I find it hilarious that a bunch of men are rabble rabble-ing about women asking for equal pay.
But that's the point; I don't speak for anyone else here, but I am 100%, unequivocally in support of equal pay. It shouldn't even be an issue (though I recognize that it is). However, we may or may not be actually talking about "equal pay". Should Mike Anthony be paid as much as Ed Van Halen?
I think when it comes to sports in particular, the distinction is important. Odell Beckham, Jr. catches footballs, and expects to be paid, as does Antonio Brown. The Mara family (and the Rooney family) are not paying him to "catch footballs". They're paying him to do what it takes to a) win Championships, and b) put fannies in the seats. To the extent that is catching footballs, so be it, we're on the right page, but if it takes NOT catching footballs for that outcome, then we have a problem. So who should be paid more; Odell Beckham, Jr., or Julian Edelman?
I'm all for equal pay, but equal pay doesn't necessarily mean "the exact same dollars and cents, with no context". We have to agree on what it is that you're being paid for. Now, I don't think the women's claim is specious, at all, but it's not the egregious gender slam that Megan Rapinoe (and, to be fair, others) are making it out to be. It's complicated, and gestures like silent national anthems and skipping White House celebrations don't do justice to that complexity.
Chris Rock said it best: Shaq is RICH. The man PAYING Shaq is WEALTHY.