But it doesn't mirror that situation because the source and arguably the purpose of the money is completely different. Those leagues rely on tickets sold (and endorsements, but endorsements are going to correlate with ticket sales since the value prop of any celebrity endorsement is consumer interest in what they do.) No one is buying tickets to watch the Lifetime Grand Prix. The money is coming from a corporation that has a vested interest in appealing to both men and women for its core competency (healthy lifestyles through their clubs and events.) So even if you dismiss the notion that they are doing the same work* and therefore deserve the same pay, there is still the notion that Lifetime pays them the same because it's in Lifetime's best interest to do so and, put simply, Lifetime's motivations are the only reason the whole thing exists in the first place. In fact, you could almost argue that while the players in the NBA and WNBA are selling the quality and competitiveness of their leagues as the product worth paying for, in the Lifetime Grand Prix, the athletes themselves aren't the ones selling product - they ARE the product representing Lifetime's core services. So looking at it that way, the payment they get isn't something the women or men so much deserve as it is the cost of presenting a product in line with the company's bottom line revenue goals. By that thought process, they have more in common with social media influencers than with NBA or WNBA athletes.
* Yes, a footnote. Because I hate the fact that I didn't clarify this earlier - they *technically* aren't doing the same work on average if you define work as I did earlier - the exact physics concept of W = F*d - because most of the men here probably weigh more than the women, so even though the "d" is the same, the "F" has to be higher for those who weigh more, but I think that's just semantics in the long run - they ride the same distance and suffer just as much. They deserve the same amounts.