Equal pay LPGA vs PGA -I disagree

[ebrasmus21]

Just read the article. The goal seems to be equality of outcome. As the sponsor that is their prerogative.

[cnnmaverick]

I'm frankly a little disappointed in your reply. Last I checked this was a golf forum and I wanted to discuss a question related to both tours and ask for fellow members opinions. Note that I neither called anyone names nor insulted anyone in my original post. I am not sure why you feel like you Need to start insulting folks and insinuating that I didn't understand the article or lack reading comprehension ability.

 

To me paying the same amount for something recognizing that there is less viewership, less sponsors, less people watching is the same as favoring one group if both perform exactly the same. I was just curious on how other people felt.

 

Mods - feel free to close this topic if I have offended people... Guess debating iN a civil manager is no longer en vogue :stink:

 

I just read this article and disagree with some of the statements

https://www.golfchan...owerful-message

 

If there is less viewership, less high exposure sponsors, less history and frankly a lot less people are caring about female golf - why are people so hung up on making sure women get paid the same?

 

I whole-heartedly disagree with this notion. I believe you should be getting paid the same but only if you do the same work (blue / white collar jobs etc). But if you're paycheck depends on being a professional athlete entertainer etc... It's the size of the audience that matters, not what you do. Otherwise welcome to socialism at its best...

 

What's your take?

You're a muppet. Work on your reading comprehension, or maybe get a dictionary, or maybe even just read the article again.

Barring that take your faux-rage to Twitter.

 

There's more to the article than this, but for a quick punchline:

"Whan credits his corporate partners for building momentum in the quest to narrow the gender pay gap."

[MtlJeff]

Just read the article. The goal seems to be equality of outcome. As the sponsor that is their prerogative.

 

Or the goal is they want us to perceive that is their goal LoL.

 

AON leadership team on their website is 11/14 Male. Wonder what their internal pay discrepancies are ?

 

2M bucks for one of the largest insurance companies in the world isn't much. And look at the publicity it's gotten them about how much they care about pay inequality. It's money well spent regardless of what the tours actually generate. That same money gets you what, a single ad during the super bowl. It's a good PR move

[ebrasmus21]

Just read the article. The goal seems to be equality of outcome. As the sponsor that is their prerogative.

 

Or the goal is they want us to perceive that is their goal LoL.

 

AON leadership team on their website is 11/14 Male. Wonder what their internal pay discrepancies are ?

 

2M bucks for one of the largest insurance companies in the world isn't much. And look at the publicity it's gotten them about how much they care about pay inequality. It's money well spent regardless of what the tours actually generate. That same money gets you what, a single ad during the super bowl. It's a good PR move

 

You could be right, I don't know. If its a PR move then I suppose time will tell if its a good one.

 

The article is less than 1,000 words so I wouldn't say we can fully know what AON's end goal here is from such a small article. The article is written in a way that makes me feel they are striving for equality of outcome.

[sjt4718]

Not reading articles, social justice warriors, feigned indignation. Am I on Reddit?

[ebrasmus21]

Not reading articles, social justice warriors, feigned indignation. Am I on Reddit?

 

Until the lock, yes.

[LeoLeo99]

Easy.

 

Pay them the same % of revenue regard,ess of Tour. If they want to make the same dollar figure, they need to find a way to generate the same revenue.

 

That's more or less what the article is saying. In order to pay LPGA pros more money, the LPGA tour needs to generated more money.

 

People believe in fairness. Equal pay for equal work. That's fair.

[Krt22]

I'm frankly a little disappointed in your reply. Last I checked this was a golf forum and I wanted to discuss a question related to both tours and ask for fellow members opinions. Note that I neither called anyone names nor insulted anyone in my original post. I am not sure why you feel like you Need to start insulting folks and insinuating that I didn't understand the article or lack reading comprehension ability.

 

To me paying the same amount for something recognizing that there is less viewership, less sponsors, less people watching is the same as favoring one group if both perform exactly the same. I was just curious on how other people felt.

 

Mods - feel free to close this topic if I have offended people... Guess debating iN a civil manager is no longer en vogue :stink:

 

I just read this article and disagree with some of the statements

https://www.golfchan...owerful-message

 

If there is less viewership, less high exposure sponsors, less history and frankly a lot less people are caring about female golf - why are people so hung up on making sure women get paid the same?

 

I whole-heartedly disagree with this notion. I believe you should be getting paid the same but only if you do the same work (blue / white collar jobs etc). But if you're paycheck depends on being a professional athlete entertainer etc... It's the size of the audience that matters, not what you do. Otherwise welcome to socialism at its best...

 

What's your take?

You're a muppet. Work on your reading comprehension, or maybe get a dictionary, or maybe even just read the article again.

Barring that take your faux-rage to Twitter.

 

There's more to the article than this, but for a quick punchline:

"Whan credits his corporate partners for building momentum in the quest to narrow the gender pay gap."

 

It's a private company, how they decide to pay willing participants in their challenge is their prerogative. It is not remotely "socialism"

[LeoLeo99]

Not reading articles, social justice warriors, feigned indignation. Am I on Reddit?

 

You should read the article. It's not that at all. Except maybe some insincere indignation.

[ebrasmus21]

I'm frankly a little disappointed in your reply. Last I checked this was a golf forum and I wanted to discuss a question related to both tours and ask for fellow members opinions. Note that I neither called anyone names nor insulted anyone in my original post. I am not sure why you feel like you Need to start insulting folks and insinuating that I didn't understand the article or lack reading comprehension ability.

 

To me paying the same amount for something recognizing that there is less viewership, less sponsors, less people watching is the same as favoring one group if both perform exactly the same. I was just curious on how other people felt.

 

Mods - feel free to close this topic if I have offended people... Guess debating iN a civil manager is no longer en vogue :stink:

 

I just read this article and disagree with some of the statements

https://www.golfchan...owerful-message

 

If there is less viewership, less high exposure sponsors, less history and frankly a lot less people are caring about female golf - why are people so hung up on making sure women get paid the same?

 

I whole-heartedly disagree with this notion. I believe you should be getting paid the same but only if you do the same work (blue / white collar jobs etc). But if you're paycheck depends on being a professional athlete entertainer etc... It's the size of the audience that matters, not what you do. Otherwise welcome to socialism at its best...

 

What's your take?

You're a muppet. Work on your reading comprehension, or maybe get a dictionary, or maybe even just read the article again.

Barring that take your faux-rage to Twitter.

 

There's more to the article than this, but for a quick punchline:

"Whan credits his corporate partners for building momentum in the quest to narrow the gender pay gap."

 

It's a private company, how they decide to pay willing participants in their challenge is their prerogative. It is not remotely "socialism"

 

To be fair, its a public company. Their stock is trading at $148 today in case anyone is interested. I think what you're saying is true though, as long as the board approves (which they obviously have) they are good to go.

[Krt22]

I'm frankly a little disappointed in your reply. Last I checked this was a golf forum and I wanted to discuss a question related to both tours and ask for fellow members opinions. Note that I neither called anyone names nor insulted anyone in my original post. I am not sure why you feel like you Need to start insulting folks and insinuating that I didn't understand the article or lack reading comprehension ability.

 

To me paying the same amount for something recognizing that there is less viewership, less sponsors, less people watching is the same as favoring one group if both perform exactly the same. I was just curious on how other people felt.

 

Mods - feel free to close this topic if I have offended people... Guess debating iN a civil manager is no longer en vogue :stink:

 

I just read this article and disagree with some of the statements

https://www.golfchan...owerful-message

 

If there is less viewership, less high exposure sponsors, less history and frankly a lot less people are caring about female golf - why are people so hung up on making sure women get paid the same?

 

I whole-heartedly disagree with this notion. I believe you should be getting paid the same but only if you do the same work (blue / white collar jobs etc). But if you're paycheck depends on being a professional athlete entertainer etc... It's the size of the audience that matters, not what you do. Otherwise welcome to socialism at its best...

 

What's your take?

You're a muppet. Work on your reading comprehension, or maybe get a dictionary, or maybe even just read the article again.

Barring that take your faux-rage to Twitter.

 

There's more to the article than this, but for a quick punchline:

"Whan credits his corporate partners for building momentum in the quest to narrow the gender pay gap."

 

It's a private company, how they decide to pay willing participants in their challenge is their prerogative. It is not remotely "socialism"

 

To be fair, its a public company. Their stock is trading at $148 today in case anyone is interested. I think what you're saying is true though, as long as the board approves (which they obviously have) they are good to go.

 

You know what I meant, private sector, as in a non-government entity.

[duffer987]

I'm frankly a little disappointed in your reply. Last I checked this was a golf forum and I wanted to discuss a question related to both tours and ask for fellow members opinions. Note that I neither called anyone names nor insulted anyone in my original post. I am not sure why you feel like you Need to start insulting folks and insinuating that I didn't understand the article or lack reading comprehension ability.

 

To me paying the same amount for something recognizing that there is less viewership, less sponsors, less people watching is the same as favoring one group if both perform exactly the same. I was just curious on how other people felt.

 

Mods - feel free to close this topic if I have offended people... Guess debating iN a civil manager is no longer en vogue :stink:

 

I just read this article and disagree with some of the statements

https://www.golfchan...owerful-message

 

If there is less viewership, less high exposure sponsors, less history and frankly a lot less people are caring about female golf - why are people so hung up on making sure women get paid the same?

 

I whole-heartedly disagree with this notion. I believe you should be getting paid the same but only if you do the same work (blue / white collar jobs etc). But if you're paycheck depends on being a professional athlete entertainer etc... It's the size of the audience that matters, not what you do. Otherwise welcome to socialism at its best...

 

What's your take?

You're a muppet. Work on your reading comprehension, or maybe get a dictionary, or maybe even just read the article again.

Barring that take your faux-rage to Twitter.

 

There's more to the article than this, but for a quick punchline:

"Whan credits his corporate partners for building momentum in the quest to narrow the gender pay gap."

Maybe you're not a muppet, but you just had a muppet moment with that post on the way to concluding with "welcome to socialism at its best..."

 

Whan says what you say in your last point. He says: We have work to do at the LPGA, to make sure we are delivering equal viewership and equal benefits and everything else,” Whan said. “I’m the first guy to admit we aren’t there.

 

He quite clearly identifies the issue that I would assume everyone would agree with, I really don't know how you missed it and instead decided to rail against something no one said.

[Titleist_PT23]

I like the LPGA and watching the LPGA players (mainly, I can relate to how far they hit the ball, shots that are possible, etc).

 

Clearly, Whan toned down his comments, and he addresses the fundamental reason for the pay gap vs. past comments from players like Stacy Lewis (which I would say are out of touch with economic reality).

 

Still, I feel like the article has a bit of the "equality" or "not fair" angle to it. Specifically, the third and seventh paragraphs come across with this tone (at least to me).

[duffer987]

I like the LPGA and watching the LPGA players (mainly, I can relate to how far they hit the ball, shots that are possible, etc).

 

Clearly, Whan toned down his comments, and he addresses the fundamental reason for the pay gap vs. past comments from players like Stacy Lewis (which I would say are out of touch with economic reality).

 

Still, I feel like the article has a bit of the "equality" or "not fair" angle to it. Specifically, the third and seventh paragraphs come across with this tone (at least to me).

The 'pillar moments' one? Agreed that's a bit heavy-handed. Get the sense he was doing some marketing BS bingo there to apply some significance to a sponsorship deal, beyond just saying - thank fook we found us another sponsor ;)

[00steven]

Supply and demand

[nsxguy]

I'm frankly a little disappointed in your reply. Last I checked this was a golf forum and I wanted to discuss a question related to both tours and ask for fellow members opinions. Note that I neither called anyone names nor insulted anyone in my original post. I am not sure why you feel like you Need to start insulting folks and insinuating that I didn't understand the article or lack reading comprehension ability.

 

To me paying the same amount for something recognizing that there is less viewership, less sponsors, less people watching is the same as favoring one group if both perform exactly the same. I was just curious on how other people felt.

 

Mods - feel free to close this topic if I have offended people... Guess debating iN a civil manager is no longer en vogue :stink:

 

I just read this article and disagree with some of the statements

https://www.golfchan...owerful-message

 

If there is less viewership, less high exposure sponsors, less history and frankly a lot less people are caring about female golf - why are people so hung up on making sure women get paid the same?

 

I whole-heartedly disagree with this notion. I believe you should be getting paid the same but only if you do the same work (blue / white collar jobs etc). But if you're paycheck depends on being a professional athlete entertainer etc... It's the size of the audience that matters, not what you do. Otherwise welcome to socialism at its best...

 

What's your take?

You're a muppet. Work on your reading comprehension, or maybe get a dictionary, or maybe even just read the article again.

Barring that take your faux-rage to Twitter.

 

There's more to the article than this, but for a quick punchline:

"Whan credits his corporate partners for building momentum in the quest to narrow the gender pay gap."

Maybe you're not a muppet, but you just had a muppet moment with that post on the way to concluding with "welcome to socialism at its best..."

 

Whan says what you say in your last point. He says: We have work to do at the LPGA, to make sure we are delivering equal viewership and equal benefits and everything else,” Whan said. “I’m the first guy to admit we aren’t there.

 

He quite clearly identifies the issue that I would assume everyone would agree with, I really don't know how you missed it and instead decided to rail against something no one said.

 

 

{Forget it - not worth the effort}

[Hawkeye77]

Just an LOL that a private company that at its core embodies much that many would associate with what capitalism used to be is called "socialist" for how it chooses to spend it's profits.

[Hawkeye77]

And OP, it's a prize for a contest. You don't think the crafty capitalists and actual actuaries in this case, lol, that decided to give the LPGA the same $ didn't figure out to the last penny on the spreadsheet how that act will increase goodwill/profits/selling product, you name it? So much to learn, grasshopper!

[straightshot7]

I wish they made more because they are extremely talented. I think what Whan is doing here is very cool and is fair. Women can't help that people aren't viewing their talent in as high regard as they should.

 

One thing that is nice about LGPA events is that you know everybody there is a real golf fan. There's no ridiculous screaming, BABABOOEY's or MAAAASHED POTATOEZ to be heard. Just people enjoying the game being played by the top females in the world.

 

I've gone to Men's pro events and heard people there talking and they have no idea who any of the players are and generally just seem like people who like to go to sports events purely for drinking/social reasons.

 

I've always thought the ladies deserved more attention both socially and monetarily.

 

As terrible as it sounds, you just highlighted a big reason why the pay gap exists. Dingdongs who only attend events to spend $$$$ on booze and have fun are largely why PGA purses are larger.

 

In the world of sports/entertainment, viewership is everything. Case in point, instagram/twitter "social media influencers", an area completely dominated by females.

 

The large majority of PGA Tour revenue comes from network TV deals, not money spent at events.

[Krt22]

Supply and demand

 

Not 100%. Perceived value is most relevant in this case.

 

Equal work, equal pay simply doesnt exist in the modern work place (many times within the same company/job function). How much an employer is willing to pay someone and how much a consumer is willing to pay for a product revolve almost elusively around the notion of perceived value.

[Krt22]

I wish they made more because they are extremely talented. I think what Whan is doing here is very cool and is fair. Women can't help that people aren't viewing their talent in as high regard as they should.

 

One thing that is nice about LGPA events is that you know everybody there is a real golf fan. There's no ridiculous screaming, BABABOOEY's or MAAAASHED POTATOEZ to be heard. Just people enjoying the game being played by the top females in the world.

 

I've gone to Men's pro events and heard people there talking and they have no idea who any of the players are and generally just seem like people who like to go to sports events purely for drinking/social reasons.

 

I've always thought the ladies deserved more attention both socially and monetarily.

 

As terrible as it sounds, you just highlighted a big reason why the pay gap exists. Dingdongs who only attend events to spend $$$$ on booze and have fun are largely why PGA purses are larger.

 

In the world of sports/entertainment, viewership is everything. Case in point, instagram/twitter "social media influencers", an area completely dominated by females.

 

The large majority of PGA Tour revenue comes from network TV deals, not money spent at events.

 

Which is exactly why I said viewership as well. How popular an event is and how much viewership it gets scale together.

[MtlJeff]

Just an LOL that a private company that at its core embodies much that many would associate with what capitalism used to be is called "socialist" for how it chooses to spend it's profits.

 

Yeah , i also am not convinced an insurance company that does 10B+ in revenues is the harvester of socialist doom.

 

A couple of million in advertising to these guys is like the money i spent on my coffee this morning

 

This "we care about equal pay" probably came up in a boardroom meeting as a good look for the company, right after the guys who proposed it slept with their secretaries and refused to promote a woman because at 30 she would probably have kids soon

 

Sorry....i'm just jaded. I don't know that actually happened.

[Gautama]

I see two different things. I can agree with the OP, in that your value is exactly what you can get for your time, just like the value of your house, or the value of a rental car. That's especially true in entertainment, and really that's what all spectator sports are. If people simply won't pay as for something (women's golf), then its not worth as much. So I don't really have a problem with women golfers earning less than their male counterparts.

 

 

You can even take sex out of the equation. In the world of professional sports, simply compare small market teams to large market teams.

 

Exactly. Or professional baseball with pro bowling. Regardless of the main point of the article or the OPs comprehension thereof, the idea of equal pay just because is ludicrous. Top female models make wildly more money than their male counterparts...is this cause for moral outrage?

[ebrasmus21]

Just an LOL that a private company that at its core embodies much that many would associate with what capitalism used to be is called "socialist" for how it chooses to spend it's profits.

 

Yeah , i also am not convinced an insurance company that does 10B+ in revenues is the harvester of socialist doom.

 

A couple of million in advertising to these guys is like the money i spent on my coffee this morning

 

This "we care about equal pay" probably came up in a boardroom meeting as a good look for the company, right after the guys who proposed it slept with their secretaries and refused to promote a woman because at 30 she would probably have kids soon

 

Sorry....i'm just jaded. I don't know that actually happened.

 

Lol. Jeff put the gun down. It’s going to be okay. You don’t even have the facts straight. The guys that came up with it are having affairs with the female members of the board along with the two female NEOs - not the secretaries.

[straightshot7]

I wish they made more because they are extremely talented. I think what Whan is doing here is very cool and is fair. Women can't help that people aren't viewing their talent in as high regard as they should.

 

One thing that is nice about LGPA events is that you know everybody there is a real golf fan. There's no ridiculous screaming, BABABOOEY's or MAAAASHED POTATOEZ to be heard. Just people enjoying the game being played by the top females in the world.

 

I've gone to Men's pro events and heard people there talking and they have no idea who any of the players are and generally just seem like people who like to go to sports events purely for drinking/social reasons.

 

I've always thought the ladies deserved more attention both socially and monetarily.

 

As terrible as it sounds, you just highlighted a big reason why the pay gap exists. Dingdongs who only attend events to spend $$$$ on booze and have fun are largely why PGA purses are larger.

 

In the world of sports/entertainment, viewership is everything. Case in point, instagram/twitter "social media influencers", an area completely dominated by females.

 

The large majority of PGA Tour revenue comes from network TV deals, not money spent at events.

 

Which is exactly why I said viewership as well. How popular an event is and how much viewership it gets scale together.

 

Tournament attendance and TV viewership really don't scale together though. Which is why I pointed that out.

 

The Phoenix Open is #1 in attendance but not even top 10 for TV viewership, for example.

[Fade]

Not a chance. The product is not as attractive to sponsors or viewers and the large non US contingent don't seem to bring in revenues from Asian businesses. And don't get me started on female tennis players earning the same at Wimbledon...45 mins for a match against up to 5 hours for men.

 

If they draw the same viewership, who cares how long the matches are?

 

How do you define viewership? Number of all viewers watching an event, or total time spent by all viewers on watching an event? The latter would obviously represent more opportunity to generate $$$ from an event.

[bscinstnct]

Supply and demand

 

Not 100%. Perceived value is most relevant in this case.

 

Equal work, equal pay simply doesnt exist in the modern work place (many times within the same company/job function). How much an employer is willing to pay someone and how much a consumer is willing to pay for a product revolve almost elusively around the notion of perceived value.

 

Percieved value will impact the demand curve.

 

But prices are ultimately set by

 

Supply and demand.

[jgonz69]

I just read this article and disagree with some of the statements

https://www.golfchannel.com/news/lpgas-inclusion-aon-risk-reward-challenge-sends-powerful-message

 

If there is less viewership, less high exposure sponsors, less history and frankly a lot less people are caring about female golf - why are people so hung up on making sure women get paid the same?

 

I whole-heartedly disagree with this notion. I believe you should be getting paid the same but only if you do the same work (blue / white collar jobs etc). But if you're paycheck depends on being a professional athlete entertainer etc... It's the size of the audience that matters, not what you do. Otherwise welcome to socialism at its best...

 

What's your take?

You had a pretty good point until you said sociallism, then you lost it with a cheap political shot.

[lowheel]

I just read this article and disagree with some of the statements

https://www.golfchan...owerful-message

 

If there is less viewership, less high exposure sponsors, less history and frankly a lot less people are caring about female golf - why are people so hung up on making sure women get paid the same?

 

I whole-heartedly disagree with this notion. I believe you should be getting paid the same but only if you do the same work (blue / white collar jobs etc). But if you're paycheck depends on being a professional athlete entertainer etc... It's the size of the audience that matters, not what you do. Otherwise welcome to socialism at its best...

 

What's your take?

 

The only people asking for that are the very vocal SJWs who live in a utopia in their own mind. You answered your own question very well and i agree with you 100%

 

Stop living in the stone ages.

 

At the very *least, women should make the same as men.

 

I mean, they have to do all the cooking and cleaning so it's the least they should expect.

 

Oh BSC!!

 

[lowheel]

Easy.

 

Pay them the same % of revenue regard,ess of Tour. If they want to make the same dollar figure, they need to find a way to generate the same revenue.

 

That's more or less what the article is saying. In order to pay LPGA pros more money, the LPGA tour needs to generated more money.

 

People believe in fairness. Equal pay for equal work. That's fair.

 

Unless were talking about womens tennis in the majors...

 

I see two different things. I can agree with the OP, in that your value is exactly what you can get for your time, just like the value of your house, or the value of a rental car. That's especially true in entertainment, and really that's what all spectator sports are. If people simply won't pay as for something (women's golf), then its not worth as much. So I don't really have a problem with women golfers earning less than their male counterparts.

 

 

You can even take sex out of the equation. In the world of professional sports, simply compare small market teams to large market teams.

 

Exactly. Or professional baseball with pro bowling. Regardless of the main point of the article or the OPs comprehension thereof, the idea of equal pay just because is ludicrous. Top female models make wildly more money than their male counterparts...is this cause for moral outrage?