Why are (all) women (still) kept out of men's leagues?

**ryberg** · 08-24-2009

I've been watching a lot of soccer this summer, from tournaments and World Cup qualifiers at the national team level to club level stuff here in the US, including both Major League Soccer and the new league, Women's Professional Soccer (WUSA, the former women's league, having crashed financially after 2-3 seasons a few years ago). And just due to a lot of points that have come up, well I'm wondering why this is (still) the case.

That is to say, maybe I'm whacked, but it seems to me that the best players in WPS are certainly arguably equal to, if not better than, at least the worst players on the rosters of MLS teams. Now, MLS is not a particularly impressive league in the world of soccer, by any means, and it would appear that by contrast, the WPS has attracted at least a great number of the best female players in the world. But all that is besides the point (and the MLS / WPS comparison is a convenient one for another reason I'll mention below). So, I'm not asking if some female soccer players are as good as the very best male soccer players in the world, or arguing that the average level of play among professional women is better than among profession men. And of course in general, the question could vary by sport, and maybe there would be no woman who happens to play American football who could beat out the weakest male on any NFL team roster. That's fine, as I'm not making a blanket argument about every sport, either. It's just a best case scenario type of comparison on the individual level: couldn't Mia Hamm, when she was still playing, or Abby Wambach, now, or Marta or Cristiane or the other great players from Brazil, or the spectacular Hope Solo in goal, or some of the other women who played this inaugural season in the WPS, at least hold their own against at least some of the players warming benches around the MLS?

What really got me thinking about this is that it is also of course very much a question of economics and what appears to be fairly straightforward job discrimination based on gender. I mean, according to the information I've found (simplifying it a bit), it seems that the maximum salary for even the best WPS players is a paltry $32,000 a year, while the minimum salary for even the weakest MLS player is $33,000 a year. MLS is not dripping with money, either: Beckham's $5-6 million salary aside, some superstar players (Landon Donovan, for example) don't even make a million a year (and nobody else makes even half what Beckham gets). But still, a lot of MLS players are getting much more than that $32K even the best women are getting in the WPS. So it's very far from being some sort of separate but equal type of situation.

I suppose you could argue, in soccer or any other organized sport, that the overall level of play is higher, or men's leagues are just more popular, or whatever, and that justifies the overall salary difference. Which maybe is OK to argue, but on the individual level, it still doesn't address the potential discrimination issue. If Marta, for example, is inclined to, why can't she get a lawyer and initiate a job discrimination suit against the MLS, alleging that her abilities are demonstrably superior to at least some of those in the league, but she's being refused the chance at such financially much more rewarding work not because of her ability but simply because of her gender, with the result that she is losing a very considerable sum of money? Or maybe why can't an outstanding female basketball player try the same thing with the NBA? Or, especially if prize money varies (I assume it does), why can't a female tennis player or a female golfer, for example, sue for the right to compete against the men in her sport and go for the same prize money?

Note that this would have no bearing on the continuation of separate women's leagues or divisions or whatever. I'm not suggesting the eradication of the WPS in favor of a co-ed MLS, or the equivalent move in any other sport. Seems like a great idea to me to continue separate women's leagues, actually, for probably the majority of the cases out there where the separation may continue to make sense. I'm just saying, for those cases (exceptional though they may be) where a top female athlete in a given sport can show that she can compete at or above the level of at least the weakest professional male players of the same sport in whatever men's league -- in other words, show that she can do the job as well as, if not better than, some men who are already getting paid a lot more to do it than she can make in a women's league -- how can one justify keeping her out of the men's league based solely on the fact of her gender?

Steve

Rissask · 08-24-2009

Because women players of any sport are just not equal to male players, of course.... it makes it a different sport.

We don't have the upper body strength to put on a level playing field, among other things, like height and weight, typically. So it's easier to keep them separate.

**ryberg** · 08-24-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rissask

Because women players of any sport are just not equal to male players, of course.... it makes it a different sport.

We don't have the upper body strength to put on a level playing field, among other things, like height and weight, typically. So it's easier to keep them separate.

You seriously believe this???

Again, about any sport, in the case of any match-up between the best female player of the sport and the weakest male player (currently in the league and under contract and so forth)?

melliedee · 08-24-2009

I think co-ed teams for non-contact sports might work in some leagues. Anyone who's seen a Williams sister drive a serve over the net might rethink questons about differences in muscle strength, etc. Though, I agree with Maggie that there are physical differences which would matter for some sports.

American football and boxing, for example.

Soccer? You have to been strong, and fast, and able to run and kick, right? Are they the ones who fight all of the time, or is that the crowd?

**ryberg** · 08-24-2009

Don't argue the general tendency, or that some sports would not come into question. Rather the exceptional cases in sports where it could come into question.

So, for example, even the weakest defender in the MLS would do better against this stunning move Marta put on a (female) US defender in the last Women's World Cup final? (Make sure to watch the replay!)

I'm telling you, I routinely watch MLS defenders look worse against much worse moves! ("No hay palabras...!")

Steve

sctx · 08-24-2009

ask annika sorenstam

Rissask · 08-24-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by ryberg

You seriously believe this???

Again, about any sport, in the case of any match-up between the best female player of the sport and the weakest male player (currently in the league and under contract and so forth)?

Yes.

You seriously don't??

Maybe you are focusing on the wrong sports for this comparison to be taken seriously... remember I like hockey and UFC.

sctx · 08-24-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rissask

Yes.

You seriously don't??

Maybe you are focusing on the wrong sports for this comparison to be taken seriously... remember I like hockey and UFC.

so what do you think about the mediocre men being allowed to play in women's league..... seems only fair

**ryberg** · 08-24-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rissask

Yes.

You seriously don't??

Maybe you are focusing on the wrong sports for this comparison to be taken seriously... remember I like hockey and UFC.

But that's incorrect (not making the case based on any one sport) and irrelevant (you just said any sport). So according to Maggie, no female athlete in any sport in the world can beat even the weakest male athlete at that same sport currently playing on some team in some organized league for that sport or otherwise participating as a professional in that sport on the circuit for it, etc.

The crappiest MLS defender would do better against that move of Marta's and shut her down. The worst golfer on the men's circuit can handily beat the best female golfer out there. The #278th rank male tennis in the world? The Williams sisters, neither one of them, stands a chance against him.

OK!

But I'll just say, this is why I don't get you in debates, anymore...

Steve

horizon200 · 08-24-2009

Because then they wouldn't be men's leagues...they'd just be leagues.

**ryberg** · 08-24-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by horizon200

Because then they wouldn't be men's leagues...they'd just be leagues.

Thanks, there, Wittgenstein!

Mercy · 08-24-2009

What's the matter Steve, won't the girls let you play with them??

Rissask · 08-24-2009

Jeez, Steve, keep your panties on

...just because I don't agree women should be in the men's leagues, sheesh....it's not like I am the only person who likely thinks this way you know.

Perhaps you are just annoyed because you figured a feminist female should agree with your premise, or what? Well, I don't think in general for all sports that it is fair to compare women players with men, because of the verifiable and obvious not-insignificant physcial and physiological differences between the genders.

Now, in a sport like soccer, I suppose skill is more important than brawn...but you didn't say this was just a thread about soccer, so I answered the more general way.

**ryberg** · 08-24-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rissask

Jeez, Steve, keep your panties on

...just because I don't agree women should be in the men's leagues, sheesh....it's not like I am the only person who likely thinks this way you know.

Perhaps you are just annoyed because you figured a feminist female should agree with your premise, or what? Well, I don't think in general for all sports that it is fair to compare women players with men, because of the verifiable and obvious not-insignificant physcial and physiological differences between the genders.

Now, in a sport like soccer, I suppose skill is more important than brawn...but you didn't say this was just a thread about soccer, so I answered the more general way.

You didn't read before answering, then. You're talking about 2-3 points here, in your view, that I've explicitly said are not what I'm saying. I've bolded them for you, though your own bolded phrase is another.

Then you've added one with a suspicious tone that's irrelevant to what I'm saying.

But that's OK, do what you want. It's your forum, too.

Steve

**ryberg** · 08-24-2009

In fairness, IndyCar did not keep Danica Patrick out. Or at least they didn't in the end (I don't know the history of her entrance into that level of racing or if there was any controversy about it).

Maybe not your most central type of sport, but I certainly wouldn't argue that it wasn't a sport. Imagine if they'd said, hey, you know, this is our league, you gotta get your own league...

So my question is, why would other leagues in other sports not follow the same example (or be forced through litigation to follow the same example), where appropriate?

Steve

08-24-2009	#1 (permalink)
ryberg playa maya guy Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: real America (reality-based community) Posts: 27,947	Why are (all) women (still) kept out of men's leagues? I've been watching a lot of soccer this summer, from tournaments and World Cup qualifiers at the national team level to club level stuff here in the US, including both Major League Soccer and the new league, Women's Professional Soccer (WUSA, the former women's league, having crashed financially after 2-3 seasons a few years ago). And just due to a lot of points that have come up, well I'm wondering why this is (still) the case. That is to say, maybe I'm whacked, but it seems to me that the best players in WPS are certainly arguably equal to, if not better than, at least the worst players on the rosters of MLS teams. Now, MLS is not a particularly impressive league in the world of soccer, by any means, and it would appear that by contrast, the WPS has attracted at least a great number of the best female players in the world. But all that is besides the point (and the MLS / WPS comparison is a convenient one for another reason I'll mention below). So, I'm not asking if some female soccer players are as good as the very best male soccer players in the world, or arguing that the average level of play among professional women is better than among profession men. And of course in general, the question could vary by sport, and maybe there would be no woman who happens to play American football who could beat out the weakest male on any NFL team roster. That's fine, as I'm not making a blanket argument about every sport, either. It's just a best case scenario type of comparison on the individual level: couldn't Mia Hamm, when she was still playing, or Abby Wambach, now, or Marta or Cristiane or the other great players from Brazil, or the spectacular Hope Solo in goal, or some of the other women who played this inaugural season in the WPS, at least hold their own against at least some of the players warming benches around the MLS? What really got me thinking about this is that it is also of course very much a question of economics and what appears to be fairly straightforward job discrimination based on gender. I mean, according to the information I've found (simplifying it a bit), it seems that the maximum salary for even the best WPS players is a paltry $32,000 a year, while the minimum salary for even the weakest MLS player is $33,000 a year. MLS is not dripping with money, either: Beckham's $5-6 million salary aside, some superstar players (Landon Donovan, for example) don't even make a million a year (and nobody else makes even half what Beckham gets). But still, a lot of MLS players are getting much more than that $32K even the best women are getting in the WPS. So it's very far from being some sort of separate but equal type of situation. I suppose you could argue, in soccer or any other organized sport, that the overall level of play is higher, or men's leagues are just more popular, or whatever, and that justifies the overall salary difference. Which maybe is OK to argue, but on the individual level, it still doesn't address the potential discrimination issue. If Marta, for example, is inclined to, why can't she get a lawyer and initiate a job discrimination suit against the MLS, alleging that her abilities are demonstrably superior to at least some of those in the league, but she's being refused the chance at such financially much more rewarding work not because of her ability but simply because of her gender, with the result that she is losing a very considerable sum of money? Or maybe why can't an outstanding female basketball player try the same thing with the NBA? Or, especially if prize money varies (I assume it does), why can't a female tennis player or a female golfer, for example, sue for the right to compete against the men in her sport and go for the same prize money? Note that this would have no bearing on the continuation of separate women's leagues or divisions or whatever. I'm not suggesting the eradication of the WPS in favor of a co-ed MLS, or the equivalent move in any other sport. Seems like a great idea to me to continue separate women's leagues, actually, for probably the majority of the cases out there where the separation may continue to make sense. I'm just saying, for those cases (exceptional though they may be) where a top female athlete in a given sport can show that she can compete at or above the level of at least the weakest professional male players of the same sport in whatever men's league -- in other words, show that she can do the job as well as, if not better than, some men who are already getting paid a lot more to do it than she can make in a women's league -- how can one justify keeping her out of the men's league based solely on the fact of her gender? Steve __________________

08-24-2009	#2 (permalink)
Rissask Canada Dry Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Saskatchewan, Canada Posts: 49,559	Because women players of any sport are just not equal to male players, of course.... it makes it a different sport. We don't have the upper body strength to put on a level playing field, among other things, like height and weight, typically. So it's easier to keep them separate.

08-24-2009	#4 (permalink)
melliedee añejo Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Ohio Posts: 26,585	I think co-ed teams for non-contact sports might work in some leagues. Anyone who's seen a Williams sister drive a serve over the net might rethink questons about differences in muscle strength, etc. Though, I agree with Maggie that there are physical differences which would matter for some sports. American football and boxing, for example. Soccer? You have to been strong, and fast, and able to run and kick, right? Are they the ones who fight all of the time, or is that the crowd?

08-24-2009	#5 (permalink)
ryberg playa maya guy Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: real America (reality-based community) Posts: 27,947	Don't argue the general tendency, or that some sports would not come into question. Rather the exceptional cases in sports where it could come into question. So, for example, even the weakest defender in the MLS would do better against this stunning move Marta put on a (female) US defender in the last Women's World Cup final? (Make sure to watch the replay!) I'm telling you, I routinely watch MLS defenders look worse against much worse moves! ("No hay palabras...!") Steve

08-24-2009	#6 (permalink)
sctx my own peon Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Body in San Marcos Tx....Tankah in my mind Posts: 37,180	ask annika sorenstam

08-24-2009	#10 (permalink)
horizon200 añejo Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Delaware Posts: 10,381	Because then they wouldn't be men's leagues...they'd just be leagues.

08-24-2009	#12 (permalink)
Mercy añejo Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: MD Posts: 8,001	What's the matter Steve, won't the girls let you play with them??

08-24-2009	#13 (permalink)
Rissask Canada Dry Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Saskatchewan, Canada Posts: 49,559	Jeez, Steve, keep your panties on ...just because I don't agree women should be in the men's leagues, sheesh....it's not like I am the only person who likely thinks this way you know. Perhaps you are just annoyed because you figured a feminist female should agree with your premise, or what? Well, I don't think in general for all sports that it is fair to compare women players with men, because of the verifiable and obvious not-insignificant physcial and physiological differences between the genders. Now, in a sport like soccer, I suppose skill is more important than brawn...but you didn't say this was just a thread about soccer, so I answered the more general way.

08-24-2009	#15 (permalink)
ryberg playa maya guy Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: real America (reality-based community) Posts: 27,947	In fairness, IndyCar did not keep Danica Patrick out. Or at least they didn't in the end (I don't know the history of her entrance into that level of racing or if there was any controversy about it). Maybe not your most central type of sport, but I certainly wouldn't argue that it wasn't a sport. Imagine if they'd said, hey, you know, this is our league, you gotta get your own league... So my question is, why would other leagues in other sports not follow the same example (or be forced through litigation to follow the same example), where appropriate? Steve

register to remove these adverts