This (Serena claiming she's underpaid) shows why comparing is a cancerous thing for the mind. Any athlete making over a million for a season is overpaid. Anyways, most of that money is wasted on expensive cars, jewelery, strippers/escorts, private jets--all of which are pointless and unnecessary lavish expenses.
The Unkle wrote:
There's not a big name athlete alive who does not produce far more money for the owners than he or she gets paid.
Team owners, Network owners, shoe company owners.
All make billions of the talent and hard work and marketability of the super athletes.
So what she is saying is blatantly obvious and true.
She will, of course, be savaged by all those who buy the propaganda of the ruling class.
Why is she not a member of the ruling class?
The Unkle wrote:
There's not a big name athlete alive who does not produce far more money for the owners than he or she gets paid.
Team owners, Network owners, shoe company owners.
All make billions of the talent and hard work and marketability of the super athletes.
So what she is saying is blatantly obvious and true.
She will, of course, be savaged by all those who buy the propaganda of the ruling class.
Everyone producers more for their employer than they are paid. Why take the risk of investing and employing someone if there is no prospect of a positive return?
I don't think the owners earning billions is the relevant point. Rather the rate of return is the key point. Apparently Nike paid Serena Williams $55m. How much sales did she contribute? If Nike is earning a very high rate of return, you could argue that the investors were exploiting Williams and it wouldn't matter if an investor owned $1,000 or $1bn of Nike stock. But I doubt there is evidence that she makes such an enormous contribution to Nike sales.
Would it be fair if all investors were required to earn a maximum return of zero (and possibly a negative return), so that workers could capture all of value they create? So, say you save for your retirement by investing in a retirement account (e.g, 401k, SIPP, etc.) and you invest in companies like Nike, only to find that it will stop paying dividends to shareholders in order to give all of their profit to their athletes. Would that be fair?
But if investors should accept a lower rate of return in order to pay anyone more, what is your argument that it should be the super athletes who are paid more, rather than the thousands of others employed by teams, networks or shoe companies?
There are thousands of workers who earn very little (e.g. in factories, making products Williams endorses) who have very little bargaining power. They need a job, and there are always others willing to take their job, so they have no choice but to work for low wages. It is reasonable to conclude that their wages are far less than the value they create for their employer.
In contrast, every super athlete is highly sought after. They will have turned numerous offers and accepted only the best ones. They don't need to do any endorsements, so they hold the power. Consequently they are paid much closer to 100% of the value they contribute.
It's also arguable that prices should be cut for things like Nike shoes and tickets to tennis tournaments.
Maria Sharapova is still more valuable in marketing value .
Moron#5 wrote:
The Unkle wrote:
There's not a big name athlete alive who does not produce far more money for the owners than he or she gets paid.
Team owners, Network owners, shoe company owners.
All make billions of the talent and hard work and marketability of the super athletes.
So what she is saying is blatantly obvious and true.
She will, of course, be savaged by all those who buy the propaganda of the ruling class.
Why is she not a member of the ruling class?
I think she is rich enough that she is part of the ruling class.
The counter-argument is that she does not control the means of production. She can't decide to host her own major tournament if she thinks the prize money (approximately $3m for winning a grand slam) is ridiculously low. Therefore she is a worker, just like everyone ordinary worker.
The barriers are also quite high to setting up her own clothing company instead of endorsing companies owned by others. So again, she's a worker, just like everyone else.
But does this argument only apply to sports? Are CEOs also just workers? If a CEO earns $50m per year at a $500bn corporation, aren't they just a worker too? They can't just start another $500bn corporation if they are fired. But they'll have enough accumulated wealth invested to support themselves and start another, smaller, venture. Serena Williams is in this position too. She can't host her own grand slam or compete with Nike overnight, just like Jamie Dimon couldn't compete with Citigroup. That doesn't mean either of them aren't in the ruling class.
The Unkle wrote:
There's not a big name athlete alive who does not produce far more money for the owners than he or she gets paid.
Team owners, Network owners, shoe company owners.
All make billions of the talent and hard work and marketability of the super athletes.
So what she is saying is blatantly obvious and true.
She will, of course, be savaged by all those who buy the propaganda of the ruling class.
What's blatantly obvious and true - she's "undervalued"?! I literally gave you numbers that show that out of the total net worth of her and the 3 greatest mens players ever, only Federer has greater "non prize money" worth - and of course that is completely tied to tennis anyways (this includes footwear deals since you referenced shoe company owners).
So therefore the only possible way she could say she is undervalued is not a Serena issue, it's a gender issue in the respect that her prize money from tennis doesn't match up with either Federer, Nadal or Djokovic despite more victories. However, as pointed out (factually) tennis is one of the major money sports where prize money has been equal at majors since 2007 and to be perfectly honest, if anyone has the right to be aggrieved by that it's the men because as we all know they simply have to work more to get to same reward (indisputable because they play best of 5 sets vs best of 3 and have to literally play much more tennis for the same $$$).
Here is the kicker to all of this - the men's tennis tour (the ATP) is run separately to the women's (the WTA). The only real crossover events are the majors (with gender equal prize money) so the gender issue is created by her own tour. If the WTA doesn't secure enough sponsorship money to pay the women the same as the men it's their fault. If they can't because sponsors don't believe the product is worth the same as the men's it's their freaking right (the sponsors) to not give as much. I'll tell you right now if it was worth more, the WTA would get it. If anything Serena should be pointing fingers at her contemporaries for not be competitive enough with her which has driven the value of the WTA product down and is reflected by the lack of sponsorship money they can command.
So all this talk of sexism and racism - who exactly is sexist and racist here? It's not even about Serena - it's about the state of womens tennis which honestly is as competitive and because of that, isn't as valuable a product as the men.
Savaged by propaganda? Oh right - you must be part of the "facts" and "logic" crew right? Well lets see you dispel anything I wrote above with some facts and logic. The court is yours my friend.
Salvitore Stitchmo wrote:
which honestly isn't as competitive and because of that, isn't as valuable a product as the men.
Salvitore Stitchmo wrote:
isn't as competitive and because of that, isn't as valuable a product as the men.
Yeah the "big 3" grandpas winning every major title for the past two decades is super competitive.
bryan evans wrote:
Salvitore Stitchmo wrote:
isn't as competitive and because of that, isn't as valuable a product as the men.
Yeah the "big 3" grandpas winning every major title for the past two decades is super competitive.
One of the most r******d comments possibly ever made on these boards?
Do you even realize how fortunate we have been to be witness to this era? Majority of eras see maybe 1 or 2 greats at most constantly crossing paths (McEnroe/Borg, Sampras/Agassi) and of course a handful of borderline guys always in the mix.
To have had arguably the 3 greatest ever mixing it up and having some of the most matches of all-time as by-products of that alongside having to fend off challenges from guys who in other eras would have picked up multiple slams they were that good (Roddick, Safin, Murray, Wawrinka et al) is about as privileged as is possible in sport.
So yeah it's super competitive because how can it by definition not be when then 3 best players of all time have been at the top of their ability and have performed seemingly each and every tournament over the last 20 years?
That's so incredibly stupid it defies explanation, you should be embarrassed mate. Like really, if I even contemplated writing that I'd be ashamed of myself.
Serena is in for a fight tonight. This might be it for her.
She is unattractive physically, is a bad sport, and has the personality of a bar of soap. If I owned a company I would not want her associated with me.
She is toxic and despite her superior skill hitting a fuzzy ball it has 100% damaged her marketability.
hpq92naofgwo wrote:
She is unattractive physically, is a bad sport, and has the personality of a bar of soap. If I owned a company I would not want her associated with me.
She is toxic and despite her superior skill hitting a fuzzy ball it has 100% damaged her marketability.
+1
The truth.
Expect to soon be cancelled.
This is a helluva tribute to someone that is about to be canceled:
https://www.architecturaldigest.com/story/nike-headquarters-names-building-after-serena-williams
Like it or not, she is the GOAT of women's tennis and will be respected for a very long time to come.
Portland Hobby Jogger wrote:
This is a helluva tribute to someone that is about to be canceled:
https://www.architecturaldigest.com/story/nike-headquarters-names-building-after-serena-williamsLike it or not, she is the GOAT of women's tennis and will be respected for a very long time to come.
Yes but of course this provides more fodder for those who think Serena is whining when she says she is undervalued. She is having a building named after her as you posted, which normally shows someone is valued.
hpq92naofgwo wrote:
She is unattractive physically, is a bad sport, and has the personality of a bar of soap. If I owned a company I would not want her associated with me.
She is toxic and despite her superior skill hitting a fuzzy ball it has 100% damaged her marketability.
Yo mama is physically unattractive and so are you.
StevePrefonDead wrote:
She's a doper that hasn't been caught.
Some of her on court meltdowns have been laughably embarrassing.
Not a doper. Just myostatin deficient. She has the myostatin deficiency disorder which causes an overgrowth of muscles naturally.
In a way it provides an unfair playing advantage over NON myostatin deficient athletes because the myostatin deficient athletes grow like double muscled cows.
yo mama is so ugly wrote:
hpq92naofgwo wrote:
She is unattractive physically, is a bad sport, and has the personality of a bar of soap. If I owned a company I would not want her associated with me.
She is toxic and despite her superior skill hitting a fuzzy ball it has 100% damaged her marketability.
Yo mama is physically unattractive and so are you.
Yeah she's definitely not hot. I'll give you that. I'm pretty sure 99.9 percent of the people on this planet wouldn't touch her with a 54 and a half foot long pole.
Moron#5 wrote:
The Unkle wrote:
There's not a big name athlete alive who does not produce far more money for the owners than he or she gets paid.
Team owners, Network owners, shoe company owners.
All make billions of the talent and hard work and marketability of the super athletes.
So what she is saying is blatantly obvious and true.
She will, of course, be savaged by all those who buy the propaganda of the ruling class.
Why is she not a member of the ruling class?
Big picture? Wrong tribe.
Details -- does not own mass media outlets nor Social media monopolies and is not part of a group that puts billions of $$ into politics and thus owns Congress
just the facts, ma'am wrote:
Salvitore Stitchmo wrote:
I also wanted to look at net worth as a measure of value outside of prize money alone.
If we deduct actual prize money from estimated net worth we get a more holistic picture of how Serena is valued. Let's compare with Federer, Nadal and Djokovic who are arguably 3 of the 5 greatest players ever and have combined to create an era of mens tennis that is without question the greatest ever and probably the greatest and most competitive era in any sport. It's akin to LeBron, Jordan and Wilt at their primes going head to head.
Federer NW = 450 million, less PM of 130 million = 320 million "non-tennis specific worth"
Nadal NW = 180 million, less PM of 120 million = 60 million "non-tennis specific worth"
Djokovic NW = 220 million, less PM of 144 million = 76 million "non-tennis specific worth"
Serena Williams = NW 200 million, less PM of 92 million = 108 million "non-tennis specific worth"
Hmmm, numbers don't quite add up to the claim do they. The only area Serena Williams can legitimately be upset about "not being valued" is with her career prize money but of course since 2007 the prize money at grand slams (the majority earner for tennis players) has been equal for men and women - the only sport to do this, and 16 of Serena's 23 grand slams have happened in 2007 and later with equal pay parity.
Not sure how you take an objective step back and make the claim you are undervalued and underpaid - unless of course you live some sad and oddly pathetic existence where you live in a cycle of trying to prove you are constantly a victim of something that may exist within your mind and not reality.
She's got 23 singles major wins and another 16 doubles majors for 39 total.
Federer only has 20.
Djokovic only has 17.
Nadal only has 19.
She is the greatest tennis player of all time...regardless of gender.
Yet Federer made $100million in endorsements this year (forbes) to Williams's $32million.
If you want to say it's because women's tennis is of less value then men's tennis well that's still undervalued.
Again...she is the best tennis player of all time.
(Also, She's made some of her money by investment not by endorsement in black and minority owned businesses (see: Serena Ventures), and she felt compelled to start her own clothing line (instead of being given all this worth through endorsements, probably because her options were thin))
So basically what you're saying is that by being naturally myostatin deficient and having a natural overgrowth of muscle, it earns you tons of cash per year? Wow that's so cool.
How can normal people acquire the myostatin deficiency disorder so that they too can earn tons of cash?
Salvitore Stitchmo wrote:
[quote]just the facts, ma'am wrote:
She is the greatest tennis player of all time...regardless of gender.
Again...she is the best tennis player of all time.
Serena is the greatest womans player ever because no womens era has ever really seen multiple greats clash (aside from Evert and Navratilova) and she has been the most successful.
Not a chance you can argue anything I have said here. Zeeeero.
Ok yay! She's the best! She's so hot!
WOW!
The greatest female tennis player ever! WOW! Yay!
But wait. Did you do any calculations on how many of her opponents were NON myostatin deficient?
Having a myostatin deficient player like Serena face off against a NON myostatin deficient player doesn't provide a fair playing field.
Therefore she's at a greater advantage due to her myostatin deficiency disorder which causes an overgrowth of muscles naturally without any effort required.
Therefore you can't count any victories against any NON myostatin deficient player that she has faced.
So basically this negates and cancels out alot of her accomplishments.
But we are all so proud of you for showing us just how manly and tough she really is. She's so tough and so strong. Yay.