Navratilova talks about the pay inequality at the BBC

[Moxie]

This article lays it out pretty well:

https://www.google.com/amp/www.latimes.com/sports/sportsnow/la-sp-navratilova-mcenroe-wimbledon-20180319-story.html?outputType=amp

Unless the BBC is being dishonest this should be a non-issue but that won't stop the crazed feminists from getting bent out of shape

Apparently, the BBC was being dishonest, or allegedly. There is a scandal and they're having to answer for it. This goes far beyond tennis, and Martina and Mac. But to the specifics between them, she/her agents did ask if she was getting equally compensated. She was told "yes," and that does seem to be a lie. BBC makes much of the fact that his contract was "exclusive" in the UK. Like, where else in the UK was he going to commentate on Wimbledon except on the BBC? However, he also commentated Wimbledon for ESPN in 2017. That's not a really exclusive contract, and far from a good excuse. The BBC is a public company, paid for by tax, and they are under obligation by law to respect equal pay statutes.

 

[Moxie]

I didn’t bother reading all of the above posts. If she doesn’t think she’s getting paid enough, she can decline. Simple. I’m saying as a woman.

I don't think I knew you were another woman on here. I think the important point is that she asked if she was being compensated equally to work by men. She was told yes, and now that is in dispute. She didn't turn down the work because she asked the question. But the truth of that answer is very much in dispute. Some say that McEnroe called 3x as many matches as she did. Well, that's 45,000 quid, not 150,000. Also, if you'd bothered to read the articles or watch the video, Martina isn't complaining for herself. She's complaining for all of the other women who have been really hard done by. This is a serious scandal at the BBC.

 

[Federberg]

Apparently, the BBC was being dishonest, or allegedly. There is a scandal and they're having to answer for it. This goes far beyond tennis, and Martina and Mac. But to the specifics between them, she/her agents did ask if she was getting equally compensated. She was told "yes," and that does seem to be a lie. BBC makes much of the fact that his contract was "exclusive" in the UK. Like, where else in the UK was he going to commentate on Wimbledon except on the BBC? However, he also commentated Wimbledon for ESPN in 2017. That's not a really exclusive contract, and far from a good excuse. The BBC is a public company, paid for by tax, and they are under obligation by law to respect equal pay statutes.

Why is that a lie? If McEnroe was doing more for the BBC than just commentating at Wimbledon, then it is not a lie to say that for the part that is the same as what Navratilova's duties they were at parity. You simply cannot look at their respective salaries and say that it's unfair. It depends on whether their jobs were the same surely?

 

[britbox]

It's up to Navratilova and her agents to negotiate a contract. If she was equally as good as doing that as JP McEnroe then she would have nothing to complain about.

 

[DarthFed]

I don't think I knew you were another woman on here. I think the important point is that she asked if she was being compensated equally to work by men. She was told yes, and now that is in dispute. She didn't turn down the work because she asked the question. But the truth of that answer is very much in dispute. Some say that McEnroe called 3x as many matches as she did. Well, that's 45,000 quid, not 150,000. Also, if you'd bothered to read the articles or watch the video, Martina isn't complaining for herself. She's complaining for all of the other women who have been really hard done by. This is a serious scandal at the BBC.

I think you've been around or at least are familiar enough with corporate America to realize that you can't simply say 300% more work should equal 300% more pay. A full-time employee, especially upper management, is going to get way more than 3 times the money that a part-time 15 hours/week employee will get. Granted we are talking the BBC but I'm sure the same rules apply. Mac is the lead commentator and has extra duties and is probably always "on call" for those two weeks. Not comparable situations and not as simple as saying three times as much air-time should only equate to three times as much pay.

 

[Moxie]

Interesting that you and Federberg take the BBC at their word, even though there seems to be reason to believe that they have made a practice of unequal pay and circumstance, not just in this one instance. I still don't think McEnroe does 10 times the work that Martina does. And they have equal star power.

 

[DarthFed]

Just because they have a history of it doesn't mean they are still doing it. Not everything is about gender but I know what happens when a feminist chomps down on a bone

 

[Horsa]

Interesting that you and Federberg take the BBC at their word, even though there seems to be reason to believe that they have made a practice of unequal pay and circumstance, not just in this one instance. I still don't think McEnroe does 10 times the work that Martina does. And they have equal star power.

I think it's a force of habit. The B.B.C. used to be neutral & impartial & offer accurate information so a lot of people still take their information as accurate when they can't be bothered to read between the lines or if they've had a hard day & just want to get the news while relaxing. although recently we have found a lot out about what really went on at the B.B.C. Still people have to pay their T.V. licenses so may as well watch it. I agree with you. There is a lot of gender inequality involved but like it's been said before unless women stand up & complain about it nothing will get done. In some places some people can't do anything about it as they're scared of losing their jobs but if famous women who could easily get jobs elsewhere like Martina is does something about it like Martina is trying to do maybe they'll be able to bring it out in the open & hopefully get something done about it.

 

[Federberg]

Interesting that you and Federberg take the BBC at their word, even though there seems to be reason to believe that they have made a practice of unequal pay and circumstance, not just in this one instance. I still don't think McEnroe does 10 times the work that Martina does. And they have equal star power.

you're missing the nuance I initially posited. If the Beeb is correct about the amount of work assigned to both. So in a way you could say that I'm hedging a little But in truth, I watch Wimbledon on the Beeb, religiously. And I will absolutely stand by the fact that I see and hear McEnroe around far more than Martina. He's around from day 1, but I'm not sure that's the case with her. She seems to pop up around the business end of the tournament. Furthermore Mac seems to be around for other tennis related activities that the Beeb covers whereas Martina isn't. So again... I repeat.. if they are doing the same duties at Wimbledon then they absolutely should be paid the same. I do not believe that to be the case

 

[Horsa]

I'd have to agree with that. Equal work = equal pay. Unequal work means the person who does most work gets paid more.

 

[Federberg]

I'd have to agree with that. Equal work = equal pay. Unequal work means the person who does most work gets paid more.

you mean paid less...

 

[Horsa]

you mean paid less...

I mean the person who does most work needs to be paid more & the 1 who does least work needs to be paid less.

 

[El Dude]

Again, we also need to include the fact that commentators are entertainers - sports is part of the entertainment business. It isn't simply about equal work and their careers as tennis players.

Actors aren't paid based upon amount of work, experience, or even history. They are paid based upon their current market value - how big of a draw they are, as deemed by whatever formulas they use (e.g. box office sales). Whether this is fair or not, it is how the entertainment biz works.

I have no idea how the BBC and other networks determine pay scales, but I'm guessing it is mostly (if not entirely) based upon who they think will make them the most money, that is garner the most views.

 

[Federberg]

That's a good point mate, but a couple of things... People watch Wimbledon because of the matches, not the commentators. Also the BBC is a public institution that has, as part of it's mandate, a responsibility to promote the values of the country. It's doubtful to me that there would be any justification for different pay scales for the two if they did exactly the same amount of work. It is not a commercial entity.

But as I said before, I honestly don't believe they were doing the same work. McEnroe is always everywhere at Wimbledon. Navratilova is not. Personally I would love to see far more of her. She is a great commentator and has a fresh view of what's going on on court. Frankly I think Mac is a bit stale these days. There's only so much hyperbole one can stomach, and talking about the old days. We've all heard his stuff before. It would be great to hear from Martina more

 

[El Dude]

Yes, true, although I would imagine that pay scales are at least somewhat informed by entertainment market value. It isn't like they work at the water bureau.

Further, people do come for the matches - but commentators are a big part of it. I mostly watch via online streaming, and I definitely miss commentators when I have to resort to, say, German.

I don't disagree about Mac and Martina as commentators, but I admit to still finding Mac entertaining. He's a character. But I have watched a lot less tennis than you, so my cup isn't over-filled yet.

Anyhow, it may be that once we whittle down elements such as amount of work and entertainment market value, there is still a discrepancy in pay that could be assigned to sexism. But my main point is that it is misleading to compare 150k and 15k without understanding what that difference is based upon. If sexism is a factor, I suspect it isn't the major difference - that amount of work and entertainment market value have the majority share of the gap.

 

[Federberg]

Yes, true, although I would imagine that pay scales are at least somewhat informed by entertainment market value. It isn't like they work at the water bureau.

Further, people do come for the matches - but commentators are a big part of it. I mostly watch via online streaming, and I definitely miss commentators when I have to resort to, say, German.

I don't disagree about Mac and Martina as commentators, but I admit to still finding Mac entertaining. He's a character. But I have watched a lot less tennis than you, so my cup isn't over-filled yet.

Anyhow, it may be that once we whittle down elements such as amount of work and entertainment market value, there is still a discrepancy in pay that could be assigned to sexism. But my main point is that it is misleading to compare 150k and 15k without understanding what that difference is based upon. If sexism is a factor, I suspect it isn't the major difference - that amount of work and entertainment market value have the majority share of the gap.

yes definitely. As I've said many times, I don't believe there's much of a case here. But we do have to be sensitive to the fact that there has clearly been a systemic issue in the Beeb. Re: pay scales at the BBC, there has been a defence by the Beeb that their compensation is influenced by entertainment market value, but both in an absolute sense (what they pay their top stars) and on a relative (the gender issue) they are coming under a lot of fire. They will no doubt not be doing this in the future, or at least there will be greater enforced transparency.

They are an annoyingly leftist institution in the main, and it pisses me off no end when I have to pay their £150 annual license fee which is a tax as far as I'm concerned. I hardly watch the bloody thing, but the rule is, if you have a tv or even a laptop you have to pay

 

[Horsa]

Again, we also need to include the fact that commentators are entertainers - sports is part of the entertainment business. It isn't simply about equal work and their careers as tennis players.

Actors aren't paid based upon amount of work, experience, or even history. They are paid based upon their current market value - how big of a draw they are, as deemed by whatever formulas they use (e.g. box office sales). Whether this is fair or not, it is how the entertainment biz works.

I have no idea how the BBC and other networks determine pay scales, but I'm guessing it is mostly (if not entirely) based upon who they think will make them the most money, that is garner the most views.

I agree with this if this is what is happening. We'd need both sets of viewing figures to find out who is the main draw to pay the person who gets more viewers the most money. I know this is how it works but is it fair? Do certain presenters get more viewers because they're more entertaining or is there something on other channels that people want to watch instead or are people going out or working or doing something else instead so people don't watch? There are lots of reasons why people don't watch T.V. at certain times but not at others. I don't think it's fair to blame certain presenters though that could be the case. I also think paying people more who get more viewers & do the most work is a good idea. I was also just giving the point that it might not just be the ability of the presenters to entertain which could cause more or less viewers but the timing & the viewers other interests, hobbies & occupations. There are lots of reasons why they might be getting such different amounts but we cannot rule out the possibility that gender inequality may be 1 of them.

 

[Horsa]

I would imagine that pay scales are at least somewhat informed by entertainment market value. It isn't like they work at the water bureau.

Further, people do come for the matches - but commentators are a big part of it. I mostly watch via online streaming, and I definitely miss commentators when I have to resort to, say, German.

I don't disagree about Mac and Martina as commentators, but I admit to still finding Mac entertaining. He's a character. But I have watched a lot less tennis than you, so my cup isn't over-filled yet.

Anyhow, it may be that once we whittle down elements such as amount of work and entertainment market value, there is still a discrepancy in pay that could be assigned to sexism. But my main point is that it is misleading to compare 150k and 15k without understanding what that difference is based upon. If sexism is a factor, I suspect it isn't the major difference - that amount of work and entertainment market value have the majority share of the gap.

I agree. We haven't really got the full story so we haven't really got enough information to decide what we really think about what has been going on. It could be that John McEnroe is doing way more work or has been getting more viewers because people think he's more entertaining but it could be that people aren't as busy doing other things when he's on so he gets more viewers or they could be doing the same amount of work, getting the same amount of viewers but there's a prejudice against women at the B.B.C. Will we ever know?

 

[Horsa]

I would imagine that pay scales are at least somewhat informed by entertainment market value. It isn't like they work at the water bureau.

Further, people do come for the matches - but commentators are a big part of it. I mostly watch via online streaming, and I definitely miss commentators when I have to resort to, say, German.

Anyhow, it may be that once we whittle down elements such as amount of work and entertainment market value, there is still a discrepancy in pay that could be assigned to sexism. But my main point is that it is misleading to compare 150k and 15k without understanding what that difference is based upon. If sexism is a factor, I suspect it isn't the major difference - that amount of work and entertainment market value have the majority share of the gap.

I agree. We haven't really got the full story so we haven't really got enough information to decide what we really think about what has been going on. It could be that John McEnroe is doing way more work or has been getting more viewers because people think he's more entertaining but it could be that people aren't as busy doing other things when he's on so he gets more viewers or they could be doing the same amount of work, getting the same amount of viewers but there's a prejudice against women at the B.B.C. Will we ever know?

 

[Horsa]

I don't think the B.B.C. is worth the T.V. license fee either but even if you only have a radio &/ internet accessible computer with speakers you still have to pay it. They stopped making interesting & funny programmes ages ago & just show a lot of repeats most of the time.