Shrunk wrote:

Besides which, this does not even remotely address my argument. Unless you are now saying that baseball players are better athletes then hockey players. And basketball players better than either, since that is what the relative pay scales would suggest if it is a direct measure of athletic ability.

No just saying that in every discipline merit according to the specific rules, is used to decide who wins and pay is proportionate (gender excepted). Audiences are attracted by seeing elite performance and pay more for better performance, simply because if they were interested in mediocre performance of a sport they can watch this for less or free in their local park. Elite performance, in fact the very best is by definition rare because it reduces to just one or two individuals.

Shrunk wrote: So, according to your understanding, you live in a world where there are more girls playing competitive tennis than competitive soccer?

No I would say that womens tennis is more evolved and mature than womens soccer, provides more prominent role models, and provides a better chance of being a commercial career. I would say that more women tennis players make more money than women soccer players. These dynamics mean that more women are likely to be attracted to playing tennis than soccer. There will be exceptions, the womens US soccer team win will have caused a spike in the US.

Shrunk wrote:And, of course, we all know Jamaican sprinters are crap, because that country has such a small population. Poor Usain Bolt has been reduced to doing TV commercials in order to make ends meet

How did you arrive at this conclusion from what I have said? Your lack of understanding appears to be a combination of not understanding rational propositions, sport itself, and having a preconceived idea about what conclusion must arise.
Despite there being some interesting theories about why Jamaica has done so well in track sprints, the fact that any individual arises from a specific place of whatever scale it does not mean you can logically pose a question of this type. You might equally say that Usian Bolt should be a crap sprinter because there are only 5 people in his family. Likewise the fact that Kenyans and Ethiopians dominate middle distance track relates to other factors and not the populations of the countries. Its more about the status of the sport around the world, as well as within each country. Track sprinting has a high enough profile globally to make it likely that people from most countries who have the potential to sprint at an elite level has some chance of being found, nurtured etc, whereas for sports with lower profiles or expensive facilities this might not happen. There are many other factors, the quality of coaching etc. The basic point remains valid, depending upon the evolution and profile of any sport, you will get different rates and levels of coaching, skill and fitness.

An example of how this process works between sports happened in squash rackets in the 1980’s. South Africa, NZ Australia, GB and to some extent Pakistan and Egypt dominated squash. This meant that 2nd string players from South Africa could live in Germany and play professionally and coach because of the low standard in Europe. Once Europe encouraged the sport, it became a better commercial proposition, they attracted players from other sports and their levels became world class in time, by investing money in coaching, building courts etc.

When Hashim Khan from Pakistan won world titles in squash it spawned a crop of great Pakistani players including Jahanghir and Jansher Khan. Their profile was high and it was a means for talented young Pakistanis to lift themselves from poverty, and it also meant they developed strong skills, better than other countries who were less interested in squash over other sports, or non sporting activities.

The fact remains that elite players across various sports are at different stages. Just as women improved their track performance between 1960-1980 for multiple events was due to the previous lack of competition, good coaching, financial and status incentives.

Another example from squash. Briton Jonah Barrington won a string of consecutive world squash titles and was considered the fittest man in the world at the time, because his skills alone were not enough to win the world title so he brought in a new era of fitness to squash and other squash players followed his lead and this changed the fitness levels across the world for elite squash. Gary Player did the same for golf in terms of fitness, so it means that within every sport, its reasonable to assume they have different levels of maturity, and different status and financial profiles, all of which affect the quality of that discipline.

Shrunk wrote:

TMB wrote:What has the size of the pool of possible players got to do with what they get paid?

What an excellent, excellent question! I have no idea what the two have to do with each other. In fact, if I had to say, I would think they two have absolutely nothing to do with each other. Why? Was someone suggesting they do? Who was that?

New Zealand for example dominates Rugby Union and despite not winning the RWC as many times as expected over the past cups, are almost certainly the dominant rugby union nations over the past few decades and with a population of less than 4 million.

No, no, no. You're doing it wrong. Just as we know that "women tennis players are almost certainly better than (sic) their sport that (sic) female soccer players" because the latter "draws upon a far smaller pool of competition" (according to some mysterious metric that is inversely related to the number of people playing the sport), we also know with near certainty that NZ rugby players are worse than those from, say, England or the USA, because of the larger talent pool in the latter nations.

Q fuckin' ED.

The pool of players that womens soccer players come from are not dictated by a population, they are filtered out from those that are not involved in another sport, those who are involved in no sports, those who think they cannot earn a living from it. The example from NZ is relevant because rugby is followed with a religious fanaticism, and this means that just about every schoolboy will play rugby in preference to any other sport, including cricket. In the US it might be a choice of baseball, gridiron and basketball that provide the most powerful draw of players. This means you end up with different sizes of potential players. The more evolved a sport is and the more people committed will produce more competition, more investment and more advanced skills.

DE 'nikcuf Q - you got it backwards.

TMB wrote:No just saying that in every discipline merit according to the specific rules, is used to decide who wins and pay is proportionate (gender excepted).

So, once again, how was it determined that baseball players receive more of this "merit"-based pay than hockey players?

Audiences are attracted by seeing elite performance and pay more for better performance, simply because if they were interested in mediocre performance of a sport they can watch this for less or free in their local park. Elite performance, in fact the very best is by definition rare because it reduces to just one or two individuals.

And that is why no one is interested in paying money to watch Serena Williams play tennis, because they know that she would be smoked by even a mediocre player on the men's tour. Oh wait, that's not true. She's actually one of the world's most highly paid athletes. How ever could that be, if your argument isn't a complete pile of shit?

No I would say that womens tennis is more evolved and mature than womens soccer, provides more prominent role models, and provides a better chance of being a commercial career. I would say that more women tennis players make more money than women soccer players. These dynamics mean that more women are likely to be attracted to playing tennis than soccer.

Ah. So you do believe more girls and young women play competitive tennis than play competitive soccer. So on exactly which planet would that be?

Shrunk wrote:And, of course, we all know Jamaican sprinters are crap, because that country has such a small population. Poor Usain Bolt has been reduced to doing TV commercials in order to make ends meet.

How did you arrive at this conclusion from what I have said? Your lack of understanding appears to be a combination of not understanding rational propositions, sport itself, and having a preconceived idea about what conclusion must arise.
Despite there being some interesting theories about why Jamaica has done so well in track sprints, the fact that any individual arises from a specific place of whatever scale it does not mean you can logically pose a question of this type. You might equally say that Usian Bolt should be a crap sprinter because there are only 5 people in his family. Likewise the fact that Kenyans and Ethiopians dominate middle distance track relates to other factors and not the populations of the countries. Its more about the status of the sport around the world, as well as within each country. Track sprinting has a high enough profile globally to make it likely that people from most countries who have the potential to sprint at an elite level has some chance of being found, nurtured etc, whereas for sports with lower profiles or expensive facilities this might not happen. There are many other factors, the quality of coaching etc. The basic point remains valid, depending upon the evolution and profile of any sport, you will get different rates and levels of coaching, skill and fitness.

Hey, very good. Quite right: You can't assume that the quality of athletes will be determined by the size of the pool of people from which they are drawn.

So now that you have backtracked on that particular assertion, let's return to the original point: How do you know that female tennis players are better at their sport than female soccer players are at theirs?

BTW, TMB, it's really hilarious that your response to a reductio ad absurdum argument is to elaborate (at great length ) on how the premises of your argument do, indeed, lead to absurd conclusions. Are you actually trying to be funny when you do that? If so, well done.

Shrunk wrote:

So, once again, how was it determined that baseball players receive more of this "merit"-based pay than hockey players?

Your responses really are unimpressive, I can only assume you know very little about sport or logic. Within every sport there is a direct relation (gender excepted) between merit and reward. There will also be variation between things like grand slams were some will offer bigger reward so lesser players might be in the right place at the right time. Different sports are valued differently, tennis is regarded as more rewardable than squash is, regardless of the relative merit of the players, this is market driven, but merit is still direct to reward within each (gender excepted).

Shrunk wrote: And that is why no one is interested in paying money to watch Serena Williams play tennis, because they know that she would be smoked by even a mediocre player on the men's tour. Oh wait, that's not true. She's actually one of the world's most highly paid athletes. How ever could that be, if your argument isn't a complete pile of shit?

Womens value to an audience is not just their merit, its also based upon their appearance as well as their role models, and politically they are probably also supported by the lobby to try and give women reward that is not in proportion to their merit. People are a slo drwanto cel;ebrities regardless of any merit they might have. Despite someone like Paris Hilton or the Kardashians not having any discernible merit, they have risen to celebrity status and for many wannabes this is all they need to become slavish followers. So its multifactorial. Your question pses another question that you are avoiding. Since Serena is only as good as a lower echelon male tennis player who gets paid far less, can you explain what it is about her and other elite women tennis players that attracts relatively large rewards? Do you not think merit plays any part as you seem to avoid this proposition of mine? Do you think it because people like to look at womens appearance as they do in modelling and beauty contests, or is their some magical essence that values womens tennis other than on appearance, merit and celebrity? You don’t respond when I suggest the appearance factor is reflected in Sharapova and Kournikova – have you no reasoned response to this?

Shrunk wrote: Ah. So you do believe more girls and young women play competitive tennis than play competitive soccer. So on exactly which planet would that be?

This is like a broken record - you are picking a single element and losing the context. As I said tennis offers a more viable career proposition and wannabe landscape than womens soccer does. Assessing exact numbers of competitive players in each will vary across country and soccer as a team sport versus tennis will also affect. Competitive could mean school teams for both, however girls coming out of school and going into tennis or soccer stables, or university scholarships, I would imagine tennis has bigger numbers than soccer does.

Shrunk wrote: Hey, very good. Quite right: You can't assume that the quality of athletes will be determined by the size of the pool of people from which they are drawn.

Incorrect, once again you are cherry picking as it appears you are unable to get your head around a complex system. Of course the quality of athletes is affected by the size of the pool they are drawn from. Lets look at tennis for a topical example. If we assess the merit based upon only drawing from women in the world (ie. Womens tournaments), the merit we get is to Srenas level. Next step is to expand the pol to include all the men in the world, and our merit increases to include Novak, Nadal etc. Do the same in athletics and just add the genders together to increase the pool and the merit increases for outcomes. If we limit the quantity in the pool of sprinters to just a few suburbs in Jamaica we have an excellent chance of dropping the quality. Commonwealth and national meets often show lower merit in their results than Olympics and World Championships because the pool of those that are athletes or potential athletes is increased. The other factors that affect the size of the selection pool is competition from other sports and non sporting activities, and as these draw potentially elite athletes/sporters away will also affect the ultimate quality available to any one sport. This is seen in Australian code where rugby union and league compete for players.

Shrunk wrote: So now that you have backtracked on that particular assertion, let's return to the original point: How do you know that female tennis players are better at their sport than female soccer players are at theirs?

Its clear you will not be back tracking anywhere because you have yet to move forward with anything, you are emotively knee jerking in the orchard picking cherries. My premise is based upon the concept that their sport is more evolved, offers better career and status prospects, probably has better coaching techniques and more resources and money applied. Will you take another step to the side in your response, or can you see a way forward?

Your responses never directly dismantle my points, why is this. Clearly you are getting flustered by my posts and appear to shoot from the hip in reply with little reflection, why not think through a response and let it sit for 24 hours so you can calm down and respond with something of more merit -

Dunning-Kruger with a fascination with colonoscopy. How novel.

TMB wrote:

Shrunk wrote:

So, once again, how was it determined that baseball players receive more of this "merit"-based pay than hockey players?

Your responses really are unimpressive, I can only assume you know very little about sport or logic. Within every sport there is a direct relation (gender excepted) between merit and reward. There will also be variation between things like grand slams were some will offer bigger reward so lesser players might be in the right place at the right time. Different sports are valued differently, tennis is regarded as more rewardable than squash is, regardless of the relative merit of the players, this is market driven, but merit is still direct to reward within each (gender excepted).

OK, I guess I have to explain how these discussions proceed. When I asked my question, I was not actually claiming that the pay difference between hockey and baseball players is based on merit. I was asking you to substantiate your claim that such differences are based on merit. So thanks for, once again, scoring an own goal and admitting you were wrong, and that these differences are dependent on other factors.

My position, since you seem to need things spelled out in rudimentary terms, is that "merit" has little, if anything, to do with such differences. Instead, they are based on economic conditions, more specifically the amount of revenue the athletes generate for the sport. So in sports where audience interest is equal or greater for female athletes (e.g. tennis, figure skating) the pay is more equal. In sports where the audience is less for women (e.g. soccer), the pay also reflects this. This also explains the pay differences between sports, such as baseball vs hockey, or tennis vs. squash. There are, of course, other factors that affect compensation (e.g. number of athletes in a sport, which may explain why NFL players are relatively poorly paid, how effective the athletes' union is, etc.). But the main point is that compensation is based on economics, not merit.

You disagree? Then support your position. With something other than contrafactual assertions, if you would be so kind. Thanks.

TMB wrote:This is like a broken record - you are picking a single element and losing the context. As I said tennis offers a more viable career proposition and wannabe landscape than womens soccer does. Assessing exact numbers of competitive players in each will vary across country and soccer as a team sport versus tennis will also affect. Competitive could mean school teams for both, however girls coming out of school and going into tennis or soccer stables, or university scholarships, I would imagine tennis has bigger numbers than soccer does.

Yes, I know you have a very vivid imagination. Knowledge of facts, not so much.

TMB wrote:

Shrunk wrote: And that is why no one is interested in paying money to watch Serena Williams play tennis, because they know that she would be smoked by even a mediocre player on the men's tour. Oh wait, that's not true. She's actually one of the world's most highly paid athletes. How ever could that be, if your argument isn't a complete pile of shit?

Womens value to an audience is not just their merit, its also based upon their appearance as well as their role models, and politically they are probably also supported by the lobby to try and give women reward that is not in proportion to their merit. People are a slo drwanto cel;ebrities regardless of any merit they might have. Despite someone like Paris Hilton or the Kardashians not having any discernible merit, they have risen to celebrity status and for many wannabes this is all they need to become slavish followers. So its multifactorial. Your question pses another question that you are avoiding. Since Serena is only as good as a lower echelon male tennis player who gets paid far less, can you explain what it is about her and other elite women tennis players that attracts relatively large rewards? Do you not think merit plays any part as you seem to avoid this proposition of mine? Do you think it because people like to look at womens appearance as they do in modelling and beauty contests, or is their some magical essence that values womens tennis other than on appearance, merit and celebrity? You don’t respond when I suggest the appearance factor is reflected in Sharapova and Kournikova – have you no reasoned response to this?

Exactly. Pay is based on economics, not merit. Congratulations on another own goal.

TMB wrote:

Shrunk wrote: Hey, very good. Quite right: You can't assume that the quality of athletes will be determined by the size of the pool of people from which they are drawn.

Incorrect

Really?

...once again you are cherry picking as it appears you are unable to get your head around a complex system. Of course the quality of athletes is affected by the size of the pool they are drawn from.

Ah, your problem is you don't understand the difference in meaning between "determined by" and "affected by." I can recommend a good dictionary, if that would help.

TMB wrote:

Shrunk wrote: So now that you have backtracked on that particular assertion, let's return to the original point: How do you know that female tennis players are better at their sport than female soccer players are at theirs?

Its clear you will not be back tracking anywhere because you have yet to move forward with anything, you are emotively knee jerking in the orchard picking cherries. My premise is based upon the concept that their sport is more evolved, offers better career and status prospects, probably has better coaching techniques and more resources and money applied. Will you take another step to the side in your response, or can you see a way forward?

Ah. So you are assuming that your assertions are correct and, on that basis, asserting that your conclusion is also correct. You've got this "circular reasoning" think down pat, haven't you?

Back of the net!

Shrunk wrote:OK, I guess I have to explain how these discussions proceed. When I asked my question, I was not actually claiming that the pay difference between hockey and baseball players is based on merit. I was asking you to substantiate your claim that such differences are based on merit. So thanks for, once again, scoring an own goal and admitting you were wrong, and that these differences are dependent on other factors.

Merit is the basis for comparison with each sport to select who gets the higher pay, and since it is within each sport in direct comparison to the males in the same sport that women are seeking equality, it makes sense to look the gender s comparison in each sport. If you add a variable of another sport, merit is still the metric that audiences are mostly drawn – and why they part with heard earned cash to pay to watch it. But the amount and interest level varies between sports. My point is that merit is the product or service that audience values and the more merit they expect to get, the more they pay. Other factors like appearance also attract audiences in sport, just as it attracts audiences to beauty contests

Shrunk wrote:My position, since you seem to need things spelled out in rudimentary terms, is that "merit" has little, if anything, to do with such differences. Instead, they are based on economic conditions, more specifically the amount of revenue the athletes generate for the sport.

You are making a basic error in thinking that economics is mutually exclusive with merit, when in fact merit is just the product/service that the principles of economics acts upon. Within a sport, say tennis, merit is judged through knockout competition to find the highest merit tennis player and pay that person more than those who come 2nd down last. Most sports have the same quantitative measure of merit, time and distance for track, height and length for jumping etc. The better the person performs to their specific metric the more the audience is attracted to him/her. Audiences are attracted to different sports for many reasons and they are prepared to pay according the interest level. Tennis and golf are high status sports for individuals compared to lacrosse of squash, so the elite players get paid more for golf and tennis than for lacrosse and squash.

Shrunk wrote:So in sports where audience interest is equal or greater for female athletes (e.g. tennis, figure skating) the pay is more equal. In sports where the audience is less for women (e.g. soccer), the pay also reflects this.

Here we are in violent agreement, and that goes without saying. Just as because there is greater interest in womens beauty contests, sex work, and modelling as opposed to the male equivalents means women get paid more. I disagree with your assertion that womens tennis attracts more dollars than mens tennis, in general Wimbledon ticket process are higher for men than women and they sell more. Its also valid to say that setting relative tennis merit aside, womens appearance also explains why women while being significantly lower on tennis merit than men, score higher in visual value.

Shrunk wrote:This also explains the pay differences between sports, such as baseball vs hockey, or tennis vs. squash.

Here again we are in violent agreement. Audiences decide they are more interested in watching the elimination through competition of lower merit performances, so they can watch top merit performances in tennis rather than squash, although in each sport merit is still a factor in comparing players of the same sports. Squash still supports a number of professional players, and they are the best players. The weakest players usually cannot afford to play professionally unless they fund it from their own pocket, because endorsements and prize money will not pay them if they are useless players. Bottom line is competition will find and reward top performers. Ie. the principles of economics operating when merit is the desired product/services that audiences are interested in.

Shrunk wrote: There are, of course, other factors that affect compensation (e.g. number of athletes in a sport, which may explain why NFL players are relatively poorly paid, how effective the athletes' union is, etc.)

Yet again violent agreement, did you not read my previous posts?

Shrunk wrote:But the main point is that compensation is based on economics, not merit.

Violent DISagreement this time. Merit is a product, economics is the social science that describes the factors that determine the production, distribution and consumption of goods and services.(so says wiki). Compensation is based upon audiences desiring to watch merit (mostly) specific to a sport and being prepared to pay money that contributes to prize money, and the resulting status means sponsors are also prepared to pay endorsement money and product to high merit players, with a bonuc if its a good looking female. This follows simple economic principles. So economics underlies the system but does not replace merit within the sport, or the way peoples appearance (especially womens) is appreciated.

Shrunk wrote:You disagree? Then support your position. With something other than contrafactual assertions, if you would be so kind. Thanks.

I just disagree with your position merit and economics seem mutually exclusive yet both have a place in the discussion, just not in the way you seem to think.

If you disagree with me, then tell me what it is that creates the economic interest of the audience in tennis, or golf, and their willingness to pay money to watch, and more money for more merit in each sport (despite variations BETWEEN sports). Similarly economics is the system that sees audiences paying money to people who model clothing, cosmetics and the like to the point that some people are celebrities just on this basis. What 'merit' is it that audiences are paying money to adulate for models and beauty contests?

TMB is now working on his 2nd hat trick.

I disagree with your assertion that womens tennis attracts more dollars than mens tennis,

When did I assert that?

If you disagree with me, then tell me what it is that creates the economic interest of the audience in tennis, or golf, and their willingness to pay money to watch, and more money for more merit in each sport (despite variations BETWEEN sports). Similarly economics is the system that sees audiences paying money to people who model clothing, cosmetics and the like to the point that some people are celebrities just on this basis. What 'merit' is it that audiences are paying money to adulate for models and beauty contests?

Gee, I dunno. I guess merit has nothing to do with it.

GOOOOAAAAL!

I think if you write the word "merit" enough times, surely it must make any comments made about "merit" be considered as unassailable facts?

Merit. Merit. Merit. Merit. Merit.