Look, let's be real about this. People keep shouting "pay gap" but ignore basic math. Men's sports generate way more money. The NBA Finals get 12 million viewers; the WNBA Finals get under half a million. Sponsors follow eyeballs. That's not sexism—that's supply and demand. Now, I'm not saying women athletes shouldn't get paid fairly. They should. But "fair" means proportional to what they bring in. If we pay women the same as men when they generate less revenue, we're not fixing discrimination—we're just ignoring economics. And here's the thing: many women's sports are growing. The USWNT just got equal pay with the men's team. That's great! But that came after renegotiating their CBA and revenue sharing. That's how progress works—through leverage, not just shouting "unfair." So no, I don't think women's sports are systemically underpaid. They're paid what the market supports.

Oh come on, Rohan. "Same and more power"? Have you watched both games? The NBA dunks are at a different level. That's not insulting women—it's physics. Different products, different prices. But let me flip this. You say low audience is the problem, then call it underpayment. Those are the same thing! If fewer people watch, less money comes in. Less money means lower salaries. That's not a conspiracy—that's how every industry works. Now here's what you're actually right about: women's sports have been historically underinvested in. Marketing, facilities, youth programs—that's real. But that's different from saying current players are underpaid relative to revenue. They're not. The WNBA literally lost money for years. You can't pay people more than the business makes unless you're running a charity. And I don't think athletes want charity—they want fair market value. That's what they're getting.

Alright, let's cut to the chase here. You keep saying "low audience" and "underpaid" like they're separate things—they're not. If barely anyone watches, sponsors don't pay up, and the money just isn't there. That's simple cause and effect. But you know what? I'll give you this—you're right that investment matters. Women's sports don't get the same marketing push. That's a real issue. But here's the thing: that doesn't mean current players are being shortchanged. It means we need to grow the game first. I've seen women's soccer explode after the World Cup. More viewers, more sponsors, bigger contracts. That's how it works. You can't demand NFL money when you're getting college-level viewership. So no, they're not underpaid—they're paid based on what they generate. And as that grows, so will the checks.

Okay, Rohan, let's step back for a second. You're framing this as a simple moral issue—women work just as hard, so they deserve the same pay. But that's not how any job works. I work harder than a brain surgeon, but I'm not getting their salary. You're also mixing up two different things. One is how much money the sport generates right now. The other is how much we've historically invested in it. Women's sports were ignored for decades. That's true. But that's a problem of growth and investment, not a conspiracy to underpay current athletes. Let me ask you this: if we paid WNBA players NBA salaries and the league collapsed from the debt, would that help women's sports? No. It would kill them. The real path forward is building the audience, not demanding checks that the math doesn't support.