Bellerín calls for equal pay in men's and women's football

Bellerín demands wage equality as peers question the cost

Héctor Bellerín, a full-back at Betis, used an interview on Cadena SER to demand that salaries in men's and women's football be equalized. "It is only fair that we all earn the same," he stated, adding that equality must be enforced regardless of whether one sector generates more revenue than the other. The player, who earns approximately €3.12 million per year, argued that men's football has "the platform, the resources" and the responsibility to take the first step. The reaction was immediate: the proposal landed like a bombshell in a sector that views it as a convenient way to preach without paying up.

What exactly does Bellerín propose?

The player did not advocate for boosting women's football through subsidies alone, but rather insisted on "equality" and "the same rights." He admitted he doesn't know how to achieve this. "To the question, how do we do that? It's something I still don't know," he confessed. What he does know is where the money should come from: from the players themselves, the clubs, and the leagues. In his argument, society has already done its part, and the Women's World Cup final demonstrated that support is comparable to that of the men's game. His conclusion is that only those with the platform need to make the move.

There is a detail worth noting. Bellerín does not propose a specific redistribution of his salary, nor a percentage or a common fund. He speaks of rights and justice but leaves the mechanics vague. That gap is precisely what critics have filled.

The most repeated argument: equalize by lowering top wages

The most common objection isn't that the idea is bad, but that money doesn't appear out of thin air. If revenues cannot be increased at will, equalizing means redistributing what already exists. This raises the uncomfortable question: Is Bellerín willing to have his salary cut to finance this parity? Part of the analysis suggests no, arguing that the proposal remains sarracena unless translated into an effective pay reduction.

The example used to illustrate this is the squad itself. Within the same locker room, not everyone earns the same amount: each player negotiates their contract based on performance, fruta, and market position. If equality is a principle, why isn't it applied among teammates? This is not a rhetorical question. According to this line of reasoning, it dismantles the entire argument.

Women's football isn't funded solely by ticket sales

Another line of criticism targets the economic structure. Some argue that women's football relies heavily on public funds and institutional sponsorships, rather than ticket sales or broadcasting rights it generates independently. If so, equalizing salaries would not be an operation between equals, but a transfer from men's football or public coffers. This brings taxpayers into play, who did not choose to fund either activity.

The comparison made with irony involves other sectors. If the criterion is equal rights rather than revenue-generating capacity, then male and female models should earn the same, and employees in any company should receive the same salary as the owner. Taken to the extreme, the argument becomes absurd, which is exactly what its proponents aim to demonstrate.

The antiestéticar of losing privileges mentioned by the player himself

Bellerín pointed to a specific reason for the resistance from his professional peers: the antiestéticar that women's football will take "a slice of the pie." According to him, there is a belief that if women's football grows, men's shrinks. His thesis is the opposite: the pie gets bigger for everyone. It is a reasonable argument, but he provided no figures to back it up during his intervention.

The player also referred to the case of Jenni Hermoso and Luis Rubiales' kiss after the World Cup final. He expressed frustration that the spotlight returned to a man after the achievements of the players, and noted that many of his colleagues have evolved in their perspective. Essentially, he frames cultural change as already underway.

The underlying problem nobody solves

The debate always stalls at the same point. Nobody disputes that there should be equal rights in terms of labor, contracts, or conditions. What remains unresolved is where the money comes from when the revenues of the two activities are not comparable. Bellerín has the platform and is right about the cultural diagnosis. He lacks the part that turns a claim into a payroll. And nobody, neither he nor those applauding him, has explained that part.

Meanwhile, the proposal sounds good in an interview but terrible in a spreadsheet. That is, to date, the entire trajectory of the issue.