I watched the episode featuring Pat Summitt a couple of weeks ago. As a Canadian, I didn't know much about her, although I was familiar with her coaching exploits. It was an excellent documentary. She was an impressive person in many ways. I also watched some of the Katarina Witt segment this week. She has lived through some interesting times.

Something worthy of note: for the 50 athletes... "Candidates for the Fortunate 50 must be U.S. citizens or play in a U.S.—based league.

Read More: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/...-2013/#ixzz2dnNXSjrL"

There are two females on the international 20 list, Sharapova would rank on the 50 list.

---

---

When someone pulls laws out of their @$$, all we end up with are laws that smell like sh!t. -Skippy

"women make $0.81 for every dollar a man makes for the same job."

"no silly ladies, it's $0.82 for every dollar!"

This illustrates how your post came off.

THANKS for pointing that out!!!!!

For pointing out the math? You're quite welcome :)

---

---

When someone pulls laws out of their @$$, all we end up with are laws that smell like sh!t. -Skippy

I've heard about this series but unfortunately we don't get ESPN in Canada. Has anyone up in CAN seen it and if so, where/how? Thanks.

Despite my degree from MIT, I fail to see how you point out "math." Looks to me you pointed out a qualifier as to how rankings were based.

The fact that no women crack the top 50 is the point here. Even with your "math" adjustment, the rankings are bleak for women in sport.

I think I watched it on TSN and/or Sportsnet 2. The two episodes I saw were interesting.

I would have hoped your degree from MIT would have enabled you to understand women's pay in regard to sport is nothing more than a market function.

---

---

When someone pulls laws out of their @$$, all we end up with are laws that smell like sh!t. -Skippy

So you come over here to point out "something worthy of note," (which is not worthy at all of any note and I'm still unclear what your point was other than to come off like a complete douchebag), and simultaneously try to insult my understanding of high-school level economics, while insinuating that women athletes dont deserve higher pay because nobody cares about women's sports, on a women's triathlon forum.

NICE!

I didn't come over here to do anything. I noticed that the list that was posted in the link was a bit dishonest and wanted to point that out, I do find that worthy of note. Feel free to insinuate whatever you like; I however am not insinuating anything regarding women, women as athletes, their pay as women athletes, etc; I am stating the fact that it is indeed a function of the market. You needn't get snide.

---

---

When someone pulls laws out of their @$$, all we end up with are laws that smell like sh!t. -Skippy

When you say that pay is a "function of market" you are simplifying this issue in a naive and potentially damaging way. You are also insinuating what we all know: women's sports are not as popular in mainstream media. But you are attributing this solely to a demand issue, without acknowledging that the drivers for that "market function" are riddled with sexism, which are partly responsible for such drastic disparities in pay. I suspect you'll disagree with me on that, thus there may be little point in continuing this discussion. And oh please, we've both been snide this whole time.

I will honestly say my original comment was not meant to be snide. My subsequent responses I'll grant you. I absolutely agree that there are a great deal of factors that force the "market function" to be what it is. I don't know that I personally would call them sexism, although I suspect we would agree on what many of those planks of the greater platform are.

---

---

When someone pulls laws out of their @$$, all we end up with are laws that smell like sh!t. -Skippy

What I'm trying to puzzle through is whether you think the international number should make us feel better. I understand why you posted it but it was a bit like patting us on the head and trying to say it isn't as bad as we think it is.

As far as market forces, if you haven't watched the episode "Branded" you should. It was really interesting. The over-riding point is the men on the list are generally paid according to skill where women are paid according to what they do when NOT playing. Sharapova is a perfect example. Very good tennis player but not best of the best. I wonder where Serena Williams would place on there considering her record and ranking.

---

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jen

"In order to keep a true perspective on one's importance, everyone should have a dog that worships him and a cat that will ignore him." - Dereke Bruce

I'm not sure the international list/number should make you feel better, or worse for that matter. I guess in my mind it's just a list. My only intent was to show the list was intellectually a bit dishonest because they put the qualifiers in small print.

"The over-riding point is the men on the list are generally paid according to skill where women are paid according to what they do when NOT playing."

I looked back over the list and definitely see your point. Sharapova's endorsements are astronomical. Forbes listed Serena at 68 on the list I was able to find 8 million in earnings, 12 million in endorsements. Sharapova's winnings were 3 million with over 20 in endorsements.

---

---

When someone pulls laws out of their @$$, all we end up with are laws that smell like sh!t. -Skippy