[alex_front2]

This is a conundrum. If women, U21 or kids are more successful than men should they get paid more? Eg World Cup England women's team came #3. Could have won whole tournament if US faltered in final. The men could not get out of a group with past it Italy and drew dead rubber against Costa Rica. Should Lucy Bronze et al get paid more than Rooney et al? Also should US men get paid more than England as they did reach R16. The Ghanaian's got paid the most weirdly

This boils down to fact that men's sport is superior than women's, most sports fans are men. Men by and large don't generally care about women's sport (unless it's beach volleyball or hot good tennis players). Guys didn't dash home or to the pub to watch the women's world cup. The BBC tried to big up the viewing figures but they were shockingly relatively low considering its football. Not a single football broadcasting pub near me showed the women's matches.

I understand the women's game in US is popular because the women triumphed and are good (but the US will get behind any sport they are good at eg tiddlywinks). As soon as the men's USMNT become a national force to compete with Spain, Brazil, Germany, France and Argentina and reach WORLD Cup finals the women's team will be swiftly forgotten about I suspect.

Biology just mena the best athletes are men. I love Serena Williams but Novak Djokovic could play the entire women's top 20 in a day and not break serve let alone break a sweat, the women wouldn't even get a point. On a tangent, knock on effect, now that they have allowed pre op transgender people to compete i will be very interested to see the impact it has on womens sport. Caitlin Jenner at 56 could still compete against women and win easily. Tiger Woods comes out as trans and competes on the women's tour....