When will the sports world stop using the term "equality" and start using the real term for what sports organizations are doing to support professional female athletes, which would be the word "subsidy".
For years, events like the Boston Marathon and the US Open (tennis) have been paying men and women equal purses for talent levels and performances that are less than equal. I understand that female athletes have the same passion, dedication and drive to compete as their male counterparts. However, in professional sports, it takes more than mere work ethic or devotion to earn a deserved place at the top of the pay scale.
If all that were required to earn equal pay in the sports world was a drive to be the best or putting forth an equal effort, then minor league baseball players would earn the same amounts as their major league counterparts. They, however, do not earn the same paycheck because they are not equal in the world of sports. That's why the following news story rubs me the wrong way.
****************************************************
**********************************************
LOS ANGELES (AP) -- Russia's Tatiana Aryasova made a smashing marathon debut Sunday, taking advantage of a head start on the male runners to capture the Los Angeles Marathon.
She held off a group of Kenyan men and finished in 2 hours, 29 minutes and 9 seconds. She gave little thought to the men in pursuit.
"It didn't matter to me," she said through a translator. "If I see the men behind me, it's not going to make me run faster."
Aryasova won a $100,000 bonus as part of "The Challenge," the men-vs.-women format that gave the top female runners a lead of nearly 20 minutes over the men. The time differential was chosen by race officials in hopes of creating a close finish.
Kenya's Laban Moiben won the men's division in 2:13:50. Aryasova and Moiben each received $20,000 and a car for winning their divisions.
****************************************************
*********************************************
How can organizers of this race possibly allow a runner who didn't come close to the time of the top male runners garner 6 TIMES the purse of the person who had the best time? To put it into perspective, this woman would have finished over 3 miles behind the best male runner if they had started at the same time.
To give her the same prize money for winning her division is fine, as long as the overall winner is given the bonus money. If they are going to give an extra $100,000 to someone who isn't going to place in the top five spots, then they might as well take the first fifty finishers names, by time, and place them in a hat. Then draw the lucky name out of the hat and award the money. After all, if you're not going to award the best, you might as well award the luckiest.
To my amusement, I have heard many pundits, both local and national, compare Eli Mannings Super Bowl performance to that of a young Tom Brady during the 2001 Patriots championship. On its surface, it seems like a fair comparison, but it is anything but reasonable.
It's true that they were both young QBs, (although Brady was in his 2nd year, Manning his 4th) cast as underdogs on the worlds biggest stage. They also lead their teams on their final drives to secure a victory. But that's where the similarities end and a superior performance emerges.
Tom Brady's last minute drive to get the last second field goal is legendary. However, the game was not on the line as much as the Giants fate was. If Brady doesn't get the Pats into field goal range, the result is a tie and overtime. For his 2008 counterpart though, if the Giants don't score a touchdown, never mind a field goal, the season is over...the ultimate challenge. Tom Brady, in his entire career has never lead his team successfully in the post season to a come from behind victory. Not that he isn't capable, but all of us in New England saw him come up short in 2005 and 2006 when faced with the task of leading his team to a TD or losing.
Manning also played a better game than 2001 Tom. Let's look at his numbers. Young Tom had thrown for one touchdown and 145 yards of passing in Super Bowl 36. Manning on the other hand threw for 255 yards and 2 touchdowns this year. Clearly a better performance on Eli's part. As a matter of fact, Brady only threw for 1 TD and had 1 interception in the entire 2001 post season.....whereas Manning had 6 TDs and 1 INT to his credit.
In all actuality, considering the Super Bowl win, his 6 TDs and 1 INT, Eli Manning had a better post season than the 2007 version of Tom Brady who had 6 TDs, but 3 INTS and no Super Bowl victory to savor. Only the 2004 version of Tom Brady did it better with 5 TDs and 0 INTS.
So, please stop comparing Eli Manning to a young Tom Brady. His performance was equal to that of a veteran Tom Brady. He has the numbers and come summer time he will have the ring to prove it.
