This is an interesting and complex question. I personally strongly believe they do because we humans are all the same and therefore should have the same prize money. But there are many reasons why they don’t. There three points I’ll be covering which are:
1. It really is outrageous that in the modern world women can be paid less than men for doing the same job as them
2. How can this fairly be decided, when men’s sports dominate media coverage so thoroughly?
3. Whilst a complete change in pay to achieve equality in all sports might be too much to hope
4. For.
I will also speak for and against for the three points.
1. For
It is outrageous that within these modern times ladies are still paid less than men for doing the similar job. Sport or not, the wide accepted principle of equal pay within the …show more content…
The work being done isn’t equal, thus there’s no discrimination. Sports fans have an interest within the highest levels of performance, therefore the highest athletic prizes ought to move to the competitor’s organizers measure strongest, fastest, most powerful or have the best endurance. It’s coinciding that for biological reasons such competitors measure nearly always men. In court game men play ‘best of 5 sets’ matches, while girls play best out of 3. In weight lifting, they carry a lot of weight. It’s thus absolutely cheap for the men’s to be paid a lot of because the men do a lot of work. Since records began, the common men’s court game game at suburbia has taken on half-hour longer to play than the common women’s game. Thus, on the average the men’s champion can have competed 3½ hours of court game than the women’s. If girls wish constant award, they ought to be ready to play constant of sets thus providing a lot of advertising time for networks, from that abundant of Wimbledon’s revenue and therefore the prize fund comes, or within the weight lifting example, carry same amount of weights as men
1. It really is outrageous that in the modern world women can be paid less than men for doing the same job as them
2. How can this fairly be decided, when men’s sports dominate media coverage so thoroughly?
3. Whilst a complete change in pay to achieve equality in all sports might be too much to hope
4. For.
I will also speak for and against for the three points.
1. For
It is outrageous that within these modern times ladies are still paid less than men for doing the similar job. Sport or not, the wide accepted principle of equal pay within the …show more content…
The work being done isn’t equal, thus there’s no discrimination. Sports fans have an interest within the highest levels of performance, therefore the highest athletic prizes ought to move to the competitor’s organizers measure strongest, fastest, most powerful or have the best endurance. It’s coinciding that for biological reasons such competitors measure nearly always men. In court game men play ‘best of 5 sets’ matches, while girls play best out of 3. In weight lifting, they carry a lot of weight. It’s thus absolutely cheap for the men’s to be paid a lot of because the men do a lot of work. Since records began, the common men’s court game game at suburbia has taken on half-hour longer to play than the common women’s game. Thus, on the average the men’s champion can have competed 3½ hours of court game than the women’s. If girls wish constant award, they ought to be ready to play constant of sets thus providing a lot of advertising time for networks, from that abundant of Wimbledon’s revenue and therefore the prize fund comes, or within the weight lifting example, carry same amount of weights as men