ABSTRACT

In this paper, we investigate three different ways of defending the claim that national football associations ought to pay their men’s and women’s football teams the same amount. First, we consider an argument that appeals to the principle of equal pay for equal work. We argue that this ‘labor rights’ argument provides a good reason for some national football associations to pay their men’s and women’s teams the same amount but that these are the exception rather than the rule. Next, we consider an alternative argument, which appeals to the ‘expressive power’ of paying women’s football teams the same as men’s. We argue that this argument can be applied more generally than the first argument and gives a good reason for many football associations to pay their men’s and women’s teams equally. However, this argument struggles to show that associations have a moral obligation to pay their men’s and women’s teams the same. We finish by considering the ‘argument from historical injustice’. We argue that this argument provides plausible grounds for thinking that many associations not only have moral reasons to pay their men’s and women’s teams equally, but that they also have a moral obligation and a political responsibility to do so.

摘要

在本文中，我们研究了三种不同的辩护方法：国家足球协会应向其男子和女子足球队支付相同的费用。首先，我们考虑一个主张同工同酬原则的论点。我们认为，这种“劳动权利”论点为某些国家足球协会向男子和女子球队支付相同的金额提供了充分的理由，但这些只是例外，而不是规则。接下来，我们考虑另一种论点，该论点吸引了赋予女足与男足相同的“表达能力”。我们认为，该论点可以比第一个论点更广泛地应用，并且为许多足球协会公平地支付其男子和女子球队的费用提供了充分的理由。然而，这一论点难以表明，协会有道德义务向男子和女子球队支付相同的报酬。最后，我们考虑“来自历史不公正的争论”。我们认为，这一论点为认为许多协会不仅有道义上的理由要男女同工同酬而提供了合理的依据，而且他们也有这样做的道义义务和政治责任。