Navratilova talks about the pay inequality at the BBC

[Obsi]

 

[Ricardo]

Feminists whinge, as usual. If Martina doesn’t know by now that Mac has much higher value as commentator, she is just another whining idiot.

 

[Moxie]

Does he really have a higher value? Everyone on this forum and many others think that his opinions waver with the wind, to the point of laughability. He is made fun of all the time for his unreliability as a prognasticator. Whereas, Martina is a creditable commentator, on both men's and women's matches. And not to put too fine a point on it, she's a greater champion from the playing days. Should she be paid 1/10th of what J-Mac is? Now, be honest....

 

[El Dude]

Correlation does not necessarily imply causation. It may, but I don't want to jump to that conclusion. Consider:

Man gets 150k
Woman gets 15k

Does that mean that the gap is because one is a man and the other a woman? Maybe, but not necessarily. We would need more information.

It could be because the man is considered more entertaining, more of a draw - more notorious. In fact, it is Mac's idiosyncracies and ridiculousness that makes him so enjoyable. People would rather love someone to hate, than simply like some one.

I am not saying that sexism isn't involved. I am saying that we don't have enough information--based on this one tweet (didn't watch the clip)--and I'm not willing to make the leap that sexism is the main cause in the discrepancy. It may simply be because the one--who happens to be male--is "worth" more in terms of entertainment market value. It may also be that sexism is involved. We just need more information.

How do we get more information? Well, how much do other men get? What is Jim Courier's going rate? If it is significantly more than Navratilova's, I think things start getting fishy. But until then, I'm not assuming anything.

 

[Moxie]

Correlation does not necessarily imply causation. It may, but I don't want to jump to that conclusion. Consider:

Man gets 150k
Woman gets 15k

Does that mean that the gap is because one is a man and the other a woman? Maybe, but not necessarily. We would need more information.

It could be because the man is considered more entertaining, more of a draw - more notorious. In fact, it is Mac's idiosyncracies and ridiculousness that makes him so enjoyable. People would rather love someone to hate, than simply like some one.

I am not saying that sexism isn't involved. I am saying that we don't have enough information--based on this one tweet (didn't watch the clip)--and I'm not willing to make the leap that sexism is the main cause in the discrepancy. It may simply be because the one--who happens to be male--is "worth" more in terms of entertainment market value. It may also be that sexism is involved. We just need more information.

How do we get more information? Well, how much do other men get? What is Jim Courier's going rate? If it is significantly more than Navratilova's, I think things start getting fishy. But until then, I'm not assuming anything.

Nice way to be non-partisan Mr. El Dude. What are the chances that it's just because McEnroe is a better draw? You do read the news, right? If it were a discrepancy of 15-30K, I'd say it could be ratings. But between Martina and JMac...100K?? They've both been doing it a long time. They have comparable, for the sake of argument, credentials in tennis. Martina calls women's and men's matches, John more often only men's. And, while I'm a fan of both, as commentators, there are a LOT of people around here and on other forums that call Mac out for his risibly changeable pronouncements. I don't think that it has escaped your notice that women routinely get paid less than men, across the board. Do you really want to be that person that sees one inequality and still needs "more information?"

And if you want more information, just watch the video on the tweet. BBC is a public company, and it is 50 years that the UK has an equal pay act. Martina isn't just talking about herself. She says that she (and implying her agents) asked, and were lied to about the equality of pay.

 

[El Dude]

What I don't want to be is that person that just goes along with the majority voice because it is politically and socially safe to do so. I am a liberal, in fact I'm a Bernie Sanders liberal--so pretty far left--and generally have lived in liberal bubbles my entire life. But I also am very critical of certain liberal tendencies, namely the groupthink that is prevalent today and getting worse, and the "you're either with us or against us" ideological fascism that proliferates on college campuses these days.

So when I hear something like "gender pay discrepancy," I don't disbelieve it, but nor do I automatically assume it is absolutely correct, just because it is a liberal talking point. Liberals skew the numbers as well. There's good proof that the gender pay gap is largely due to mothers.

As for Mac and Martina, I agree that they have equal credentials, as far as tennis knowledge and experience is concerned. But I also know that the entertainment business pays based upon market value, and not necessarily credentials. You can rest assured that if Pete Sampras was announcing, he'd make a lot less than Mac (as an aside, too bad Andy Roddick doesn't start announcing - he'd be great). Justin Bieber makes tens of millions, but vastly more talented buskers in cities across the world are virtually homeless - and that has nothing to do with talent, credentials, or gender.

I don't know what the just ratio of their pay should be. I agree that 10x seems a bit steep, but I also don't know what formula networks use, and it is difficult to say what portion of this is sexism. I don't think it is very useful to focus on the ratio of their pay though.

But at the very least, I'd like to know what other announcers are making. And yes, I do need more information before taking a strong stance on this issue. I believe strongly in equal pay--all other factors being equal--but I also understand that capitalism is based upon perceived value and worth on the market, and clearly Mac has more perceived entertainment value.

 

[Federberg]

If they were doing exactly the same thing then something is clearly wrong. The BBC's defence is that McEnroe has committed to doing a lot more than just some commentary during Wimbledon, which is all Martina does. I believe this is true. So it does seem like apples and oranges. What would be useful to know is for Wimbledon work alone what is McEnroe being paid? That's where the comparison needs to be. I would certainly agree that Martina is at least as good a commentator as Mac. In fact I would generally rather hear her thoughts these days, Mac's tendency towards hyperbole is getting a bit old to be honest. I would far rather listen to the likes of Henman and Petchey. I hope both those guys are getting paid way more than the first two!

 

[mrzz]

Sorry, but no matter what, even if they are doing the same thing, no one can "blame" no one here, based on sexism or whatever. The giant, glaring, problem causing attitude is to translate a gender problem to analyze two (yes, two) different personal contracts.

To begin with, it is impossible in this case to apply the "same job" argument. They are commentators, they in one aspect act as "consultants", in others as parts of the show. This is by definition down to the individual -- independently of my ideological choices.

They both should be paid what they can get out of their negotiations with their employers. Both are adults, both are educated enough and have money enough to look properly for their interests. No one can play the victim role here. (btw, there are situations were one can honestly play this role, just not this one).

If one part is not happy with what she is getting, re-negotiate. As last resort, break the contract. If she thinks she deserves more, articulate it with the one you are doing business with. It makes no sense -- really, really no sense -- for the ones who are not participating in this person-to-company relation to argue the details of their contracts.

Even if the employer, deep down, had misogynist/sexist bias to make their mind about what he (or she!) is prepared to pay to each one, as this is not a collective rule, there is nothing we can do about it. We cannot pretend to decide each one's criteria of choice. We can disagree with it, we cannot rule it (in this particular case, were there is no general policy involved).

The one person who could do something about it is the one that thinks she is treated unfairly. If she is completely positive that she doesn't get a fair payment for sexist reasons, she should look for work elsewhere. If she is really worth it, someone will pay what she deserves. If that does not happen, too bad. Welcome to the capitalist word, sometimes the market does not want you. I am pretty sure a lot of good architects, doctors, people working on construction, singers, strippers and dog-walkers are being paid less than what they deserve. Those are the fluctuations that the capitalism brings with itself. It is part of the game everyone accepted to play. We could try to find ways to make it more fair, but the very last thing I would do is to apply a collective argument to a individual relation. Collective arguments have their merit -- on the proper context.

BTW, never heard her commenting. And I actually don't like JM, for the few times I heard him commenting.

 

[Federberg]

^a couple of points @mrzz. (1) Agents often do the negotiations. There are multiple cases that have come to light of the same agent representing a man and a woman and they negotiate higher compensation for the man. It's not good enough to say it's just about what you can get. There is clearly something systemically wrong. The unknown is whether it's just the agents or if there is something going wrong with the companies themselves. (2) But again... as I already stated, in this particular case, the BBC might have a valid point. If in fact McEnroe negotiated on the basis of more work than Navratilova then I don't see that she can have any complaint at all

 

[DarthFed]

People are making more of this than they should. I read the article and it mentioned he does about three times as much commentary. Also add in the fact he's probably been commentating at Wimbledon many more years than Martina and there is no legit complaint here. Doing three times as less work does not equate to 1/3 the pay. If she was doing the same amount of work as MAC and still getting paid 1/10th as much there would be a problem. She should be comparing her pay to other commentators on-air as much as she is.

 

[mrzz]

^a couple of points @mrzz. (1) Agents often do the negotiations. There are multiple cases that have come to light of the same agent representing a man and a woman and they negotiate higher compensation for the man. It's not good enough to say it's just about what you can get. There is clearly something systemically wrong. The unknown is whether it's just the agents or if there is something going wrong with the companies themselves. (2) But again... as I already stated, in this particular case, the BBC might have a valid point. If in fact McEnroe negotiated on the basis of more work than Navratilova then I don't see that she can have any complaint at all

Sorry, I do not see the problem. There is nothing clear here. The agent might as well have got everything he or she could on both cases. This is a negotiation, the other side has a say, and the perceived value of the work is the key point. It is completely irrelevant if there is an agent involved or not. Again, if someone feels that he/she is not being well represented, change the agent. As you like to point out, you need to look at the quality/nature of the data before jump in to conclusions. This piece of data has zero information about the topic at hand (sexism). As El Dude pointed out, the ultimate reason could be a lot of things. And -- to come back at my initial point -- the ultimate reason does not matter, as both sides are free to jump out of the negotiation at any moment. The important part is: they came to an agreement.

 

[DarthFed]

This article lays it out pretty well:

https://www.google.com/amp/www.lati...-wimbledon-20180319-story.html?outputType=amp

Unless the BBC is being dishonest this should be a non-issue but that won't stop the crazed feminists from getting bent out of shape

 

[Federberg]

Sorry, I do not see the problem. There is nothing clear here. The agent might as well have got everything he or she could on both cases. This is a negotiation, the other side has a say, and the perceived value of the work is the key point. It is completely irrelevant if there is an agent involved or not. Again, if someone feels that he/she is not being well represented, change the agent. As you like to point out, you need to look at the quality/nature of the data before jump in to conclusions. This piece of data has zero information about the topic at hand (sexism). As El Dude pointed out, the ultimate reason could be a lot of things. And -- to come back at my initial point -- the ultimate reason does not matter, as both sides are free to jump out of the negotiation at any moment. The important part is: they came to an agreement.

First of all can we at least agree that this case is dubious due to my second point? Apples and oranges.

Secondly, I get that you want to argue the case for the choice to agree to accept the results of negotiation. So do I in principle. But if, and I say if, it is the case there is a systemic issue where women are concerned (note I have never said I believe there is) then there is something wrong. You might talk about your theoretical world where the value of work is perceived independently of gender. But given all we are learning, it is not clear that world exists. That's my point. If it does, then I agree with you, if that's what you agree then don't whine about it. But if it's not, then something needs to be done

 

[mrzz]

..hmmm, no, I won't agree that this case is more dubious than any other case. I can always look at my work colleague and say I get less only out of prejudice.

@Federberg, I am not saying that everything is perfect. My problem here is the case in point, and the general conclusions people love to draw from a particular case. This particular case has nothing (or, at best, very very little) to do with a possible problem about how gender influences the perception of the value of work.

There are sexist people in the world. One does not help to "solve" this problem trying to see sexism where probably there is none. In fact, it only makes matters worst.

 

[Federberg]

..hmmm, no, I won't agree that this case is more dubious than any other case. I can always look at my work colleague and say I get less only out of prejudice.

@Federberg, I am not saying that everything is perfect. My problem here is the case in point, and the general conclusions people love to draw from a particular case. This particular case has nothing (or, at best, very very little) to do with a possible problem about how gender influences the perception of the value of work.

There are sexist people in the world. One does not help to "solve" this problem trying to see sexism where probably there is none. In fact, it only makes matters worst.

Again... you are misunderstanding my point about this case I don’t believe it has any merit because they are doing different jobs. I then move on to the more general debate. I can’t understand how this isn’t clear to you

 

[mrzz]

Ok, we can move on. By your last post it seems our disagreement is minor. If the discussion evolves let's see if I can get your points straight.

 

[Federberg]

Lol! I rather suspect we're in agreement about the Navratilova case. But there's a more general point that is newsworthy. You might not be aware of the context, but the BBC has been found to have systematically paid it's female staff less than the men. So much so that some of the top paid men have voluntarily agreed for their salaries to be reduced so that their female counterparts can get parity. There is a systemic issue at the Beeb, and this is why Navratilova felt the need to raise her own specific issue. Unfortunately for her it's not quite the same because it's not clear she is doing the same amount of work as McEnroe

 

[mrzz]

Lol! I rather suspect we're in agreement about the Navratilova case. But there's a more general point that is newsworthy. You might not be aware of the context, but the BBC has been found to have systematically paid it's female staff less than the men. So much so that some of the top paid men have voluntarily agreed for their salaries to be reduced so that their female counterparts can get parity. There is a systemic issue at the Beeb, and this is why Navratilova felt the need to raise her own specific issue. Unfortunately for her it's not quite the same because it's not clear she is doing the same amount of work as McEnroe

So she is an opportunistic bitch!!!!

 

[Federberg]

So she is an opportunistic bitch!!!!

aren't we all?

 

[10isfan]

I didn’t bother reading all of the above posts. If she doesn’t think she’s getting paid enough, she can decline. Simple. I’m saying as a woman.