Men getting paid more in athletics is reasonable

I am not saying it is unreasonable that male athletes are paid more, I feel I should reiterate that. I understand your argument and I do think it is valid, however the fact that it is based off the fact that the reason male sport is more popular in society (and hence makes more money) is because of pre-existing opinions regarding female sport, and you cannot uphold an argument in terms of its justification when the reasons for it (i.e. sexism) are not justifiable. Now to address your argument about the CFOs: no, you would not pay both the CFOs the same, but the CFOs don't have the same job (they work for different companies). Moreover, base pay is not based on performance in normal jobs, but rather hours worked. You're using the example of a CFO, which is obviously an incredibly unrepresentative career as it's at the top of the business. The workers lower down won't get paid for their performance, they'll be paid for their hours worked. Female soccer players often don't make enough for soccer to be their full time job, and the same goes for rugby player. That means they don't earn enough to make ends-meat through their sport. How is that justifiable when male soccer players are making multiple times the minimum wage per week? The female and male soccer players have the same jobs and work for the same companies (i.e their team), and the same goes for all female athletes in all sports. Now you argue that male athletes should be paid for performance, but that is simply not true. How come soccer players earn such huge salaries, while triathletes earn next to nothing? Triathletes are better performing athletes by far compared to soccer players, yet their salary would fit within a week of most soccer players' salaries. Soccer players are laughable athletes compared to rowers too, as I've seen first hand. We don't live in a world where it is justifiable to pay the employee who performs better over 12 times the salary of the employee who performs less well, when both employees have the same job. Performance counts for something, but not such a difference in salary, especially when you are discriminating against the fact that female athletes will never be able to perform at the level of male athletes, as you correctly asserted. And we should really ask what is meant by performance here. Are you saying that women should be held back from sport because they are less physically able than men? That would be a deeply sexist stance to take, because it means that in your view, women should never be able to earn the same as men in sport simply because they are women, and since you cannot justify that argument, you cannot justify any argument that supports itself on it. Female athletes compete as women and are not pitted against men, and therefore a performance by a woman which is mid level among men is extremely impressive and should be celebrated as such. What you are arguing is that women CAN be paid less than men, because of supply and demand, but not that it is JUSTIFIABLE to pay women less. I agree that many of your arguments are valid, however they do not morally justify the fact than in 30% of sports women earn less than men. The truth is that women are doing the same jobs for the same companies, and they are performing at high levels, whether male or female. The fact that you would hold back women because they are not able to perform at the level of men is not justification for paying them less, because that would be a stark example of sexism, and you cannot base an argument off such as weak premise as sexism. Therefore, an argument which is based off of sexist precedents cannot stand as being justifiable. Please consider that in your next argument, as you seem to have missed that point in your last one.