[mffnbs]

> Female soccer players make less money because less people watch and there is less money

I think this is a great example! The US women's soccer team is better than the men's but they make a fraction of the money. It's not their fault that sports have a sexist history that influences viewership, ad revenue, and ultimately their salaries.

[tomp]

It's not "sexist history", it's just that men are better at (almost all) sports. Male football is simply more exciting to watch (I imagine, for broader audiences... it's boring to me, in general). For modeling, it's the reverse.

[hadesenia]

How is men’s soccer more exciting to watch rather than woman’s soccer? It’s literally people kicking a ball around. Does the ball explode if you are a man and kicking it?

[mffnbs]

There was a time when women weren't allowed to play professional soccer. It can't not have a sexist history.

[amishadowbanned]

the sexist history is that people prefer watching better athletes.

[magduf]

Women can be just as athletic as men, and can easily beat them in many sports. It just depends on the sport. If the sport requires upper-body strength, forget it: men will always have a huge advantage here. But if upper-body strength is no help, and lower-body strength and endurance are important, women can do better. Off the top of my head, I'd point to endurance running: women have longer legs proportionally, and more fat reserves, and don't have to waste a lot of energy carrying around a lot of chest/arm muscles and bigger upper-body bones. They can also do well in downhill skiing, bicycling, etc.

Also, over in Tennessee, the UT women's basketball team has been much, much more popular for decades now than the men's team ever was.