as I said, King is ranked higher and therefore a Queen would not interfere with a king being the sole ruler.
#178 to #2 - ylegrand
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(06/14/2013) [-]
That is actually sexist, not feminist.

The king has more power than the Queen, that's why in most countries the husband of the Queen cannot become King as they don't want someone outside of the family to become head of state
#9 to #2 - euthyphro
Reply +18 123456789123345869
(06/14/2013) [-]
This isn't anything new. Ever wonder why you've never heard or seen the current "King of England"? That's because there isn't one.   
   
Elizabeth was next in line to inherit the monarchy. She then found a man to marry, and they did so. However, if in doing so, her husband became the King, he would then have more power than his wife -- which wouldn't make sense since he isn't apart of the bloodline. Elizabeth is a direct descendent of the Royal Family, her husband isn't, and under the current rules, Kings have more power than Queens -- so it would be illogical to have her husband become the king; from a bloodline standpoint, as well as from a power standpoint.   
   
Remaining character count: 1337
This isn't anything new. Ever wonder why you've never heard or seen the current "King of England"? That's because there isn't one.

Elizabeth was next in line to inherit the monarchy. She then found a man to marry, and they did so. However, if in doing so, her husband became the King, he would then have more power than his wife -- which wouldn't make sense since he isn't apart of the bloodline. Elizabeth is a direct descendent of the Royal Family, her husband isn't, and under the current rules, Kings have more power than Queens -- so it would be illogical to have her husband become the king; from a bloodline standpoint, as well as from a power standpoint.

Remaining character count: 1337
User avatar #4 to #2 - bosdogg
Reply +39 123456789123345869
(06/13/2013) [-]
A King would have more power than the Queen. They want to keep only their blood at the highest authority.
#201 to #4 - vrox
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(06/14/2013) [-]
Not if there were equality.
In the dark ages, sure, kings had more power, but this is 2013. Theres no reason for a queen to be less powerful than a king.
User avatar #221 to #201 - bosdogg
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/14/2013) [-]
Monarchies haven't changed in that respect. A Queen is basically what the First Lady is to America. Only if there is no King she becomes the ruling power. This one is different because in the Dark ages anyone who married the Queen would be King. This is controlling the flow of power to keep it in the hands of the current royal bloodline. There is no equality what you are suggesting does not yet exist. Perhaps someday.
#101 - imrandybutternubs
Reply +40 123456789123345869
(06/14/2013) [-]
#105 to #101 - falanvaul
0 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
#117 to #101 - anon id: 9a855be4
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/14/2013) [-]
According to feminazis*
#130 to #117 - Seority
Reply +10 123456789123345869
(06/14/2013) [-]
Omg you said something relevant and correct!
Omg you said something relevant and correct!
#7 - swiftykidd **User deleted account**
+34 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
#83 to #7 - anon id: 15cf109f
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/14/2013) [-]
Feminism: "Equal rights!". Gets equal rights. "Things are still not equal, more rights to us and less to men!". They don't understand (or can't handle) that they have to qualify as good as a man to get a job, and begs for laws such as 40% women in the business sector. They are just as good as men, but still have to be employed only for the employer to fill the quota?

Also, I find the tennis example bad. It's like complaining that a sport gets paid more than another one even if it has more games. Sports are paid as popular as they are. If you want a good example check jobs such as firefighting, where women can't work as good as men (physical work), does the less risky jobs, and still gets paid the same.
#1 - anon id: 90895842
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(06/13/2013) [-]
Because it tooooootally comes from your pocket, OP. Understandable frustration.
#14 to #1 - anon id: c29cbabc
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/14/2013) [-]
You are LITERALLY claiming that people shouldn't bother themselves with issues that don't effect them personally. As always, way to think it though NKcitizen.
#3 to #1 - teranin [OP]
Reply +31 123456789123345869
(06/13/2013) [-]
Yeah, just like all those people dying of AIDS in africa are totally me dying of AIDS in africa.  Just because something might not be fully and directly impacting me doesn't mean I can't bring attention to it, or want it to stop.  Furthermore, I am showing a symptom of a greater disease that does have a significant affect on my life.   
   
**** off, Anon.
Yeah, just like all those people dying of AIDS in africa are totally me dying of AIDS in africa. Just because something might not be fully and directly impacting me doesn't mean I can't bring attention to it, or want it to stop. Furthermore, I am showing a symptom of a greater disease that does have a significant affect on my life.

**** off, Anon.
#13 to #3 - anon id: 941b967a
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/14/2013) [-]
Yeah, compare woman tennis players making more money to AIDS in Africa. It's totally reasonable. On AVERAGE woman make less money than men working the same jobs, AVERAGE. Stop being an entitled little **** who likes to find things to be angry about, jesus ******* christ. I don't know if all these people who get worked up about a type of feminism nobody actually believes in have just have small penises, or never had a mum or what but srsly. srs.
User avatar #16 to #13 - teranin [OP]
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(06/14/2013) [-]
Good defense, I liked the part where you just raged for 5 lines without saying anything with substance. The comparison was there to demonstrate the fact that something does not have to be directly effecting my life for me to think it is negative, not to somehow equivocate the levels of negativity between millions of people dying from an incurable disease and women getting paid the same for less work in tennis... ffs.
#22 - stickandmove
Reply +18 123456789123345869
(06/14/2013) [-]
Feminists don't think that's okay either...
#11 - imonaboatman
Reply -15 123456789123345869
(06/14/2013) [-]
It's because women's tennis has much higher viewership. Most guys don't care about men's tennis, but if it's women in tight clothing....
User avatar #12 to #11 - teranin [OP]
Reply +18 123456789123345869
(06/14/2013) [-]
That's actually not the case, women's tennis has a much lower viewership than men's.
#15 to #12 - imonaboatman
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(06/14/2013) [-]
I didn't really think so. I was trying to be funny.
I didn't really think so. I was trying to be funny.
#17 to #15 - teranin [OP]
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/14/2013) [-]
Well. This is me.
Well. This is me.
#62 - fuckyosixtyminutes
Reply +17 123456789123345869
(06/14/2013) [-]
THEY DO NOT PLAY FEWER MATCHES!!!

They just need to win less sets to win said matches. To win Wimbledon, you have to play 7 rounds, men or women.

And this is a retarded argument anyway because tennis players, like other athletes, are not paid based on their effort on the court/field only. They are paid for the money the bring into the sport by way of ticket sales and other viewership.

This is what happens when people who have no understanding of employment economics.
User avatar #65 to #62 - Zeigh
Reply -10 123456789123345869
(06/14/2013) [-]
"They do not play fewer matches!!!"
"They just need to win less sets to win said matches."

lolkay.
User avatar #75 to #65 - janewayunderseven
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(06/14/2013) [-]
It's true, a match is the entire encounter between the two tennis players. A set refers to the scoring system. At wimbledon in a womens match they need the best of 3 sets to win the match. In a mens match they need the best of 5 sets. It's not equal and personally I don't think they deserve equal pay as a result as they provide less entertainment in terms of time on the court but mate don't act like a condescending **** just because you don't appear to understand the difference between the words match and set in tennis.
#116 to #75 - fuckyosixtyminutes
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(06/14/2013) [-]
Ok, so should someone who plays 5 full sets then get paid more than a man who wins in straight sets?
User avatar #120 to #116 - janewayunderseven
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/14/2013) [-]
But in tennis you are paid depending on what level you got to in the tournament not on a match per match basis. Overall on average a man who reaches the same level as a woman in a tournament (say 3rd round for example) will have played more sets to get to that round. That should be rewarded accordingly. Technically the male player will have provided more entertainment to the crowd based on time played. I don't know, you obviously have a different opinion but I'm used to getting paid based on how many hours I work.
#135 to #120 - fuckyosixtyminutes
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(06/14/2013) [-]
Well, you really shouldn't be judging professional athletes based on your own work experience (and I don't mean that as an insult - I shouldn't either). In fact in general how much you get paid is not based on how hard you work, it's based on what financial value you bring to the table (the two are certainly related, but it's the latter that's the bottom line), and a tennis player brings much more than their X hours on the court during a tournament.

Now you could make the argument that men bring more money to the industry than women but:

A. That is NOT what's being argued by OP's pic

B. It would be a bad PR move to reward men more than women anyway
User avatar #69 to #62 - unclebourbon
Reply -9 123456789123345869
(06/14/2013) [-]
Found the feminist guys.
User avatar #64 to #62 - spearpwi
Reply +6 123456789123345869
(06/14/2013) [-]
I hate it when people don't finish their.
#115 to #64 - fuckyosixtyminutes
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(06/14/2013) [-]
Crap. Well, just pretend it's something really scathing.
#50 - anon id: 57af6649
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/14/2013) [-]
Are you trying to be the new Zlamous? Seriously, all you do is pick the worst examples of pseudo- feminism and start **********. You are neither funny nor improving anyone's life.
#54 to #50 - ohnotwoone
Reply +12 123456789123345869
(06/14/2013) [-]
Seriously, literally every time funnyjunk has an opinion on feminism its wrong.
#87 to #54 - mrcinnamon
Reply +6 123456789123345869
(06/14/2013) [-]
Thank god someone said it! I thought I was the only one.
User avatar #173 - commanderbunbun
Reply +11 123456789123345869
(06/14/2013) [-]
like athletes get paid "fairly" in the first place