And mf looks high.

You realise that the women’s salaries are staying at around 10% of the men’s and this only applies to match fees, right? Or did you not even read the first sentence of the article?

It is the first sentence of the article…

> Buy tickets for as many matches as you can and support the team.

Might help when the BCCI put on a women’s IPL eh? Or organise a home test?

Women’s cricket will be in amazing shape when the players, particularly up and coming players, can afford to play it full time. That comes from investment. It’s a pattern we’ve seen across women’s cricket teams: the teams that pay the players more improve the most and attract new fans. An increase in funding from the governing body is pretty well evidenced to be the best way to improve women’s cricket teams.

It also doesn’t apply to the players’ salaries, only the match fees. So everyone bleating about them being paid the same despite differing revenues has fundamentally misunderstood the facts of the story.

And the contracts the men get are worth more than the ones the women get, this is just match fees, which are a minority of the players’ income. You don’t have to worry yourself, men will still be paid more.

And the men aren’t playing women’s cricket…?

Cricket fans, broadcast deals and sponsors, I suppose.

BCCI makes virtually unlimited money, so they’re using it to support a rapidly emerging segment of the sport.

They’re both playing cricket at the international level, yes.

Why should international sport only be about revenue anyway?

They also aren’t being paid equally, this relates only to match fees, which is a small proportion of player earnings. We’re talking about $3,600 per player per match here (up to around $18,000 for a 5 day match, which are very rare for the women to play). BCCI is worth billions of dollars, it’s nothing on their spreadsheet while opening up opportunities for so many women players.

Even if this were the case, it’s not what the OP comment is about anyway.