My comment on the media is completely valid, but was't directed at you, just a general point. You may say that newspapers are dying out but the tabloid style is very easy to find online, eg, so and so DEMOLISHES so and so or so and so OUTLOGICS so and so.

Again, the only issue i see in the tennis payouts is the number of sets played. I think you undervalue thd impact of Serena Williams. Are the ladies piggy backing off her? Most probably, just like the lower male players piggy back off Federer and Nadal.

Again, it's not a left or right thing. The question is why are organisations paying the women more or 'equally'? Because at the end of the day it doesn't cost them that much more to do it, the marketing is brilliant and now they open themselves to the other 51% of the market. That is capitalism.

What would you rather see? Equality of Opportunity?
I am not so sure that is a route anyone wants to go down.

That is the point though. Sports is a bit of a false comparison, because, the argument could be that the top 3 male players subsidise the whole sport. So why should an unknown Norwegian male player get the same for reaching the semi finals as Federer, when the only reason we are watching, is because of Fed?

You conflate the amount paid for participation with ability and watchability. The top top players will get the best sponsorships. So the tournament prize money is a basic fee, almost for attending and rewarding progression.

Novak or Fed may be the best, but is it fair they earn so much more than say engineers, bin men or teachers?
You will argue yes, because that is their market rate, I would argue no, because if tennis players, doctors and binmen decided to stop working tomorrow for a year. I know which ones would be missed most.

So, it's fair to say there is a massive inequality in the society, in regards to pay, not just between men and women but in our own groups.

Equality of opportunity is a great phrase, a bit like tightening our belts, but in practice it isn't fair or desirable.

My understanding of it is that everyone should have the same opportunities to do what they want or to be considered for whatever job, etc.

It is an equal outcome. How can you possibly give everyone an equal opportunity, with everything that entails?

As much as I would love to criticise the BBC in this case I don't think its fair.

The BBC is under strict election guideline "Purdah" if they refuse to show Johnson because he wont talk to Andrew Neil they face the real prospect of being labeled bias not just by the rest of the media but by OFCOM or whoever is responsible for the guidelines.

The real issue here is the rules that do not compel politicians to be interviewed by a specific outlet let alone interviewer however those outlets have to show equal coverage. All of this favours the politicians who can pick and choose and still cry foul play.

Perhaps the rule should be changed to force the party leaders to do 1 interview with the major outlets who had the right to choose the interviewer. I doubt they would agree with that idea and what sanctions could you impose if they refused an interview?

Boris doesn't want to be interviewed by Neil because Neil was his editor at the Spectator and probably has a dustbin load of dirty secrets on him. That plus Neil is in devastating form Boris has nothing to gain and everything to lose.

Just to add I would be very happy if Marr invited Neil on his show at the same time as BJ

You could make that argument however it wouldn't be an accurate one. Male players down the chain play in tournaments and matches that don't involve the top three all the time and often draw large audiences.

They are underpaid because the pot is shared with the women.

Both should be paid in relation to the interest generated from their matches.

I'm not that great a tennis fan. The point still remains. The tournament prize is set. No one is putting a gun to the male player's heads and saying take a pay cut. Again, Federer against a nobody in the semi final, by your logic,should be paid more, but the prize money is the prize money, if they want to give bonuses for viewership, great.

Originally posted by Jway89

You conflate the amount paid for participation with ability and watchability. The top top players will get the best sponsorships. So the tournament prize money is a basic fee, almost for attending and rewarding progression.

There is no conflation.....The best squash players in the world get paid peanuts precisely because less people watch them....Your wages should relate to your economic value.I'm not interested in sponsorships. That's a function of the outside market and can do what it wants.

Yes, but the prize money is the prize money for the tournament, so if there were bigger audiences for women's squash games, they should be paid more?

That's why the tax system is different for both.

Absolutely, the only problem is that the they aren't the same, are they?

As I said, equality of opportunity is 'mostly' what you want. The realities of nature mean that isn't possible

Equality of outcome is anti meritocratic......and while I agree with the successful providing safety nets I bulk at the idea that flat structures are desirable or even possible.

We are not all equal.....I believe the strong should help the weak but I don't believe in hampering the strong just because they are strong.

Who is hampering the top male tennis players? No one is saying to lower their earnings,in fact prize money has been going up every year.

Yes, nature deals out inequality, but, that is nowhere near the determinant factor in a person's ability to get a on and be paid on par with their peers. Life for the vast majority isn't playing tennis. The funny thing about the entertainment business is that it is probably the only sector that is heavily unionised, that no one wants to take down.

Yup.
We could sit at our desks whilst you get our tea and bacon rolls.
L'amour oui x