The most practical consequence of equal broadcasting revenue is breaking the current self-fulfilling cycle. Right now, women's sports get less airtime, worse production, and minimal promotion. Then networks point to low ratings as justification for keeping revenue low. That's not a market verdict; it's a structural bias. If we allocate revenue equally, we force investment into the product. Better coverage, better time slots, real advertising. That grows viewership. You can't claim equal pay is infeasible when the playing field has never actually been level. The ratings gap is a symptom, not a cause. Equal revenue isn't charity—it's a correction. And if some sports still underperform after fair investment? Then we reassess with data. But asking women to prove their worth while denying them the resources men received is a rigged test. Let's fund first, then compare.

Take the 2019 Women's World Cup. It sold out stadiums, broke TV records in multiple countries, and the final drew over a billion social media impressions. That didn't happen because women's bodies suddenly changed. It happened because the tournament got proper promotion and broadcast slots. The moment you treat the product like it matters, the audience shows up. Now, your "women's bodies are worse at football" line. That's not an argument, it's a conclusion you've adopted without testing. Women's teams train with a fraction of the funding, facilities, and coaching staff men get. When your youth development is underfunded, your technique lags. That's not biology; that's resource allocation. If you want to compare bodies fairly, compare a WNBA player to a random male amateur. Athleticism doesn't exist in a vacuum. The ratings gap isn't independent of the investment gap. It's the direct output of it. Equal revenue is the way to finally test your hypothesis properly. Otherwise, you're rigging the game and then blaming the players.

Imagine two channels covering the same tennis tournament: one with steady camera work and commentary, the other with shaky angles and dead air. The second channel gets lower ratings, then blames the players. That's exactly how women's sports are broadcast compared to men's. Your biology point is a non-sequitur. Nobody's arguing women can outrun men at the top level. But "bodies are weaker" doesn't explain why a women's basketball game with slick production pulls in solid numbers, or why the 2019 World Cup final had huge engagement. Weak bodies don't equal weak ratings. And comparing the most successful men's World Cup to the women's is a cherry-picked mismatch. The men's event has a century-long head start, massive sponsorship history, and prime-time slots. The women's tournament gets a fraction of that infrastructure, yet still grows every cycle. That's not proof of preference; it's proof of what equal investment could unlock. Stop treating the rating gap as a fixed law. It's a variable, and revenue is the input.