rationalskepticism.org

TMB wrote:

Shrunk wrote:I have not denied that merit plays a role in how athletes are compensated within the same sport.

However it appears as if you are trying to say that womens tennis and mens tennis, is the same as comparing baseball and football, and this is not the case.

That is what I am saying. Now, I'm still waiting to for you to substantiate the "this is not the case" part. I would suggest you look at how the prize money is allotted in the major Grand Slam tennis tournaments and demonstrate how this is explained by your thesis:

http://www.usopen.org/en_US/about/histo ... money.html

http://www.totalsportek.com/tennis/aust ... ize-money/

http://www.totalsportek.com/tennis/fren ... ize-money/

http://www.totalsportek.com/tennis/wimb ... ize-money/

In particular, pay attention to the difference between men's and women's singles (if there is any), between men's and women's doubles, between both those and mixed doubles, and between singles and doubles overall. Kindly show how this is consistent with your claim that this pay is based on athletic "merit", as you understand it.

Until you clear up your confusion on this issue, I don't think it's going to be worth my mind to wade thru the rest of the verbiage in your post, since it is doubtlessly based on the fundamental conceptual error that, I believe, is illustrated by the above.