Thank you dear subscribers, we are overwhelmed with your response.
Facts: The who and the what
World sport today is no longer the same as it was before the industrial revolution of the 20th century. Technological advancements have not only improved the living standards of human societies in general, but also incentivized the endeavors behind human behaviors. And world sport is no exception. This article gives a glimpse of the top money making sports in world today (https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/sports/top-10-richest-sports-leagues-in-the-world-including-national-football-league-indian-premier-league-and-others/articleshow/113548384.cms).
Football (or soccer), cricket, baseball, basketball and ice hockey are the common themes in any such statistics. Whomsoever has access to internet and television sports, and is reading this article should be able to easily make a picture from this list as to which biological sex (on an average) is more in focus in any news/media, allowed to perform prime time more in the grandest stadiums, get to have their names on merchandise, get to express their opinions more, etc., and finally benefiting more out of it (monetarily). This begs the core question whether all the humans (and sexes) in the world are being fair to one biological sex and hence automatically unfair to the other.
Feelings: The gender pay gap myth
Let us take for example the recent 24/September article in The Print on Smriti Mandhana and her unfair media treatment. To understand more, let us consider sport as a job (which it is nowadays), as a means to earn a living (money, house, car, status, etc.) and start of equitably. To succeed equitably, one needs sports gear, stadiums, for runs, fours, sixes, catching, fielding, emotion, spirit, grit, composure, style, wins and so forth. While going about their jobs and assuming they have retired, how many hours in a year (on an average) would Virat Kohli and Smriti Mandhana have played? How many years in total would they have played in their lives? How much effort would each have put in hitting fours, sixes, running between wickets, spilling their blood for saving runs or catching? How many T20, ODI, and test matches would each have played in their lives? If we assume all these are equal, would it be fair or unfair that their employers pay them the same (hourly/daily/monthly/yearly). What about if they are not equal? Well, only an employer of an enterprise would know, who has the resources to get something out of that enterprise. And this begs a question on the reasons why enterprising employers exhibit such behaviour.
Reasons: It is Economics
To drive home the point, let us hypothetically imagine two humans named X and Y, of different biological sex, both with differing socio-economic conditioning, but same age, managed to study in same schools, have same credentials (marks, percentages, accolades, IQ), working for the same company, are in a similar post, under the same manager, but working in two different projects which started off at the same time, with similar team strength, require similar outcomes (for the same client) and having the same targets, deadlines, time, resources (tools and technology) to achieve them. That is, both got the same opportunity, and started off with the same daily wage/pay. If all other team members are equal in their performance, say that the product with X in it underperformed while the product with Y excelled. Which product will the client take most likely, pay more, and why? Then, which project team deserves more credit and thereby benefits? Who between X and Y then deserves to get more or less as part of their yearly bonus? How about whether this work is in a comfortable city office, or on a remote middle-of-nowhere crude oil platform. The reader would certainly know the answer to this, which should be the same as a manager and a client, but may differ whether it is X or Y.
If at all a world wide poll is taken in each county and all sexes are asked to name their sports icons, would one biological sex be aware of sports icons from their respective groups, by way of watching, following, supporting, and paying more? Sport or any profession does not (should thrive not to) discriminate, by itself, which biological sex started off with the short end of the stick, fall in love, gets to toil, learn, excel, experience pleasure, get dejected, get motivated, bend rules, get inspired, feel pain, sacrifice, and so on. It starts off (should thrive to give) by giving equal opportunity to any biological sex. It is but the valuation of the outcome as per a free and open market-based supply and demand economy that decides what the fair compensation is and sustaining resources are on any side of the equation. The more important question is on the causes and effects of human behaviour, not only on a special group (like women in Indian cricket), but also on all other groups as a whole.
These pieces are being published as they have been received – they have not been edited/fact-checked by ThePrint.