That's just because these questions are disingenious at best. The real questions you should ask is why there are different men and women competitions on all levels (answer: to not deny half of the population to meaningfully compete) and where those people that don't clearly fall into this binary division should enter.
nonailsleft
joined 2 years ago
Ernie doesn't seem to hold his punches in this one
Reminds me I got to go charge some things
I can read it, that's why I asked. That figure would be very much in the same ballpark. 7.6B * 0.9 / 1826 days = 3.67 M per day or 4.61M when it would have been 4 years
Where in your source does it say that?
Maybe for developing countries, it's better to fund 1000 teachers instead of 1000 Olympic hopefuls
He's an ex-cop
What doesn't say the host country is the one that makes the money?
The Olympics is already operating at a net loss, with the host city/country basically footing the bill in exchange for publicity.
Do you think these cities would be happy to pay for 20.000 extra 'employees' for four years?
Ok, so the IOC should be taking that revenue away from the host country and expect them to pay for the infrastructure and staff at an even bigger loss?
Which country or city would want to do that?
And how do you suggest the IOC should get the money to pay for all those 'employees' ?
But in this case, we're not talking about '1%'. Generally, women can go to 35% muscle mass while men can go to 45%. I can imagine it's a world of difference between fighting someone who has 1% more more muscle than yourself, or 25%.