logical pitfalls in comparing the two. For example--title IX directly impacts millions of people, namely every girl enrolled in any US educational institution. Subsidizing the WNBA directly impacts, what, 200 people? How do you bridge that gap? There are similar gaps in cost, type of impact, long-term feasibility, equity, etc.
Tax payers shouldn't subsidize entertainment. That would be ridiculous. Put that money into education. We're not talking about trying to get more women into STEM. The WNBA is already being subsidized by the NBA. I'm tired of our government putting money into failing businesses while our economy is going into the trash. We should be investing into education. We should be investing into our infrastructure. We should be looking into healthcare and mental health. There are so many social issues that are much higher up the list than women being paid higher wages in professional sports. A lot of people would KILL to get 150-200k to play sports for a living.
My suggestion doesn't prevent any of those things you're pointing out. It doesn't impact them at all. It would however increase the talent pool and give more kids incentive to further their education. And I didn't say tax payers should support it. I said I would be fine with it if they did.
Improving the talent pool, and thereby the product, would give the sport more exposure to more girls. Lifting the college game, as well as HS. Some of those young people reached by the expanded exposure would naturally choose to be like their role models and play sports. What if WNBA players didn't all have to play overseas to make a decent living and could spend their off season here advocating for and helping to build the sport... Or running camps in less priveleged areas? This would all be good.
I have a daughter. She's 20, and couldn't possibly care less about the WNBA. Loves the Blazers though.
Throwing out "tax incentives" firstly isn't really a plan. Second, it is subsidizing. Taxes go to government programs. Programs like education.
My only child is a daughter. I'd like her to play sports but I'm also going to be realistic with her about the realities of what life is like after school and pursuing things that can support a comfortable lifestyle. Sports aren't a good bet, and neither is really any form of entertainment. That includes acting, music, art, etc. None of it is generally lucrative unless you're either very very good or very very lucky.
I have 3 daughters. All 3 play sports. *Edit* None of them are planning on taking the pay cut currently required to play in the WNBA. Though, they may do it if the opportunity presents itself.
Lol. Taxes go to business all the time... Welcome to America...for far less beneficial things than women's sports...
I have no argument in this, just saw that there was a lot of conversation and thought it'd be an interesting question to ask. Carry on.
It isn't a pay cut. It's the going rate. This would be like comparing all writers. There are some writers who do books. Some do screenplays. Some do articles for newspapers. Whichever form of writing you choose to pursue, you don't get to expect that they all pay the same. Similarly, not all athletes can expect the same level of pay. That's the business of entertainment. It's pretty cut and dry. If I write a book, I will either make money because it's a good book and people buy it, or I won't. Hell, it might not even be published. I would have sunk hours into writing something for nothing. No compensation at all. If a woman author writes a book that does better than me, and it makes a lot more money, is that fair? What if my book is objectively better written? There are a lot of very shitty books that make a ton of money because of the genre. Hell, there are some screenwriters that make GOOD money just writing those horrible Hallmark movies every year. If I write an objectively better script, or better book, is it fair that I'm not making the same pay? Yes, it's fair, because I'm trying to write what I want to write, and if there's no market for it.... guess what.... I don't get paid. It can't get any more fair than that. We created these leagues and we subsidize these leagues so that pro sports can exist for women, but apparently that's not good enough. The leagues are losing money and they need to be propped up, but that's not good enough. If they weren't subsidized and they were allowed to fail, do you think all those athletes would happily have back their 150-200k salaries?
I have both daughters and sons, granddaughters and grandsons....one of my granddaughters is a star soft ball player in San Diego and on a very good team with amazing support ...she's the only girl in the family who really focused on or even wanted to play sports...my older sons were skateboarders and hated team sports..they surfed and skateboarded and my youngest son loves sports like me and played soccer and basketball in school....still plays hoops today with his college buddies for fun....I was a baseball player...played basketball for fun but played baseball more seriously.
I'm assuming they mean different career field. Like why hoop for 125k when you can make 200 as an attorney sort of options.
That option might be open to some, but 150-200k jobs aren’t exactly easy to come by for normal people.
