I wasn’t overly surprised by anything in “Purse Snatching”. This may be a bad thing, but to me it makes sense. Women’s sports are simply not as popular as men’s sports, so wouldn’t it make sense for women to make less? I don’t think it has anything to do with actual athletic ability. Obviously women and men are built differently and therefore cannot generally compete on the same level. I think the author makes a great point when talking to the high school boys. She asks “Who is the better athlete, Mike Tyson or Sugar Ray Leonard?” The boys respond stating it is not a fair question because the boxers are in different weight classes. The same goes for men and women. They’re not in the same weight class.
It took the WNBA only two years to reach 10,000 spectators at a game, a feat that took the NBA 30 years to reach, but the players in the WNBA make only a fraction of those in the NBA. While that statement is true, it is also a bit misleading. “Purse Snatching” fails to mention the fact that the NBA gets more than double the attendance that WNAB gets, not to mention television coverage. I rarely see a WNBA game on T.V. Its pretty clear that the WNBA cannot compete with the NBA popularity wise, and brings in considerably less revenue. So wouldn’t it makes sense for their purses to be smaller?
It may not be completely fair, but sports is a business that’s all about money and popularity. Women’s sports will have to prove that they can generate just as much, if not more, interest as men’s sports before they can expect to be paid the same amount.
English Composition 1