Does the US women's football team need to win the World Cup to win their fight for equal pay?5/25/2019 I watched a few more games, to see if I'd Chinese-whispered myself into over-criticism... but women's football really is a bag of shite. Unless, that is, you like your energy drinks watered down; cars that only go up to 3rd gear; mini sized chocolate bars etc etc.
The USA women's team are still trying to justify their claims for higher pay by appealing to their "efforts made". As I've said before, this is a flawed argument. Sanjid the Pakistani farmer does more work than Renaldo. Perhaps he should be paid more, but we live in a Capitalist world, so he isn't. The USA women's team should just focus instead on the numbers. That is, after all, what grabs the executives' (and policy makers') attention. The USA women's team bring in more revenue - nationally - than the men's team, so their claim for higher pay is indeed justified. But the same cannot be said of their worth relative to the men's game internationally. So their case should adopt a national focus: "As Dwight Jaynes pointed out four years ago after the U.S. women beat Japan to capture the World Cup in Vancouver, there is a big difference in the revenue available to pay the teams. The Women's World Cup brought in almost $73 million, of which the players got 13%. The 2010 men's World Cup in South Africa made almost $4 billion, of which 9% went to the players. The men still pull the World Cup money wagon. The men's World Cup in Russia generated over $6 billion in revenue, with the participating teams sharing $400 million, less than 7% of revenue. Meanwhile, the Women's World Cup is expected to earn $131 millionfor the full four-year cycle 2019-22 and dole out $30 million to the participating teams." https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeozanian/2019/03/07/world-cup-soccer-pay-disparity-between-men-and-women-is-justified/#5f44ecd46da4
0 Comments
The alarmist "Climate Crisis" language now being normalised by the media is becoming problematic in that it detracts (attention and resources) from other critical environmental issues.
I don't know how funding works for international environmental conservation projects, but on the back of the recent IPCC report, hundreds of millions of dollars are now being pumped into limiting global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees. This is to my mind a risky gamble, as it may have absolutely no beneficial effect whatsoever in the long run, and result in other initiatives such as education, reducing deforestation and an increased focus on biodiversity being given less funding than they deserve. My main worry, though, is that environmental discussions are still being framed in an overtly anthropocentric way. So-called Green businesses use the environment merely as a marketing tool. Governments are only being forced to consider the impact of environmental problems because human populations will suffer economically if ecosystems deteriorate. Until we attack the root of the problem (and recognise the natural world as having value, and legal rights, in and of itself - I think currently only Colombia and Ecuador do so) the language we use and the initiatives we fund will have minimal longterm effects. Denying a platform (I’m going to use the term the Guardian is refusing to) to Climate Skeptics - as the BBC has - is an attack on free speech. There is proof that CO2 levels are increasing and that human activity directly contributes to this. But, other than intuition, there is no proof to suggest this in itself has a severely detrimental effect on the health of the planet. Climate change is not an environmental problem - the climate has been fluctuating for millennia. Species adapt. Ours will too. Green energy, sustainable development, conscientious living: all these value-based shifts signal huge positive steps in preserving the health of our planet, but remain in their (post-industrial) infancy. Solar and wind currently provide less than 1% of the world’s energy. More money needs to be pumped into research and development first. Yes, global warming is a problem, but it is nowhere near a catastrophe. The IPCC estimates that the total impact of global warming by 2070 will be equivalent to an average loss of income of 0.2-2% – similar to one recession over the next half century. The panel also says that climate change will have a “small” economic impact compared to changes in population, age, income, technology, relative prices, lifestyle, regulation, and governance. In addition, attributing the causes of weather disasters such as hurricanes to human activity is based not on science but speculation. The Guardian is now using phrases like “climate emergency” and “climate crisis” whilst, in the same breath, stating that “the overall number of hurricanes has remained roughly the same in recent decades” and “prior to 2017, the US had experienced a hurricane drought that had stretched back to Hurricane Wilma in 2005.” It's wise - and long overdue - for us to be more mindful about the health of the ecosystems which both precede and sustain us. But it feels to me like people are gathering up all their worries about environmental negligence and lumping them together under the banner of Climate Change without really examining the science behind the headlines. This enormous gorilla of a woman was telling me how nice it was the seat between us was free, so she could stretch out. Then he arrived. A 40-year-old Japanese businessman with faded pinstripe trousers, wire-rimmed glasses and a interminable smile of pearls. He says all his thoughts out loud, to no one in particular, commenting on his actions as he performs them: “Okay so, yass, I’ll just putting the seat belt on” ... “Sorry but I will surely ask later if I can to have vegetarial meal” etc.
He announced his arrival with a big smile, gazing somewhere up ahead, and set about arranging his things in the aisle while the other passengers waited behind. Then paused to declare with a smile: “Yass, a sink a will needing toilet now”. When he got back he told the gorilla, who by now was rolling her eyes every time he spoke: “Am surely going to be in need of sick bag for travel sickness”. He was smiling as he said it. He called the cabin crew 3 times to ask pointless questions about his TV. He pulled my newspaper out from the seat pocket in front of me and started flicking through it, pretending to read. We still haven’t taken off. I’ve put my headphones on and refuse to make eye-contact with him, so as not to open the flood gates. The guy in front of him keeps turning around to complain about the banging. It’s the exaggerated gleeful humming that bothers me. I can hear it even with the music on. The gorilla’s more concerned about his bursts of high-pitch chuckling. When he gets going he doesn't really stop. He sighs a bit and exhales, then it starts up again, louder than before. I glanced over to see which movie he was watching. Still on the selection menu. Laughing his tits off. Now the film has started the laughter has redoubled. I think it’s a drama. Added to the giggling are small intense gestures that seem to mimic the actors’. He's totally engaged in that. He's on the screen. He believes he's the subject of someone's story. He claps and howls at the best jokes. It's a 6 hour flight. |
AuthorEnglish teacher from the UK. Living in Granada. Currently working in Doha. Archives
February 2022
Categories
All
|