India women cricketers to earn same match fee as male counterparts, BCCI secretary Jay Shah confirms

[Tattieboy]

1 minute ago, SRT100 said:

Shame on you.

 

Youre rewarding mediocrity.

 

Women's cricket is that bad, you could get XI ex male cricketers aged over 40 that would beat them.

 

They should be paid in accordance to what they bring in. Its the whole Ronda Rousey argument in MMA, she was making much more money than many men, why? Because she was bringing in more money. Should she be penalized and receive less and share it with the men?

The bigger picture.

 

 

And there you are proving my point . You just can't help yourself but but but women are not near as good as men ... Aged over 40  men hahahaha 

Central contracts show the difference of market forces . 

 

 

 

[Trichromatic]

4 hours ago, SRT100 said:

 

Exactly the revenue they bring in should be a measuring stick of their earning capacity. This is a joke and if anything the men should complain because obviously they are missing out, if the BCCI can afford to pay the men the same as the women.

 

Its not impossible for a woman to earn more than men in sport. Just look at Rhonda Rousey in MMA.

 

Does it work like that in organizations?

 

Amazon earns most of it's profit from AWS. 

 

But software engineers at similar bands are paid similar salaries at a location.

 

Same thing happens in public sector also.

 

@Gollum Comparison with modeling is similar to IPL salaries where some better international players get lesser amount also.

 

Here BCCI is long term employer of cricketers and many organizations pay similar salaries at similar bands even if profits brought by different depts are not same.

[Trichromatic]

29 minutes ago, SRT100 said:

Shame on you.

 

Youre rewarding mediocrity.

 

Women's cricket is that bad, you could get XI ex male cricketers aged over 40 that would beat them.

 

They should be paid in accordance to what they bring in. Its the whole Ronda Rousey argument in MMA, she was making much more money than many men, why? Because she was bringing in more money. Should she be penalized and receive less and share it with the men?

The bigger picture.

 

 

 

 

No one questions why test male players are paid highest in comparison to ODI and T20 players even.

 

If that's the logic test players should be paid lowest.

[Trichromatic]

4 hours ago, rollingstoned said:

Indian cricketers are not like most of the athletes who represent India internationally though, they are not govt employees. What they are paid even as a salary is dictated by market forces and not policy.

 

It's not just govt companies, even private companies pay similar salaries at similar bands irrespective of which difference in profits brought by depts.

 

Market forces determine that salaries of different employers like BCCI would be different from salaries paid by ECB, SLC etc. But why bring in market force with same employer?

[SRT100]

3 minutes ago, Trichromatic said:

 

 

No one questions why test male players are paid highest in comparison to ODI and T20 players even.

 

If that's the logic test players should be paid lowest.

 

No. The logic is not only sound, it backfires on your attempt.

Test cricket is an art in itself. Its highest form of cricket always has been and always will be, hence the higher remuneration.

[SRT100]

6 minutes ago, Trichromatic said:

 

Does it work like that in organizations?

 

Amazon earns most of it's profit from AWS. 

 

But software engineers at similar bands are paid similar salaries at a location.

 

Same thing happens in public sector also.

 

@Gollum Comparison with modeling is similar to IPL salaries where some better international players get lesser amount also.

 

Here BCCI is long term employer of cricketers and many organizations pay similar salaries at similar bands even if profits brought by different depts are not same.

 

Youre clutching at straws and comparing two completely distinct job vocations, your logic is flawed.

[SRT100]

21 minutes ago, Tattieboy said:

And there you are proving my point . You just can't help yourself but but but women are not near as good as men ... Aged over 40  men hahahaha 

Central contracts show the difference of market forces . 

 

 

 

 

Correct. In some areas of life men are superior, in others women are superior.

There is nothing wrong with that, its how its always has been and always will be.

[Trichromatic]

11 minutes ago, SRT100 said:

 

Youre clutching at straws and comparing two completely distinct job vocations, your logic is flawed.

 

Pick example of any other company.

[Trichromatic]

14 minutes ago, SRT100 said:

 

No. The logic is not only sound, it backfires on your attempt.

Test cricket is an art in itself. Its highest form of cricket always has been and always will be, hence the higher remuneration.

 

 

 

How does test cricket bring more revenue? 

 

At one part you say that you should be paid according to what you bring in and other side you are saying that you should be paid based on opinions of some that one form is higher.

 

[rkt.india]

4 hours ago, AuxiliA said:

 

Bhai we are talking about the match fees not central contract or advertisement money. The women already make peanuts compared to men in the latter two, deservedly so because they aren't nearly as popular. 

 

The U19, A-team and Blind teams aren't our main teams. We have just two main teams- Men's and Women's seniors. They both might not be same in popularity but are same in stature and hence should be paid equal match fees. 

 

Just like all Govt employees of the same rank are paid equally doesn't matter how much work they do or how honest they are. 

No. Employees of same designation are not paid same salary. 

[rkt.india]

24 minutes ago, Trichromatic said:

 

Pick example of any other company.

I worked as quality analyst and there were several quality analyst in the company. All didn't get same salary despite doing same work. 

[Chakdephatte]

9 minutes ago, rkt.india said:

I worked as quality analyst and there were several quality analyst in the company. All didn't get same salary despite doing same work. 

 

And was it the right thing?

 

Seniority matters in some sectors, but not here.

[sage]

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-10-13/cricket-australia-claims-5-million-loss-ashes-world-cups/101531040

Cricket Australia says it lost $5 million last financial year despite World Cup and Ashes wins

Cricket Australia making loss due to overinvestment in women's cricket that no one watches

 

CA is investing huge amounts of money into the women's game

[rollingstoned]

1 hour ago, Trichromatic said:

 

It's not just govt companies, even private companies pay similar salaries at similar bands irrespective of which difference in profits brought by depts.

 

Market forces determine that salaries of different employers like BCCI would be different from salaries paid by ECB, SLC etc. But why bring in market force with same employer?

Demonstrably untrue. Employees even within the same organization are NOT paid the same even for similar roles, especially not if it's not some organization which is avowedly socialist in it's intent and nature like in communist countries. You'd know that if you worked in corporate, dealt with such corporates or paid attention to what is happening around you if for some reason you actually do work there.

[rollingstoned]

1 hour ago, Trichromatic said:

 

 

 

How does test cricket bring more revenue? 

 

At one part you say that you should be paid according to what you bring in and other side you are saying that you should be paid based on opinions of some that one form is higher.

 

ATM white ball cricket does in fact subsidise test cricket. In test cricket itself England and Australia pay better than Saf and Nzl for those within the Anglosphere so the discrepancy exists even in the same 'market'.

The market forces are still operative here in that they prioritise it because it is the factory that provides players from the grassroots level who play 3 and 4 day cricket before they even have a chance to pick and choose where they see their career at where they get the basics right. They don't do so by playing 10 over and 20 over junior level cricket and only sticking to that, those examples are more the exception than the norm even 15-20 yrs after the advent of t20 cricket.

[Clarke]

Pay me the same as my American & EU counterparts 

 

PS: Please don't move to Philippines and fire me 

 

This comparison with corporates is so silly btw. 

[Trichromatic]

1 hour ago, rollingstoned said:

ATM white ball cricket does in fact subsidise test cricket. In test cricket itself England and Australia pay better than Saf and Nzl for those within the Anglosphere so the discrepancy exists even in the same 'market'.

 

The market forces are still operative here in that they prioritise it because it is the factory that provides players from the grassroots level who play 3 and 4 day cricket before they even have a chance to pick and choose where they see their career at where they get the basics right. They don't do so by playing 10 over and 20 over junior level cricket and only sticking to that, those examples are more the exception than the norm even 15-20 yrs after the advent of t20 cricket.

 

I am not comparing FC with international. Of course domestic cricket provides the base.

 

I am not saying that test cricketers shouldn't be paid anything. But if revenue should determine then how much should a player be paid, then shouldn't ODI and T20I players be paid more than test cricketers?

 

So, people are ok that lesser revenue generator test male players are paid higher match fees than their LOI counterparts, but not ok if lesser revenue generator female cricketers are paid equal pay.

 

Only thing it indicates that they are more disturbed by women being paid equal to men, than the revenue aspect. Revenue argument is just a cover to oppose this move.

[rollingstoned]

10 minutes ago, Trichromatic said:

I am not comparing FC with international. Of course domestic cricket provides the base.

 

I am not saying that test cricketers shouldn't be paid anything. But if revenue should determine then how much should a player be paid, then shouldn't ODI and T20I players be paid more than test cricketers?

 

So, people are ok that lesser revenue generator test male players are paid higher match fees than their LOI counterparts, but not ok if lesser revenue generator female cricketers are paid equal pay.

Well if you agree with that then you agree that test cricket is indeed important and generally the best test players tend to also be the better - if not the best - white ball players. the separate silos you hint at within the game don't actually exist because the pipeline is one and the same. if you would not have t20 and odi cricketers because of the same first class system then the distinction doesn't really exist, it is 1 well oiled machine and must be seen holistically instead of looked at piecemeal. In England and Australia especially test players are paid well because there is a demand for it, it is not the result of a subsidy.

the women's game is not the same as the men's game because the pipeline is not the same for both so the revenue distribution system also is naturally distinct. If anything the women's game enjoys the benefit of publicity from the men's game which it owes much of it's popularity to as the ones who will take an interest in it are not those who have no interest in the mens' game to think this to be of any import in the first place. 

 

14 minutes ago, Trichromatic said:

Only thing it indicates that they are more disturbed by women being paid equal to men, than the revenue aspect. Revenue argument is just a cover to oppose this move.

 Hah yes, it's not that the distinction has a good reason or that the rationale to explain the said distinction - and not discrimination because of it - has legs. It must be that a cabal of conniving misogynists can't help themselves but to deliberately underpay women or not give them their due owing to some unexplained inadequacy or insecurity, all in service of some nefarious agenda. The kind of takes shorn of any nuance that only come from an OD of SJW kool aid.

I suppose you also think that there's a grand conspiracy to deliberately prop up a glass ceiling and not appoint women in corporate roles or deliberately pay them less for the same job that men do despite no evidence to substantiate the same? 

[Trichromatic]

14 minutes ago, rollingstoned said:

Well if you agree with that then you agree that test cricket is indeed important and generally the best test players tend to also be the better - if not the best - white ball players. the separate silos you hint at within the game don't actually exist because the pipeline is one and the same. if you would not have t20 and odi cricketers because of the same first class system then the distinction doesn't really exist, it is 1 well oiled machine and must be seen holistically instead of looked at piecemeal. In England and Australia especially test players are paid well because there is a demand for it, it is not the result of a subsidy.

the women's game is not the same as the men's game because the pipeline is not the same for both so the revenue distribution system also is naturally distinct. If anything the women's game enjoys the benefit of publicity from the men's game which it owes much of it's popularity to as the ones who will take an interest in it are not those who have no interest in the mens' game to think this to be of any import in the first place. 

 

 Hah yes, it's not that the distinction has a good reason or that the rationale to explain the said distinction - and not discrimination because of it - has legs. It must be that a cabal of conniving misogynists can't help themselves but to deliberately underpay women or not give them their due owing to some unexplained inadequacy or insecurity, all in service of some nefarious agenda. The kind of takes shorn of any nuance that only come from an OD of SJW kool aid.

I suppose you also think that there's a grand conspiracy to deliberately prop up a glass ceiling and not appoint women in corporate roles or deliberately pay them less for the same job that men do despite no evidence to substantiate the same? 

 

While I agree with first paragraph, how does paying lower match fees to test cricketers based the concept that fees should be determined by revenue will impact anything?

 

Those arguments won't hold if LOIs fees are higher. 

 

Why hasn't anyone arguing about market forces and revenue demanded that LOI match fees should be higher?

 

I don't think anything like that. I see most of the organizations pay similar salaries at similar level irrespective of profits earned by different departments and this move by BCCI looks normal rather than historic move.

 

 

[vvvslaxman]

Aren't we over-reacting a little :)  BCCI net worth close 2.5 billion. About 14680 Crores. 15 lakhs per Test match r will make a dent?  If there is anyone who can object to it, that will be men's cricket team. I am sure they won't have a problem with this. Why are we arguing about it?