2008: Female badminton winners to get same purse as the men

I meant that in the Equal Opportunity sense. All factors being equal, MS winner will get prize money than WS winner. So, for the same no of titles, XXF gets less than Lin Dan. "work just as hard" is comparision male & female, with currently the female getting less.

Imagine if my male colleague, same job scope and performance, earns more than me just because of his gender, not work performance. That's where it says - 'Women have to be 2X as good just to be considered same level with the men.'

 

Well, in an intv a few days ago, WMC said BAM players are not allowed to sign endorsement deals, at least not on their own. That's why we dont hear of Badminton players being spokeperson for any brand till near retirement.

Stipend : Ants would know better. As far as I know, Msia althetics get MYR500 per month basic. They get to stay free at the hostel. Food I'm not sure. And sponsors for their gear and stuff.
For SS, they get a distribution of prize money from 1st rd main draw.

SEA winners get (all MYR) $500+1,000(I think) = 1,500/mth
Comonwealth Games/Asian Games winners $500+$2,000/$2,500 = $2,500 to $3,000/mth
Those who qualified for OG 2008, get additional monthly allowance - $1,000??
Not including the cash incentive for each medal won at SEA Games, Asia & World level.

For a 18-year-old as a clerk, only earns MYR800/mth.

 

It used to be called feminist view, but now well accepted as the norm by the main stream or in the slow process of being accepted.

The quote is correct since men have XY and women need to be XX

Thanks for the infor. Top badminton players get about 4 times a 18-year old high school graduate, plus some benefit. Other players are barely make a living. I don't see much difference between players and ordinary folks, and certainly not much star power there financially

 

I guess its a matter of who gets the better influence on the sponsors. Again, politic sucks.

 

When we pay a professional badminton player, we are really paying them for the entertainment value of watching them play. IF more people would rather watch MS, MD than WS, WD, thus the entertainment value (drawcard power) of the men is more. So the men should be paid more to reflect that.

From what I know, the people DO prefer to watch MS/MD, so the men should be paid more.

The tennis style of splitting the tours is a good idea, so the market can decide their pay. Maybe if more people want to watch WS/WD, then by all means the women would be paid more.

PS: I wonder if the womens netball players get paid more than the men's netball players, but nobody complains about that?

PPS: Im sure the men play better than the women, so if pure "job performance" is the way you want to hand out the money, then if the #100 mens player can beat the #1 women's player, he should be paid the same as her?

 

Key word is Performance.. The problem is when you expect same money for less performance..

Same job should get same pay.. I don't think anyobody really would argue against that.. The problem comes with when you try to compare jobs that are not the same, and where performance may be hard to measure objectively..

It isn't really a question that top mens performance in singles is higher than top women performance.. If this was not the case womens singles would not really be a neccessary event att all... We could just have singles if women performance was equal to men...

/Twobeer

 

True. I equally enjoy watching Woman play.

I am Male by the way. It's a slower game with a more mixed range of shots.

 

1) WS/WD - not for the moment, China still dominating, makes it less interesting.
2) I assure you someone WILL complain VERY fast if that happens (from past history).
3) If you mean monthly pay, then sure, why not ?- it's already that way anyway. If you mean prize money, is the #100 male player the title winner? If he wins the title, sure.

In some sports, it's possible for women to be better than the men, performance wise, when it's men vs women - bowling(Msia women are World Champs, there's no Men vs Women tourneys for us to compare, unfortunately), Gymnastics, Dance Sports, Equestrian, Snooker,Sailing, Archery, Wushu(Msia woman is Asia Champ), Martial Arts, Diving, Skating.

Nicol David in top form can beat Msia top male player Ong BH, they havent tried with the male World no 1, so not truly equal.

 

I believe that in a game of badminton, the male players still are slightly better than female players due to the pure athletic skills of a man.
But I feel like men and women should be paid equally, and its bad to treat women lower.
However, I think that instead of paying the top women champions more, they should let the top female players participate against men in order to win more money. If the woman wins, they give her the amount of money they would have paid if the man won.
Because at the end, it should be about who won, not which gender won. So I am saying that if #1 woman can beat the #1 man, sure go ahead and take the amount of money that the #1 man would have received. But if they did not play against each other and only won in their gender confined events, then the #1 woman shouldn't be paid the same as #1 man because she did not give the same performance as the man did. See my logic?

 

Well I highly doubt that they will ever let female players play against male female players. I really like Zhang Ning and she is an amazing player but I really doubt that she could beat Lin Dan in a match. I'd like to see the two play though. It would be.....interesting.