[MavericStephenc]

I just turned in the paper. heres how it turned out:

In the past women were traditionally excluded from sports, today they have "leagues of their own". In Ms.Lopianos' "Purse Snatching" , Ms. Lopiano complains that although women participate in sports; because of sexism they are not paid what their male counterparts earn. Although Ms. Lopiano complains about sexism, perhaps economics is another explanation as to the salary disparity.
Male athletes get paid more than female athletes because the market has been established."The WNBA players had trouble negotiating minimum salary guarantees."(Lopiano1) Obvious signs of male dominance in athletics can be observed in daily life. Given the strength of the male athletic market. Marketing plays a huge role in the prominence of male dominated sports. For example, by walking into any sports memorabilia store, the consumer is swarmed by jerseys flaunting the names of prominent sports figures such as Kevin Garnett, Tom Brady, and Kevin Youkilis. All of whom are male. Merchandise featuring female athletes is less common, so, it's easy to see why female athletes are paid considerably less than their male counterparts from a merchandising standpoint. Ticket sales play a large role in sustaining this reality. Due in large part to the average attendance per game. The number of spectators for a WNBA game averages at 10,000 while the NBA averages at 17,000. The disparity of ticket pricing between male and female professional sports , bolstered by fan attendance, is enormous.
In the 1999 World Cup Soccer match "The 1999 female World Cup Soccer champs [received] $12,500... compared to the approximate $400,000 [received] by the male world cup champs."(Lopiano2) A public outcry ensued, and generated additional public interest in the sport. Now woman are paid nearly four times that amount. Additional viewership increased earnings which gave the teams the economic backing to better pay their athletes.
Women who reveal their bodies on the field may garner more endorsements and better pay. However, this is not inherently sexist, because male athletes who do the same receive similar treatment. Ms. Lopiano posits "The media blatantly suggests that these athletes' physical appearance is more important and of greater interest than their athletic achievements." (Lopiano3)Upon her victory, Brandi Chastain rips off her jersey flaunting a sports bra, and considerable muscle. Athleticism is sexy, and in a capitalist society sex sells. The truth is that an athlete's physical appearance is of upmost importance. We as consumers hold their bodies to a standard Zeus himself would be impressed with. For some reason it is more socially acceptable for a male athlete to show athletic dominance by tearing off a jersey, whereas when a woman reveals her body it is viewed as taboo. Both male and female athletes reap benefits from physical exposure.
In conclusion, female athletes suffer lesser pay and public exposure primarily do to economics rather than sexist views. There is already and established marketplace, and fan base for male oriented sports. One way for female athletes to garner better pay is to increase viewership of their sport. The final way to achieve this goal is through the physical expression of their dominance, and prowess in their profession. All of these ideas support the fact that female athletes are paid less for economic reasons.




if anyone care lemme know what you think