Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: On the Peace Train
I personally don't watch auto racing. (I just hope it doesn't indirectly contribute to the deadly drag racing a lot of kids do). But anyhow, even if Danica is "on schedule" with the male drivers, she's done nothing 2B earning boatloads more $ than a guy @ the same level. Funny, we had a few threads about the Wimby pay differential, and here's someone making several times more than a guy @ her level because she's female. (OK, a pretty one, FWIW).
Re. merchandising, funny too. Any time I've pointed out the obvious here, that a celebrity endorsing a particular brand of (fill in the blank) doesn't mean that its magically better than the competing brands, ppl have agreed that they personally wouldn't be influenced by that kind of irrelevant thing, and nobody ever said they would.
Call me old-fashioned, but I think the pay structure in pro sports (and I realize a lot of it is funded by sponsors, not ticket sales) is generous enough that the competitors don't "need" to engage in this charade of "buy X because I'm in a commercial for it". Re. event sponsorship? Hell, even the scrollbar on the website of the Sony-Ericsson WTA Tour lists the cities, not the sponsor names, a tacit admission I guess that the fans think in terminology like "Stanford", not "Bank of the West Classic".
So even if commercialism is a "necessary nuisance" with a bunch of suits getting to do the trophy presentations as if anyone in the crowd gives a good GD what company they represent, lets not act like the (tennis players, for example) would be cutting hair instead if the winner of a Slam "only" got lets say $250,000 instead of a million plus. Sometime (if you haven't seen it already) watch the movie Hoop Dreams, and see the "other side of sports", that distracts kids from their schoolwork etc. B4 "spitting out" the vast majority of them.