No. Before throwing rotten tomatoes at me, please hear my argument !! Men are physically stronger than women - this translates directly into their performance in sports and other athletic activities. Here is a chart that depicts the same (source). 
People are willing to pay far more to watch Usain Bolt sprint than to watch Florence Griffith-Joyner (I didn’t even know her name prior to searching for “World’s fastest woman”). Similarly, Federer’s matches would draw a far bigger crowd than Serena’s. Wimbledon has equal prize money for both the men’s and women’s singles. However, on their own website, they have the viewership figures which are starkly different. The Gentleman’s Singles Final had a peak of 6.4m and the Ladies’ Singles Final peaked at 4.7m.
The peak here is maximum people watching the match at any given point. More people watching the same thing implies higher ad impressions, translating to higher price for the advertisement slots. This in turn would bring in more revenue for the organizers. However, they are both paid equally. This is one of those instances where the concept of “equality” has been abused. Equality doesn’t mean equal outcomes or rewards. It refers to equal opportunities and equitable treatment. Female models make far more than their male counterparts. For example, Gisele Bundchen raked in >$30 mn last year, while the highest paid male model earned just 5% of that. That is natural since there the female figure is considered more attractive and brings in more viewers. We can either have equal monetary outcome for both or neither. Just let us not be hypocritical here.
|