Name, Image, Likeness

So... with the current transfer rules (none) why does a player have to officially enter the transfer portal to actually transfer. Every other student doesn't have to tell anyone at his current school that he's transferring to another school. Hmmm...

Isn't the "contract" essentially for one year? (scholarship, etc)
 
Objectively, the women deserved more revenue because they attracted more viewers for advertising.
I remember a similar discussion in professional tennis many years ago. The men's side always had higher prize money even though the women drew more viewers as their game was more, shall we say, visually appealing. The common argument made to defend this practice was that the men's matches are best of 5 sets while the women are best of 3, therefore they are "working more hours." Ultimately I believe the grand slams decided to pay equal prize money.
 
I remember a similar discussion in professional tennis many years ago. The men's side always had higher prize money even though the women drew more viewers as their game was more, shall we say, visually appealing. The common argument made to defend this practice was that the men's matches are best of 5 sets while the women are best of 3, therefore they are "working more hours." Ultimately I believe the grand slams decided to pay equal prize money.
Well, the "visually appealing" rationale might make business sense, but it's gross.
 
Well, the "visually appealing" rationale might make business sense, but it's gross.
It's also not necessarily applicable to soccer. The main reason the women drew more eyes was because they 1. put women's soccer on the minds of band-wagon U.S. fans who live in the most lucrative advertising market on Earth, and 2. actually lasted long enough in the big international events that they were playing in the games with really high ratings worldwide.
 
I remember a similar discussion in professional tennis many years ago. The men's side always had higher prize money even though the women drew more viewers as their game was more, shall we say, visually appealing. The common argument made to defend this practice was that the men's matches are best of 5 sets while the women are best of 3, therefore they are "working more hours." Ultimately I believe the grand slams decided to pay equal prize money.
The US Open has been advertising that they have been providing equal prize money for 50 years. I think it took a lot longer for the other majors to follow suit.
 
I dunno how relevant it is to much of the conversation being had here, but the USMNT is better than the USWNT in the most basic understanding of the word "better." Were the two teams to compete, the men would win, and likely win relatively easily.

Similarly, the Washington Wizards are better than the Auburn Tigers... and the 2-15 Miss Valley State men's hoops team are better than the undefeated UCLA women's basketball team.

How any of that translates to what monies the various players get is a whole different matter, of course.
True. The women are better relative to their competition but not in terms of raw ability. Even at its peak the US women used to scrimmage against and lose to the U-16 USMNT. So in terms of absolute ability the men crush the women.

But we don’t just watch sports to see the very best in a sport, we watch to see good competition — hopefully with our side coming out victorious. The USWNT gave us victories more often than the men, especially in the early 2000’s, so they were more popular and had the bigger TV viewership. Lately the rest of the world is catching up to the US women while the men are getting more competitive on the world stage, so this relationship is slowly changing.

After all, if we only wanted to watch the absolute best players in a sport no one would watch college bball or football, since the pros are so superior. And no one would watch women’s sports if men competed in that sport. But thankfully most sports fans are just looking for good competition between teams we can relate to in some way. Go humans!
 
After all, if we only wanted to watch the absolute best players in a sport no one would watch college bball or football, since the pros are so superior.
I get what you’re saying here and I largely agree but the NBA is a very different product than men’s college basketball. I’m not sure the direct comparison here works well.
 
The US Open has been advertising that they have been providing equal prize money for 50 years. I think it took a lot longer for the other majors to follow suit.
Billie Jean King and the other women who formed the WTA and won the equal pay fight at the US Open, which was part of their larger victory in ending the faux-amateurism era in tennis, were absolute bada** heroes.

None of the arguments had anything to do with the preposterously sexiest reference to visual appeal in a prior post.
 
It’s truly deplorable of men to enjoy watching attractive women. I’m thoroughly disgusted and floored that this phenomenon can even exist in this enlightened age! No doubt women would prefer for men not to watch at all if not for the pure sport of it.
 
It’s truly deplorable of men to enjoy watching attractive women. I’m thoroughly disgusted and floored that this phenomenon can even exist in this enlightened age! No doubt women would prefer for men not to watch at all if not for the pure sport of it.
I don't have a problem with people of any gender enjoying watching attractive people. But I don't at all like the idea that the level of attractiveness is somehow more important than the physical skills and talent. That's the gross part.

If you pull that thread hard enough, you can rationalize signing players for their attractiveness rather than their on field/court abilities.
 
I don't have a problem with people of any gender enjoying watching attractive people. But I don't at all like the idea that the level of attractiveness is somehow more important than the physical skills and talent. That's the gross part.

If you pull that thread hard enough, you can rationalize signing players for their attractiveness rather than their on field/court abilities.
How do you think I have gotten where I have in life? Surely wasn’t based on brain power - all good looks!
 
Livvy Dunne has made a pretty penny in NIL despite being far from the most talented on her team.

Looks sell.

(Not saying that’s good or bad. It just is.)
 
I don't have a problem with people of any gender enjoying watching attractive people. But I don't at all like the idea that the level of attractiveness is somehow more important than the physical skills and talent. That's the gross part.

If you pull that thread hard enough, you can rationalize signing players for their attractiveness rather than their on field/court abilities.
Anna Kournikova says hi.
 
Back
Top