PDA

View Full Version : Men & Women: Equal Prize Money [Merged]


Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

barry
02-28-2005, 12:20 PM
Cannot believe this from Davenport.

"Davenport slams Wimbledon over unfair prize-money shareout"

They play 2 out of 3 sets, why should they get the same pay as the men.

I think the WTA ought to give us a break and the Women should play a pro set, rather than forces the fans to watch boring tennis while and excellent mans match is going on.

The ideal would be to have one tour and eliminate the WTA.

raftermania
02-28-2005, 12:22 PM
Who said the unquoted stuff you or Lindsay???

baseliner
03-01-2005, 10:18 AM
Exactly how much did the year end WTA event lose in Los Angeles again this year? The comment tht WTA plays exciting tennis seems to be answered by the market. In events where the ATP and the WTA play separately who usually gets the bigger gate, sponsorship and purse? USO, AO and Cubai are the exception not the rule.

tennis-n-sc
03-01-2005, 10:31 AM
If you are referring to gate revenue, I doubt any tournament, men's or women's, pays for the eventon attendance. That's where the sponsers come in. I really enjoy the formats where both genders play at the same time. Especially as a spectator. It is not particularly exciting to me to watch Federer beat someone early in the draw 6-1, 6-0.

Grimjack
03-01-2005, 10:45 AM
Cannot believe this from Davenport.

"Davenport slams Wimbledon over unfair prize-money shareout"

They play 2 out of 3 sets, why should they get the same pay as the men.


Prize purses aren't thank-yous for excellent play or hard work. They're capitalist-based thank-yous to the players for providing entertainment and thus successfully/profitably promoting the event and its sponsors.

If an event/sponsor believes it's good business to pay the women as much as (or more than) the men, they are right. If they believe it's good business to pay the women less, they're right about that too. It's their advertising dollar.

gts072
03-01-2005, 10:46 AM
I like to watch womens' tennis from time to time but I have to agree with Barry that the women have to play 3 out of 5 sets to even demand equal prize money.

tommytom11
03-01-2005, 04:47 PM
shame on Lindsay. she is usually pretty sharp and rational. bottom line...when they play best of 5 they can talk. if not, NO WAY

raftermania
03-01-2005, 04:56 PM
Hey Billie Jean King was given stigma when she tried to give the women some respect and look what she accomplished.

Why shouldn't they be offered the same purse??? The job title of the professional woman player and male player is very much the same except men play some five setters.

Tennis players are getting paid the big bucks because of the prestige of their sport. It's not about who's working harder physically. If you're going to pay people based on this logic, then blue collar workers should be paid more then those lazy lawyers who sit on their butts all day.

spinbalz
03-01-2005, 05:23 PM
I think only 1 professional tour should exist, open to men and women at the same time, then we'll see how much money the Williams sisters, Davenport, Sharapova and co, really deserve to win, I mean ZERO $

West Coast Ace
03-01-2005, 05:46 PM
Hey Billie Jean King was given stigma when she tried to give the women some respect and look what she accomplished.

Why shouldn't they be offered the same purse??? The job title of the professional woman player and male player is very much the same except men play some five setters.

Tennis players are getting paid the big bucks because of the prestige of their sport. It's not about who's working harder physically. If you're going to pay people based on this logic, then blue collar workers should be paid more then those lazy lawyers who sit on their butts all day.Billie Jean beat a tired, old man with a big mouth. Is that really a great accomplishment?

As someone else pointed out, it's all about the Benjamins. Putting aside the obvious point that men play longer matches, thus more TV commercials, think about the overall flow of a tournament. While things are getting better, the ladies top seeds usually breeze through the early rounds and their tournament really starts in the 16s. While the top men seeds do occasionally get easy draws, on any given day, they can get upset if they aren't on their game. Men's tournaments sell more tickets. Case in point - the year end tournaments. In recent years, the men's sessions are almost complete sellouts. The ladies event in LA has been an embarrassment. The Staples Center was a ghost town for the early rounds.

I'm all for women competing - but please don't try to sell me a Buick and tell me it's a Mercedes Benz.

david aames
03-01-2005, 05:47 PM
Hello?!! Not a big fan of WTA myself but the girls pull the biggest ratings. Simple as that.

They play 2 out of 3 sets, why should they get the same pay as the men.

I think the WTA ought to give us a break and the Women should play a pro set, rather than forces the fans to watch boring tennis while and excellent mans match is going on.

The ideal would be to have one tour and eliminate the WTA.

West Coast Ace
03-01-2005, 06:14 PM
Hello?!! Not a big fan of WTA myself but the girls pull the biggest ratings. Simple as that.Uh, David. Maybe for the semis and finals. But what about the other 5 rounds? I went to the 1st round of the WTA event day session in Carson, CA. There were more security people than fans. Whereas the 1st day session, a few weeks later when the men are in Westwood, is packed. If the ladies game is such a huge success, why did it take so long to find a new sponsor after Porsche left? I'll bet Sony Ericsson got a great deal - the WTA wasn't exactly deluged with offers.

Datacipher
03-01-2005, 06:48 PM
Hello?!! Not a big fan of WTA myself but the girls pull the biggest ratings. Simple as that.

Which ratings are you referring to?

I don't follow TV ratings closely, but the last 3 uso finals, the men had significantly higher ratings than the women.

Tennis ratings are highly variable depending on who is playing, there have been times when a women's final has outdrawn the men's...and the women went through a great period a couple years back, but they've been falling steadily since then.

david aames
03-01-2005, 08:02 PM
This is probably what Lindsay had in mind:

http://www.mediaweek.com/mw/search/article_display.jsp?schema=&vnu_content_id=1000781199

As far as the USO is concerned it's true, ratings have been higher but not significantly (especially considering that they play on saturday)

2004 USO
men 2.5
women 2.2

2003 USO
men 2.8
women 2.5

2002 USO
men 6.2
women 5.2

2001 USO
men ?
women 6.8

Wimbledon... Slightly different story.

wimbledon 04
?

Wimbledon 03
men 2.7 (lowest ever for a wimbledon men's final)
women 4.0

Wimbledon 02
men 2.9
women 4.6

Wimbledon 00
men ?
women final 6.0
women semi 5.0

Wimbledon 99
men ?
women 4.9


Which ratings are you referring to?

I don't follow TV ratings closely, but the last 3 uso finals, the men had significantly higher ratings than the women.

Tennis ratings are highly variable depending on who is playing, there have been times when a women's final has outdrawn the men's...and the women went through a great period a couple years back, but they've been falling steadily since then.

prince
03-01-2005, 08:12 PM
Hello?!! Not a big fan of WTA myself but the girls pull the biggest ratings. Simple as that.

maybe if you clone a lot of anna k. and maria s. and let all of them play the tournament .

Phil
03-01-2005, 08:16 PM
shame on Lindsay. she is usually pretty sharp and rational. bottom line...when they play best of 5 they can talk. if not, NO WAY

I would pay the women higher prize money to NOT play best of five. How many people REALLY want to see a five-set sleeper between, say, Elena Dementieva and Conchita Martinez? BOOOOO-ring! Best of three is plenty.

Tennis is not factory job-the players don't punch a time card. Prize money shouldn't be based on time on court-if the women are pulling in equal viewer numbers as the men, pay them their due. If they are not, don't bother. Based on the numbers provided by David Aames, it looks like Davenport has a legitimate gripe.

West Coast Ace
03-01-2005, 08:20 PM
Tennis ratings are highly variable depending on who is playing, there have been times when a women's final has outdrawn the men's...and the women went through a great period a couple years back, but they've been falling steadily since then.The men are victims of the depth of field. The women usually get a marquee matchup because the top seeds breeze through. Look at some of AA's 'victims' at the AU Open - Clement, Schuettler (sp?) - Nalbandian wasn't well known when he made the Wimbledon final - and those who knew him didn't think he stood much of a chance on grass against Hewitt. And look what happened at last year's USO when the ladies did have two non-stars. If the Williams sisters are involved the ladies ratings are skewed by those who only watch sports with black involved and when a hottie like Maria S is playing you get the 'dirty old man' factor. The men, when all is factored in, provide a more compelling tournament and deserve a little more cash.

equinox
03-01-2005, 10:51 PM
They'll deserve equal prize money when they start wearing bikini and thongs on court.

Datacipher
03-02-2005, 12:26 AM
This is probably what Lindsay had in mind:

http://www.mediaweek.com/mw/search/article_display.jsp?schema=&vnu_content_id=1000781199



Ah yes, that is probably what was fresh in her mind. Good link.

I do remember that one Wimbledon final being so low for the men...unfortunate....hopefully people will catch on that Federer is someone well worth watching.

Datacipher
03-02-2005, 12:40 AM
As far as the USO is concerned it's true, ratings have been higher but not significantly (especially considering that they play on saturday)

2004 USO
men 2.5
women 2.2

2003 USO
men 2.8
women 2.5

2002 USO
men 6.2
women 5.2


I've seen different numbers for 2 of the years, which is why I said "significant".

2003 USO
men 3.5
women 2.5

2002 USO men 7.9
women 5.2

rhubarb
03-02-2005, 01:34 AM
Hello?!! Not a big fan of WTA myself but the girls pull the biggest ratings. Simple as that.

Maybe that's true in North America, but I would very much doubt it in Europe. Unfortunately I don't have any figures to back that up ;).

VamosRafa
03-02-2005, 01:43 AM
I've read the above, and all I want to do is post this article from March 1, as posted in Bob Larson's Daily World News:

Dubai to Pay Equal Prize Money to Women and Men

Dubai announced it was raising the prize money for this week’s women’s event by $415,000 bringing the total to $1 million. Thus it will equal last week’s prize money for the men’s event.

The promoters claim the US$415,000 boost in women’s prize money in Dubai is an indication of the growing global popularity of women’s tennis among fans, including in the Middle East region, and the commercial momentum generated by the Tour’s recent string of sponsorship deals with Sony Ericsson, Dubai Duty Free, Whirlpool Europe and the TOM Group.

BLiND
03-02-2005, 02:04 AM
Those are only US viewing figures... its different in other countries.

Simply when they do the same job as the men, they can get paid the same... its the same for any job.

Deuce
03-02-2005, 02:18 AM
Lindsay's usually a class act - but she should shut her mouth on this one.

This can't possibly be about the dollar value, as Davenport has more than enough money to live several lifetimes. So what is it about, then? Respect? Lindsay should know that honorable people don't measure others by their 'net worth'.

Anyone making over $1 Million per annum cannot possibly or legitimately - for any reason - complain that they aren't getting enough money without revealing their own ultimate greed and selfishness. Lindsay included.

VamosRafa
03-02-2005, 02:33 AM
Those are only US viewing figures... its different in other countries.

Simply when they do the same job as the men, they can get paid the same... its the same for any job.

You are right. I'm a lawyer, and I get paid the same as any person of my level of experience does in my firm. It is indeed equal. (Although it took a long time for women to get paid the same in this profession, or even to be allowed in this profession -- but women way before me -- such as Sandra Day O'Connor and Ruth Bader Ginsberg paved that way, and it's all equalized to a certain degree.)

But I think things are a bit different in sports. A promoter stages events, gets sponsors, promotes the "athletes," gets the spectators in, and hopes to reap a profit.

It seems the women tennis players are bringing in the sponsors, spectators and money, so they should reap the same benefits the men do, if they are doing the same in terms of realizing a profit. It's only fair.

aj_m2009
03-02-2005, 03:03 AM
I don't really think they should get equal prize money because they don't do the same amount of work as the men do. The men at times have to play 2 or 3 more sets than the women but then again at times they play the same. Here, why don't they make the tournaments that make the men play best of 3 set like the women have equal prize money. This way the women still get more money and they still get to play the same amount. Maybe this way they will be happy.

tennis-n-sc
03-02-2005, 04:16 AM
No one responded to GrimJack's observation, which I believe to be excellent and a side of this argument I haven't considered. It is all business. I think as fans we get caught up in the mistaken idea that these events are held for us. They are held to make money for the sponsers. And the circle is huge. Think of the capital that a major brings into the location over two weeks. If the WTA were removed from these events, money would be lost, not gained. There are several reasons the gals should receive equal prize money but the most obvious is the money their side brings in. We are talking about an insignificant amount , really, when compared to all the money the event generates. From a business and social standpoint, it would appear to me to be the right thing to do. I believe Lindsey will be the new "Billy Jean" upon her retirement. A bright girl with vision for the women's game.

VamosRafa
03-02-2005, 04:17 AM
I don't really think they should get equal prize money because they don't do the same amount of work as the men do. The men at times have to play 2 or 3 more sets than the women but then again at times they play the same. Here, why don't they make the tournaments that make the men play best of 3 set like the women have equal prize money. This way the women still get more money and they still get to play the same amount. Maybe this way they will be happy.

I think this argument has been made and rehashed over the past 10 years or so.

It doesn't come down to who spends more time on court. It comes down to who brings in the dough.

And the women are bringing it in. And the money reflects that, as it should.

The tourneys aren't going to fork out the money to the women if they aren't doing their part.

They apparently are, and good for them. It's great for tennis if both the ATP and WTA are drawing in the fans in equal measures.

rhubarb
03-02-2005, 05:39 AM
Does anyone know in how many of the joint ATP/WTA events the prize money pot is unequal? It can't be that many. I know it is at Wimbledon and Roland Garros, although the differential is very small nowadays (a couple of percent I think); anywhere else?

With regard to the economic argument, I definitely don't think that women's tennis is more popular, or generates more money, than men's, especially outside the US. For example, I've just bought tickets for the (men's) Italian Open, and the prices are a lot higher than for the women's tournament the following week. A subscription ticket covering both tournaments costs about as the same buying daily tickets for the men's tournament; in other words you get the women's tournament free. There might be a few reasons for this, but it leads me to believe that they can sell tickets for the men's tournament a whole lot easier than the women's.

I guess it would be nice to have "equal pay" in name. But that's all it would be. Maybe reorganising how the money is earned and dished out in the first place would be a better aim to pursue.

barry
03-02-2005, 05:51 AM
I think it is time we have ATP and forget the WTA. Let everyone compete maybe in 20 years the women will catch up and beat the man.
But for now they are not equal. Lets not make the women play 5 sets, the William sisters can't even play 3 without injury, plus it takes away from other quality matches.
Equal play, equal league!

Kevin Patrick
03-02-2005, 11:59 AM
rhubarb:

"Dubai is only the third tournament on the world circuit which has equal prize money - the others are the US Open and the Australian Open - with the two other Grand Slams, Wimbledon and the French Open maintaining the women's prize funds fractionally below that of the men's."

I found that very interesting. There are many high profile joint events (Pacific Life/Lipton) but yet the only time equal prize money is an issue is at the Grand Slams. Even if the slams paid equally the women would still earn far less overall. I guess they only care that the general public thinks they are paid equally on the basis of 4 events.

http://sports.yahoo.com/ten/news?slug=afp-tenniswtauaegbr&prov=afp&type=lgns

mishadude
03-02-2005, 02:44 PM
Name one other professional sport where the women are paid salaries equal to the men... Basketball? nope...Soccer? close but nope (with the exception of superstars with endorsements ie., Mia Hamm). Golf, hah we can't even play on the same courses. Maybe pool and bowling but I doubt it. Ah, figure skating finally. Tennis would definitely have to lead the equal pay movement. There are obvious pay differences in all professional sports that have both genders. Whose fault is it? Who knows, team managers, marketing execs., the fans, or sports channels that broadcast primarily male events. Probably all of the above.

Datacipher
03-02-2005, 04:54 PM
There are obvious pay differences in all professional sports that have both genders. Whose fault is it? Who knows, team managers, marketing execs., the fans, or sports channels that broadcast primarily male events. Probably all of the above.

Well in this sense, I don't think you can simply pass off the blame. Sure, there may be some sexist barriers in traditionally male sports. BUT setting aside the business/marketing side of the issue, there is a reason why the women dont' tend to get paid as much and it's simple. Sports at their heart are about performance. Generally speaking, we pay to see the best. We reward the highest level of play. The women are playing at a level substantially below the men in tennis. They have by definition set up a tour which is inherantly gender biased. Open to women only, so that stronger male competitors cannot compete in their events. The public has been extremely accepting of this tour and it has done tremendously well to it's credit. Much better than say if I set up my own tour for men, not open to ATP pros where the level of play is lower, but still higher than the WTA....I don't think we'd do all that well....

Very Western
03-03-2005, 05:01 AM
I can't bring myself to fork out money to watch a WTA match, when I can watch a much higher standard of tennis for virtually nothing by going to men's challenger/futures tournament.

I would also agree with Phil, in that I wouldn't want the women to play best of five sets (best of three has enough unforced errors for me).

VamosRafa
03-03-2005, 06:45 PM
I can't bring myself to fork out money to watch a WTA match, when I can watch a much higher standard of tennis for virtually nothing by going to men's challenger/futures tournament.

I don't go to strictly WTA events myself, but I find that when I go to Indian Wells, I get the best bang for my buck over even other ATP events, because there's times when the women's matches are better than the men's.

The women's events start earlier in the week than the men's, so when I get there, the men are starting their first rounds, and the women are in the 2nd or 3rd round, with singles and doubles. And sometimes I'll look at the OOP, and see that there's a great women's match out on Court 1. And I'll go.

And I've seen some great WTA matches that way.

One of the best doubles matches I saw a few years ago was when Seles/Capriati took on Raymond/Stubbs.

I really enjoy events where both the women and men play. I wish they would have more of those, as I think both Tours would benefit.

Yes, oftentimes the men have some better matches going on, but if Davenport and Hantuchova are facing off on center court, and the most interesting men's event a the time is Nalbandian vs. Novak.

Well, it's a no-brainer. Off to center court I go.

And it's amazing how much that happens at events.

Of course, if you are at the event and Lindsay is blitzing Daniela, then you can head over to Nalbandian/Novak. And then move back if things get interesting again. But having that option is SO great.

jonas-the-ball-basher
03-04-2005, 01:18 AM
[QUOTE=barry]Cannot believe this from Davenport.

"Davenport slams Wimbledon over unfair prize-money shareout"

They play 2 out of 3 sets, why should they get the same pay as the men.
QUOTE]

I agree with you, but....
The reason why women play only best of 3 sets is because they cannot handle long matches like men do.
So 3 sets for them is probably/maybe just as tough for them as a 5 setter is for men.
If it's like this, it is fair to pay them the same amount of money.

spinbalz
03-04-2005, 05:16 PM
Vamosrafa wrote : there's times when the women's matches are better than the men's.

Not on a level of play viewpoint.

spinbalz
03-04-2005, 05:28 PM
Davenport should consider herself lucky to win money by playing tennis, because she only has to compete against players from the same gender as her, which is only about half of the population, compare it to the other professions, where peoples have to compete against both genders, like Vamosrafa, who has to be an as good lawier as she can in a world where she will have to face men AND women lawiers. Imagine how much money Davenport would win if she would have to compete in a tour open to both genders, like Vamosrafa who has to win her life in a business open to both genders... Total gain for Davenport would be $0, she really doesn't realize how lucky she is.

tennisjunkiela
09-21-2005, 11:47 AM
The French open announced today that, starting next year, the women's champion will be paid the same amount of money as the men's champion.
Considering the popularity of women's tennis and women tennis players, I think this is long overdue.

Now that albatross Wimbledon is the only Grand Slam left in the dark ages.

8PAQ
09-21-2005, 11:58 AM
The French open announced today that, starting next year, the women's champion will be paid the same amount of money as the men's champion.
Considering the popularity of women's tennis and women tennis players, I think this is long overdue.

Now that albatross Wimbledon is the only Grand Slam left in the dark ages.

Agreed! I am for 100% equality. Actually, I would go even further. Lets have women play 3 out of 5 sets matches. It is such a major discrimination to have to stop their matches after a maximum of 3 sets. Oh, oh, and even better! Lets merge ATP and WTA! Who says that women can't compete with men! Outrageous! Then and only then we will have true equality!

tennisjunkiela
09-21-2005, 12:11 PM
Agreed! I am for 100% equality. Actually, I would go even further. Lets have women play 3 out of 5 sets matches. It is such a major discrimination to have to stop their matches after a maximum of 3 sets. Oh, oh, and even better! Lets merge ATP and WTA! Who says that women can't compete with men! Outrageous! Then and only then we will have true equality!

I didn't know there was a correlation between the length of match and whether it is entertaining and high quality? Then I guess they should pay clay courters, who stay on court longer and have longer rallies, more than hard courters?

Last time i checked in sports, there was a correlation between compensation and a player or team's drawing power (ability to draw paying customers), so since women's tennis consistently outperforms men tennis in tv ratings, maybe they should pay the women more.

Heck, almost every year the tv audience for the women's final at the US Open outdraws the men's final (just maybe that's why they broadcast the Women'sfinal, NOT the Men's, in primetime?)

Taram_Nifas
09-21-2005, 12:12 PM
That's crazy, nobody even watches the WTA when it is a non Slam Event. Women's tennis is basically boring, the only players that are fun to watch are the Belgians.

8PAQ
09-21-2005, 12:22 PM
I didn't know there was a correlation between the length of match and whether it is entertaining and high quality? Then I guess they should pay clay courters, who stay on court longer and have longer rallies, more than hard courters?

Last time i checked in sports, there was a correlation between compensation and a player or team's drawing power (ability to draw paying customers), so since women's tennis consistently outperforms men tennis in tv ratings, maybe they should pay the women more.

Heck, almost every year the tv audience for the women's final at the US Open outdraws the men's final (just maybe that's why they broadcast the Women'sfinal, NOT the Men's, in primetime?)

Hey read my post again. I said equality and not quality. Also, I didn't said anything remotely negative about women in it. Who knows, I might be a feminist who actually believes that women would be able to compete with men. Or maybe it was all sarcasm. And maybe I know that if ATP and WTA was merged than we would have 2 women and 126 men in a grand slam. Hehehe… It is all up to you how you decide to interpret my post. Once again, I said nothing bad in it. After all, I want nothing less than real and 100% equality!

marialover
09-21-2005, 12:23 PM
I find the women's tennis matches more entertaining and interesting than the men's matches. However, there is more televised coverage of the atp matches than the wta matches and that makes no sense at all. That is hardly fair. I was screaming at USA network a couple of weeks ago. The commentators were saying that the wta matches were boring and only at the semis did things pick up. WRONG. There were great wta matches that I saw at the US Open live which were never shown. USA didn't bother to explain in detail what seems to be in parethesis ..."so far the women's matches have been dull (except for the many which we did not show you, such as Myskina/Likhovtseta, Dementieva/Chankvetadze, Vaidisova/Petrova, Mauresmo/ Groenefeld among others) now in the semis there should finally be some good matches..." The women's matches are usually better than the men's matches and yes, the women get better tv ratings which is why they have prime time coverage of the finals of the US Open women. It is absolutely ridiculous that espn and now, USA will continue to show horrible matches, like Rusedski vs karlovic instead of Henin or Dementieva... It makes no sense at all.

Anyway, when you take into consideration that the women tend to play better, more entertaining matches than the men, who often play boring 5 set matches, the pay should be equal and both sexes should only play best of 3 sets.

tennisjunkiela
09-21-2005, 12:23 PM
That's crazy, nobody even watches the WTA when it is a non Slam Event. Women's tennis is basically boring, the only players that are fun to watch are the Belgians.

No one watches Tennis PERIOD, men's or women, it's a non Slam Event!

But if you would like to check for yourself that women's tennis consistently draws a bigger television audience, I invite you to go to www.arbitron.com for the official ratings or call the US Open and ask them why they are televising the women's final in primetime when they could get higher ratings televising the men's instead?

thejerk
09-21-2005, 12:23 PM
How many rackets you think they can sell based on Meresmo's name? Equal pay? Now they are getting more. Why not demand that women play as good or atleast as long as men? If they aren't as good, why is it equality to pay them more?

tennisjunkiela
09-21-2005, 12:24 PM
That's crazy, nobody even watches the WTA when it is a non Slam Event. Women's tennis is basically boring, the only players that are fun to watch are the Belgians.

No one watches Tennis PERIOD, men's or women, when it's a non Slam Event!

But if you would like to check for yourself that women's tennis consistently draws a bigger television audience, I invite you to go to www.arbitron.com for the official ratings or call the US Open and ask them why they are televising the women's final in primetime when they could get higher ratings televising the men's instead?

Babblelot
09-21-2005, 12:25 PM
I suppose that explains why they added a 15th day to the event.

Tchocky
09-21-2005, 12:26 PM
Are there any men who believe women should receive equal prize money for the same events men play? That's the real question. Someone should start a poll.

splink779
09-21-2005, 12:26 PM
I'm sorry, I am for equal pay in every other even BUT the slams. While I am not sexist in any way, I beleive in this - Men work harder and longer in the slams by a huge margin. If it is admitted that women are admittedly (on average) weaker than men when it comes to sports (most namely 5 set matches) and that is why they cannot play 5 sets, they should admittedly take less money. This post is in the context of tennis.

splink779
09-21-2005, 12:28 PM
And what really funny is this - why do you think women's tennis is on primetime and often shown over mens? Because of non-fans who couldn't care less about the quality of play as long as they can see Anna K. bend over to return serve. This is the cruel reality. I think if they made the women wear jerseys and basketball shorts the ratings would plummet.

8PAQ
09-21-2005, 12:29 PM
Men tennis sooooo boring. I'd rather watch Maria destroy someone 6-0 6-1 in 1st week of a grand slam than watch some boooooring Gasquet or Monfis play a 5 set match. I am sooooo glad that's what the networks are showing. Maria you go girl! Boooooo Gasquet or Berdych or Monfis!

Babblelot
09-21-2005, 12:34 PM
Men tennis sooooo boring. I'd rather watch Maria destroy someone 6-0 6-1 in 1st week of a grand slam than watch some boooooring Gasquet or Monfis play a 5 set match. I am sooooo glad that's what the networks are showing. Maria you go girl! Boooooo Gasquet or Berdych or Monfis!
Couldn't disagree more. I was so glad the women laid a colossal egg at this year's USO; the networks finally were forced to showcase the men--and boy did they shine.

tennisjunkiela
09-21-2005, 12:48 PM
I'm sorry, I am for equal pay in every other even BUT the slams. While I am not sexist in any way, I beleive in this - Men work harder and longer in the slams by a huge margin. If it is admitted that women are admittedly (on average) weaker than men when it comes to sports (most namely 5 set matches) and that is why they cannot play 5 sets, they should admittedly take less money. This post is in the context of tennis.

Well why we are at it,
why not pay Federer less money than the grinder men since doesn't spend nearly enough time on court demolishing his men opponents?

alan-n
09-21-2005, 12:52 PM
The men play 3/5 sets. Women 2/3. Yes the women players should get less pay in tournaments where this is the scenario.

splink779
09-21-2005, 12:59 PM
Well why we are at it,
why not pay Federer less money than the grinder men since doesn't spend nearly enough time on court demolishing his men opponents?

If he can accomplish the same task faster and by using less energy, all power to him. Fact is he takes part in a game with the same rules as the grinder. The grinder is less skilled but both players still play best of 5.

Fxanimator1
09-21-2005, 01:00 PM
I didn't know there was a correlation between the length of match and whether it is entertaining and high quality? Then I guess they should pay clay courters, who stay on court longer and have longer rallies, more than hard courters?

Last time i checked in sports, there was a correlation between compensation and a player or team's drawing power (ability to draw paying customers), so since women's tennis consistently outperforms men tennis in tv ratings, maybe they should pay the women more.

Heck, almost every year the tv audience for the women's final at the US Open outdraws the men's final (just maybe that's why they broadcast the Women'sfinal, NOT the Men's, in primetime?)

OK, since the women have such drawing power and entertaining to watch, and so out performing than men's tennis, let's watch it longer, 3 out of 5 sets longer.
Although, I will say, that if men and women compete together the results would be the same, Roger Federer would still destroy everyone equally.

tennisjunkiela
09-21-2005, 01:04 PM
OK, since the women have such drawing power and entertaining to watch, and so out performing than men's tennis, let's watch it longer, 3 out of 5 sets longer.
Although, I will say, that if men and women compete together the results would be the same, Roger Federer would still destroy everyone equally.

So should they pay tennis players like they pay the rest of us working stiffs - you punch in on the timeclock card and the longer you work (or play tennis), the more pay you get?

Federer is in for some major pay cuts!

splink779
09-21-2005, 01:05 PM
Women are watched more than men now. But if they played 3 of 5 the average non-fan would get bored. Sharapova killing someon 6-0, 6-1 is perfect cause it only takes 45 minutes.

spirit
09-21-2005, 01:05 PM
And what really funny is this - why do you think women's tennis is on primetime and often shown over mens? Because of non-fans who couldn't care less about the quality of play as long as they can see Anna K. bend over to return serve. This is the cruel reality. I think if they made the women wear jerseys and basketball shorts the ratings would plummet.
And if they were to allow them to wear bikinis as in beach volleyball the ratings might soar.

I don't know how you can assess this argument that for "pay equality" womens tennis prize money should equal the mens. For the top players at least, prize money is only the tip of the iceberg. Under the table appearance fees are a bigger part of the top players earnings at tournaments other than the grandslams, and endorsements and some exhibition play opportunities that result from winning a grandslam amount to higher earnings from tournament wins than the prize money itself. And unlike "prize" money these other earnings are set competitively, not by some decision by a tournament director or tennis board partly for public relations reasons. So those "extra earnings" are a truer test of the market value of women vs men tennis stars. So who makes more, Andre Agassi, Andy Roddick, Roger Federer & Co. or Maria Sharapova, Lidsey Davenport, and the Williams sisters & Co.?

Some of the information needed to answer that question is available publicly and some is not (under the table appearance fees are not generally available). In any case, we all know that Maria and the Williams sisters and Andre are making a killing. And most of the other top stars of either gender are not living in poverty.

For the journeymen players, that's another story.

Dedans Penthouse
09-21-2005, 01:08 PM
I find the women's tennis matches more entertaining and interesting than the men's matches.
I find women's mudwrestling more entertaining the the WWF, but should they get more than Triple H or the Undertaker? :razz:

I'd reply to the rest of your post Marialover, but I kept tripping over your "objective" (and inaccurate) assumptions about WTA vs. ATP matches---specifically with respect to the U.S. Open. The men FAR exceeded the woman in terms of competitiveness and entertainment. By far. You could feel it in the stadiums (esp. the night matches--the women's matches could all-too-often have been billed as: "marquee name crushes one dimensional-baseliner"...yawn...).

8PAC: Gasquet....BORING?!! I saw the guy up close (1st row vs. Ljubicic). He's a poor man's Federer--hardly boring.

whistleway
09-21-2005, 01:15 PM
Prize money is not for how many sets you played, or how you played, but for winning the damn thing. I wish the damn wimby wake up !!

companzo
09-21-2005, 01:28 PM
I'm sorry, I am for equal pay in every other even BUT the slams. While I am not sexist in any way, I beleive in this - Men work harder and longer in the slams by a huge margin. If it is admitted that women are admittedly (on average) weaker than men when it comes to sports (most namely 5 set matches) and that is why they cannot play 5 sets, they should admittedly take less money. This post is in the context of tennis.

99.9% Agreed :P

8PAQ
09-21-2005, 01:33 PM
I find women's mudwrestling more entertaining the the WWF, but should they get more than Triple H or the Undertaker? :razz:

I'd reply to the rest of your post Marialover, but I kept tripping over your "objective" (and inaccurate) assumptions about WTA vs. ATP matches---specifically with respect to the U.S. Open. The men FAR exceeded the woman in terms of competitiveness and entertainment. By far. You could feel it in the stadiums (esp. the night matches--the women's matches could all-too-often have been billed as: "marquee name crushes one dimensional-baseliner"...yawn...).

8PAC: Gasquet....BORING?!! I saw the guy up close (1st row vs. Ljubicic). He's a poor man's Federer--hardly boring.

Dude! It was all sarcasm. I am just ****ed off because the networks almost never show the rising stars like him or Monfis if there is some big name from WTA playing at the same time, and there usually is. So the # of times I saw Mofis play this US Open is 0.

Colpo
09-21-2005, 02:07 PM
I think there are arguments on both sides for equal pay. For sure, there's a solid argument that ALWAYS gets discounted by the politically correct that women are not entitled to the same prize money as men, an argument based on sheer workload in a head to head men/women event (like a Slam) where women play using a softer scoring system (best 2 out of three). How can one not give serious credence to at least the argument that because women's average workday in that type of event is necessarily shorter, that women don't merit equal pay? They're still pretty well paid, at the end of the day.

The claim that the pro women's game is so exciting/interesting nowadays is definitely losing major steam. Anybody who watched the recent US Open can attest to the high boredom quotient of the women's tournament until the last 3-4 days of the event, and even then, it was hit or miss (see women's final, for ex.) If I were arguing for equal pay, I'd probably bury this most recent Open as Exhibit Y or something, way in the back.

The problem with past Slams not doing equal pay is that the old farts who run these tournaments have routinely justified not paying equally because of plain old sexism. That is wrong. If they would just craft their defense with a little more care and thought, they might curry more favor on this topic. You wouldn't pay a part time employee the same as a full time employee, would you?

tennisjunkiela
09-21-2005, 02:13 PM
The claim that the pro women's game is so exciting/interesting nowadays is definitely losing major steam. Anybody who watched the recent US Open can attest to the high boredom quotient of the women's tournament until the last 3-4 days of the event, and even then, it was hit or miss (see women's final, for ex.)[QUOTE]

The same could be said about the men as well before the final 3-4 days of the us open.

[QUOTE]You wouldn't pay a part time employee the same as a full time employee, would you?

So dock Federer pay for finishing off his opponents so quickly and pay all the clay courters and grinders who average 3 hours matches more.

DashaandSafin
09-21-2005, 02:14 PM
Im not sexist but women don't deserve all play. The only reason people watch women's tennis is becuase they are practially in swimsuits. I ask my friends at school and the only women players they can name is Sharapova and Anna K(they're hot!) and William Sisters(they look like monkeys!). Its ridiculous that almost four rounds of blowouts...6-0 6-1 can be the equivalent to 4 rounds of 5 set matches. There is no way women work as hard as men in slams.

DashaandSafin
09-21-2005, 02:15 PM
[QUOTE=Colpo]The claim that the pro women's game is so exciting/interesting nowadays is definitely losing major steam. Anybody who watched the recent US Open can attest to the high boredom quotient of the women's tournament until the last 3-4 days of the event, and even then, it was hit or miss (see women's final, for ex.)[QUOTE]

The same could be said about the men as well before the final 3-4 days of the us open.



So dock Federer pay for finishing off his opponents so quickly and pay all the clay courters and grinders who average 3 hours matches more.
Now your just being an *** and trying to find a hole in our argument. People watch Federer becuase he is amazing. Once you find a women play who is astetically pleasing to watch as Federer, you can complain about inequal pay.

tennisjunkiela
09-21-2005, 02:17 PM
Im not sexist but women don't deserve all play. The only reason people watch women's tennis is becuase they are practially in swimsuits. I ask my friends at school and the only women players they can name is Sharapova and Anna K(they're hot!) and William Sisters(they look like monkeys!). Its ridiculous that almost four rounds of blowouts...6-0 6-1 can be the equivalent to 4 rounds of 5 set matches. There is no way women work as hard as men in slams.


Most people can't name 4 men tennis players, no matter how hard they work.

pay grinders and clay courters more for being on court longer while you are at it.

LendlFan
09-21-2005, 02:20 PM
And what really funny is this - why do you think women's tennis is on primetime and often shown over mens? Because of non-fans who couldn't care less about the quality of play as long as they can see Anna K. bend over to return serve. This is the cruel reality. I think if they made the women wear jerseys and basketball shorts the ratings would plummet.

What a HOT Topic to discuss but I'd have to lean towards what you're saying.

Hey People, like it or not SEX SELLS and Tennis is no exception. Even on this Forum we are trying to decide who's hotter in women's tennis. I remember watching a match with Myskina and she was spraying balls all over the place but I dared to change the channel because I couldn't help notice how nice her body was. Like most of you I'm sure, I've watched tennis on TV, attended Pro Tourneys and play with both male & female players. Maybe what I'm about to say isn't going to be popular but it's the World today as we know it. Other than the top say ten players in the WTA, I am not impressed with women's tennis.

I bear witness to far too many female players at the lower ranked levels play this game like they don't have any strategic understanding of how to win a freakin match. Far too many times, it seems who beats themselves faster than their opponent.

Equal Pay !!! Well of course that's what we'd like to see in all things equal BUT the physical output of Players in the ATP is far greater than the WTA. Only the year ending Championships that used to be held at the Garden in NY did the women play best of five. And why not?

Is there really anybody out there that believes the women can not compete through five sets? So if women want equal money than I see no reason why the WTA can not change the format and require at least at the Majors the women play best of five.

[b]OH WAIT !!![B/] The real reason is probably because the lower ranked women do not hit the ball as hard as the men and these matches would go on for days. So Network Time Share would have to be taking into consideration... TV Ratings would plummet if viewers had to watch a (let's hit the ball back & forth until somebody makes a mistake) five set match.

Question ?? Do the Women Pro Golfers bank the same purse as the Men?

tennisjunkiela
09-21-2005, 02:22 PM
[QUOTE=tennisjunkiela][QUOTE=Colpo]The claim that the pro women's game is so exciting/interesting nowadays is definitely losing major steam. Anybody who watched the recent US Open can attest to the high boredom quotient of the women's tournament until the last 3-4 days of the event, and even then, it was hit or miss (see women's final, for ex.)
Now your just being an *** and trying to find a hole in our argument. People watch Federer becuase he is amazing. Once you find a women play who is astetically pleasing to watch as Federer, you can complain about inequal pay.

But you said your rationalization for men getting paid more than women was because they play 3/5 sets and play harder?

Now all the men should get paid more because one man - federer - is amazing to watch. Why not just pay federer more since we now paying more for aesthically pleasing tennis, rather than 3/5 sets.

and for all of those tv fans who watch the more "aesthetically" unpleasing women's tennis over men's tennis, get a life.

Colpo
09-21-2005, 02:23 PM
[QUOTE=Colpo]The claim that the pro women's game is so exciting/interesting nowadays is definitely losing major steam. Anybody who watched the recent US Open can attest to the high boredom quotient of the women's tournament until the last 3-4 days of the event, and even then, it was hit or miss (see women's final, for ex.)[QUOTE]

The same could be said about the men as well before the final 3-4 days of the us open.



So dock Federer pay for finishing off his opponents so quickly and pay all the clay courters and grinders who average 3 hours matches more.

Uh, not quite. Can't we agree that 2 out of 3 is NECESSARILY a shorter, softer scoring system than 3 out of 5? Sure, some 2 out of 3 matches take longer to complete than some 3-setters, but that's an anomaly. I wouldn't pay clay courters more, because they're just playing the style that best enhances their chances of winning. It's their own funeral if they tucker themselves out in winning a 3-setter, whereas a Roger can knock out a win in 1 hr 20 m.

Also, by no means is the solution to have women play best 3 of 5. Can you imagine? Not only is that the sports fan's equivalent of water torture, but given the current low state of the women's game, their matches are really just appetizers for the men's match thereafter. I wouldn't have said this a few years ago, but now it applies IMO.

You lose much credibility in stating that the men's US Open got interesting only the last 3-4 days of the event. How 'bout Blake's run? Sanguinetti-Schrichipan? Ginepri? The men's event, on this occasion, devoured the women's tourney, period.

DashaandSafin
09-21-2005, 02:23 PM
Most people can't name 4 men tennis players, no matter how hard they work.

pay grinders and clay courters more for being on court longer while you are at it.
? Pay grinder and clay courters more? That has no relevance. Again your just trying to find holes in our aruguments and failing miserbally. Take the best women's match youve ever watched and take the best men's match. Which was more magical? Would you rather watch Safin vs Fed at the AO or Williams vs Davenport?

tennisjunkiela
09-21-2005, 02:26 PM
[QUOTE=tennisjunkiela][QUOTE=Colpo]The claim that the pro women's game is so exciting/interesting nowadays is definitely losing major steam. Anybody who watched the recent US Open can attest to the high boredom quotient of the women's tournament until the last 3-4 days of the event, and even then, it was hit or miss (see women's final, for ex.)

Uh, not quite. Can't we agree that 2 out of 3 is NECESSARILY a shorter, softer scoring system than 3 out of 5? Sure, some 2 out of 3 matches take longer to complete than some 3-setters, but that's an anomaly. I wouldn't pay clay courters more, because they're just playing the style that best enhances their chances of winning. It's their own funeral if they tucker themselves out in winning a 3-setter, whereas a Roger can knock out a win in 1 hr 20 m.

Also, by no means is the solution to have women play best 3 of 5. Can you imagine? Not only is that the sports fan's equivalent of water torture, but given the current low state of the women's game, their matches are really just appetizers for the men's match thereafter. I wouldn't have said this a few years ago, but now it applies IMO.

You lose much credibility in stating that the men's US Open got interesting only the last 3-4 days of the event. How 'bout Blake's run? Sanguinetti-Schrichipan? Ginepri? The men's event, on this occasion, devoured the women's tourney, period.

So now, why don't we just pay on a match by match basis.

if the match is a thriller like venus/davenport at this year's wimbledon, they get paid more.

and if it is a dude, like federer/roddick at this year's wimbledon, they get paid less?

Colpo
09-21-2005, 02:30 PM
[QUOTE=Colpo][QUOTE=tennisjunkiela]

So now, why don't we just pay on a match by match basis.

if the match is a thriller like venus/davenport at this year's wimbledon, they get paid more.

and if it is a dude, like federer/roddick at this year's wimbledon, they get paid less?

One more time, Mr. Devil's Advocate, can't we agree that a 2 out of 3 scoring system will generally produce a shorter match time than 3 out of 5? Yes or No?

Face it, son, you're boxed in. Just agree that women's matches are shorter, and work from there. Stop insisting that men play short matches too.

Gary Britt
09-21-2005, 02:31 PM
Heck, almost every year the tv audience for the women's final at the US Open outdraws the men's final

That statement certainly wasn't accurate the past 2 or 3 years. Nor is it accurate for the majority of the past 30 years.

Gary

Kevin Patrick
09-21-2005, 02:34 PM
Just an FYI, Clijsters got the largest prize in tennis history(2.2 mill) at the US Open. Sounds like the women are doing just fine.

tennisjunkiela
09-21-2005, 02:37 PM
[QUOTE=tennisjunkiela][QUOTE=Colpo]

One more time, Mr. Devil's Advocate, can't we agree that a 2 out of 3 scoring system will generally produce a shorter match time than 3 out of 5? Yes or No?

Face it, son, you're boxed in. Just agree that women's matches are shorter, and work from there. Stop insisting that men play short matches too.

I haven't insisted that men play shorter matches??

i am stating that there i should be no correlation between length of match and pay.

and if the argument is that men play longer matches (3/5 sets) and therefore should get paid more, then, let's be completely fair and pay the grinders and clay-courters even more since they play the longest. and to be fair, deduct money from federer for hardly breaking a sweat.

tennis pay should be driven by "demand" - if the women are selling the tickets and getting the ratings, they should be paid accordingly.

Objective Danny
09-21-2005, 02:37 PM
Matches between Serena and Venus Willliams are a perfect example of why the women SHOULD NOT earn the same money as the men. They don't earn it! This amount to tennis welfare!

Babblelot
09-21-2005, 02:39 PM
Considering the popularity of women's tennis and women tennis players, I think this is long overdue.
Funny, I haven't been able to find support for this opinion since several articles appeared in 2001, which leads me to believe that the popularity of the women's game was a new phenomenon (doesn't mean that that's still not the case, I just haven't found any evidence to support this claim since 2001).

...makes me wonder if the tables have already turned???

Many reason would explain the shift (if one exists); below are just a few:
1. the absense, due to injury, of the marquee players
2. the screaching that nobody seems to be interested in quelling
3. the predictability that only 3 rounds will produce compelling tennis--otherwise, very lopsided matches; alternatively, the WTA is extremely top-heavy (less than 8 deep)

tennisjunkiela
09-21-2005, 02:39 PM
Just an FYI, Clijsters got the largest prize in tennis history(2.2 mill) at the US Open. Sounds like the women are doing just fine.

Clisjters go paid 1.1 million for the us open (same as the men).
the other 1.1 million was a bonus for her winning 5 us open series tournaments.

DashaandSafin
09-21-2005, 02:40 PM
You cant deduct money from Federer thats ridiculous. Stop brining up moot points. You cant deduct money if the match is astetically unpleasing or short. Women get paid less becuase no one cares about women's tennis ok? I dont care where you get your TV ratings from.

jhhachamp
09-21-2005, 02:42 PM
If he can accomplish the same task faster and by using less energy, all power to him. Fact is he takes part in a game with the same rules as the grinder. The grinder is less skilled but both players still play best of 5.

I agree completely

tennisjunkiela
09-21-2005, 02:43 PM
That statement certainly wasn't accurate the past 2 or 3 years. Nor is it accurate for the majority of the past 30 years.

Gary

So we should send out a notice to all the corporate advertisers during the us open that the usta is cheating them by, playing their ad spots during a less popular women finals in primetime, when in fact the men are getting higher rating and the men's final should really be in primetime?

Kevin Patrick
09-21-2005, 02:45 PM
Prize money was virtually equal even when it wasn't. The diff between men & women at wimbledon is what 4%?
Clearly Wimbledon isn't doing that because the men are so much more popular. They're doing it to be stubborn, they don't like being told what to do.

There were times when the women's game was clearly more popular(late 90s/early 2000s) in the US. If Serena, Venus, Capriati were still at the top along with Sharapova, you wouldn't hear anything about the men.

As bad as those Williams sisters finals were, the ratings were far higher than any mens' final not involving Agassi over the last few years.

Wimbledon should suck up that 4% & stop making this such a big issue.

(tennisjunk, you're being a bit misleading with that 'womens primetime final' argument. The womens' final has always been on a saturday, them moving it to night, wasn't that big a deal & when they did so the williams sisters were at their peak. They can't move the men to sunday night beacuse of CBS original progarmming-which gets higher ratings than men's or womens' tennis)

tennisjunkiela
09-21-2005, 02:46 PM
You cant deduct money from Federer thats ridiculous. Stop brining up moot points. You cant deduct money if the match is astetically unpleasing or short. Women get paid less becuase no one cares about women's tennis ok? I dont care where you get your TV ratings from.

www.arbritron.com. unless all those people with little arbitron boxes in their houses are lying?

alan-n
09-21-2005, 02:48 PM
If the game comes down to sex appeal of the women playing rather than the skill of the game. Than the game deserves to be going in the state it is going, right down the drain. Good ridance. I'll stick to playing the game and watching old taped once in a blue moon rather than hearing the ladies like Williams sisters and Sharapova scream as if they are having sex for the first time to appeal to television audiences, after all sex sells.

tennisjunkiela
09-21-2005, 02:48 PM
As bad as those Williams sisters finals were, the ratings were far higher than any mens' final not involving Agassi over the last few years.

Wimbledon should suck up that 4% & stop making this such a big issue.

We agree!!

Colpo
09-21-2005, 02:50 PM
[QUOTE=Colpo][QUOTE=tennisjunkiela]

I haven't insisted that men play shorter matches??

i am stating that there i should be no correlation between length of match and pay.

and if the argument is that men play longer matches (3/5 sets) and therefore should get paid more, then, let's be completely fair and pay the grinders and clay-courters even more since they play the longest. and to be fair, deduct money from federer for hardly breaking a sweat.

tennis pay should be driven by "demand" - if the women are selling the tickets and getting the ratings, they should be paid accordingly.

OK then, let's do the math based on "demand" - it ain't there, friend. Clijsters/Pierce? Every single person I know here in NYC who had tickets for your prized women's final that Saturday night was shorting those tickets on the resale market like they were shares of Blue Star Airlines! How good could the ratings have been? If I had taken the 7 train out and walked the boardwalk to the NTC for that drubbing, I would've been all too ****ed!

You can't control how long it takes to win a set, or a match, man or lady. What you can control is the mathematical certainty that 3 is greater than 2. Stop bringing up how hard Mariano Puerta works - ain't got nothin' to do with it!

alan-n
09-21-2005, 02:51 PM
Are those world ratings? Or ratings in the US? If tennis dies in the US big deal, its popular everywhere else. Look at football, I mean "soccer".

counterpunch
09-21-2005, 02:51 PM
OK it is a HUGE myth that womens tennis gets higher ratings than mens. It is simply not true, it might happen sometimes, and those times are almost certainly considering American audiences only, becuase men normally get higher ratings in general, and even more so in foreign countries than in the US.

alan-n
09-21-2005, 02:53 PM
OK it is a HUGE myth that womens tennis gets higher ratings than mens. It is simply not true, it might happen sometimes, and those times are almost certainly considering American audiences only, becuase men normally get higher ratings in general, and even more so in foreign countries than in the US.

I agree 100%. Ratings in the US is not reflected in the rest of the world. Agree to disagree.

tennisjunkiela
09-21-2005, 02:53 PM
OK it is a HUGE myth that womens tennis gets higher ratings than mens. It is simply not true, it might happen sometimes, and those times are almost certainly considering American audiences only, becuase men normally get higher ratings in general, and even more so in foreign countries than in the US.

see www.arbitron.com to dispel the "myth"

jhhachamp
09-21-2005, 02:54 PM
[QUOTE=Colpo][QUOTE=tennisjunkiela]

I haven't insisted that men play shorter matches??

i am stating that there i should be no correlation between length of match and pay.

and if the argument is that men play longer matches (3/5 sets) and therefore should get paid more, then, let's be completely fair and pay the grinders and clay-courters even more since they play the longest. and to be fair, deduct money from federer for hardly breaking a sweat.

tennis pay should be driven by "demand" - if the women are selling the tickets and getting the ratings, they should be paid accordingly.

If women deserve equal pay then they should have the same format. Its like at a certain job a man and a women have the same job. Both have to complete a similar task, however, the man has to complete the task 3 times while the woman only has to complete it twice. Do they deserve equal pay? This has nothing to do with length of time spent doing the tasks, just simply with the required work for the job. How fast it is done should not effect pay, the more skilled worker will do it faster, but that doesn't mean he deserves less pay. However, the woman who does not have as much to do does not deserve the same pay.

tennisjunkiela
09-21-2005, 03:16 PM
[QUOTE=tennisjunkiela][QUOTE=Colpo]

If women deserve equal pay then they should have the same format. Its like at a certain job a man and a women have the same job. Both have to complete a similar task, however, the man has to complete the task 3 times while the woman only has to complete it twice. Do they deserve equal pay? This has nothing to do with length of time spent doing the tasks, just simply with the required work for the job. How fast it is done should not effect pay, the more skilled worker will do it faster, but that doesn't mean he deserves less pay. However, the woman who does not have as much to do does not deserve the same pay.

So, should WNBA players, who have the same job (playing basketball) as the NBA players, get the same, more or less because they score less points, in the same amount of game time?

of course nba players get paid more for drawing in more fans.

Likewise, tennis is also a spectator sport and players should be paid for drawing in the spectators. women do that (even more than men) and so should be should be paid equally.

Cavaleer
09-21-2005, 03:16 PM
Since the French Open has recently announced that women will receive the same prize money as men in 2006, should other tournaments follow suit, especially the other Grand Slams?

I think they should only if they start playing best of 5 set matches, which I think would make the matches more compelling and improve the overall fitness level of the women's game.

For non-5 set tournaments I think they should receive the same prize money, especially where attendance and TV ratings support this.

As a counter-argument one could say that if they receive the same pay they should compete with men directly. Unfortunately pure competition is not the only factor, supply, demand and other market forces directly affect the sport and the prize money.

Your vote and thoughts........

araghava
09-21-2005, 03:18 PM
Ratings for the womens game was up when the williams sisters were dominating the game. This was the reason the womens final was moved to primetime. Now that the sisters novelty has worn off, they don't drive ratings anymore. I suspect that the womens ratings will quickly fall back to below the mens if it hasn't yet.

Kevin Patrick
09-21-2005, 03:23 PM
All the slams are equal except Wimbledon. The difference at Wimbledon is only 4 or 5 %. Clearly they're just holding out because they are stubborn.
The women are basically equal anyway.
This isn't like the diff between men's & women's golf, where one is so much more popular than the other.
The difference in popularity between men's & women's tennis is very small, not just in the US.

Gary Britt
09-21-2005, 03:25 PM
So we should send out a notice to all the corporate advertisers during the us open that the usta is cheating them by, playing their ad spots during a less popular women finals in primetime, when in fact the men are getting higher rating and the men's final should really be in primetime?

The men's finals ratings were significantly higher than they were the previous year or two. The women's final was another of several in a row snooze fests. I like to watch women's tennis, but the women's final at USO haven't been very exciting for a couple of years now.

The men's final was exciting to watch.

Gary

Cavaleer
09-21-2005, 03:28 PM
All the slams are equal except Wimbledon. The difference at Wimbledon is only 4 or 5 %. Clearly they're just holding out because they are stubborn.
The women are basically equal anyway.
This isn't like the diff between men's & women's golf, where one is so much more popular than the other.
The difference in popularity between men's & women's tennis is very small, not just in the US.

Good points Kevin. Do you think W is holding out because women don't play best of five?

Kevin Patrick
09-21-2005, 03:31 PM
No they're holding out so they can spend the 5% on 'petunias'
that's what some official said a few years ago.

Babblelot
09-21-2005, 03:55 PM
see www.arbitron.com to dispel the "myth"
Uhmm, sorry, but this link doesn't disprove anything; it's a link to a homepage.

If "arbitron" shows data to dispel the myth, you'd best be served by posting that link (it would also help if you copy/paste a few paragraphs to support your argument).

Thanks.

spinbalz
09-21-2005, 03:58 PM
I'd paid them even more to make them play out of the central courts of the Slam events until 1/4 or 1/2 finals.

VamosRafa
09-21-2005, 04:25 PM
Yes, I think they should. They draw in the viewers, they deserve the money.

tennisjunkiela
09-21-2005, 04:32 PM
I'd paid them even more to make them play out of the central courts of the Slam events until 1/4 or 1/2 finals.

not sure what this means?

Rumjungle
09-21-2005, 04:38 PM
How do you determine who's drawing what % of the crowd at a slam event? Perhaps someone knows and can compare the amount of revenue generated during men's only and women's only events. However, if men's and women's tennis were equally popular, I'd still say it's only fair to make everyone play best of 5. If you want the same pay, then you have to do the same work.

spinbalz
09-21-2005, 04:49 PM
I'd be ready to give them more money if they accept to let the big courts for men tennis, women would be allowed to play on a central court only during the 2 or 3 last rounds. Men tennis is usually a lot more entertaining and spectacular than women tennis during the first rounds of the slams.

tennisadict
09-21-2005, 04:56 PM
the answer is NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO unless they play best of 5-set matches

Rickson
09-21-2005, 04:56 PM
I'm totally against equal pay because the men play more total sets than the women and it makes no sense from the work perspective. We're not taking a forward step by giving women the same prize money, we're taking a backwards step by encouraging less work for equal pay.

VamosRafa
09-21-2005, 04:58 PM
I'm totally against equal pay because the men play more total sets than the women and it makes no sense from the work perspective. We're not taking a forward step by giving women the same prize money, we're taking a backwards step by encouraging less work for equal pay.

No, we're encouraging equal quality work for the same pay.

And also paying what the marketplace will permit, and that's what is driving this train. The women bring in the spectators/sponsors, so they deserve their share of the pie.

Babblelot
09-21-2005, 04:58 PM
Uhmm, sorry, but this link doesn't disprove anything; it's a link to a homepage.

If "arbitron" shows data to dispel the myth, you'd best be served by posting that link (it would also help if you copy/paste a few paragraphs to support your argument).

Thanks.
tj, seriously, help me out.

VamosRafa
09-21-2005, 05:03 PM
Ummmn, if you are at a slam, would you rather watch Maria Sharapova play anyone, or would you want to see Jiri Novak take on Arnaud Clement, in what could be a classic 5-set match?

POGO
09-21-2005, 05:05 PM
No, we're encouraging equal quality work for the same pay.

And also paying what the marketplace will permit, and that's what is driving this train. The women bring in the spectators/sponsors, so they deserve their share of the pie.
Great point VamosRafa.

This argument holds true in professional beach volleyball. In the recent years, women beach volleyball have become more popular as their clothing becomes less and less. This draws more audience and revenue.

T and A sells universally.

gugafanatic
09-21-2005, 05:08 PM
the answer is NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO unless they play best of 5-set matches

WTA players are not physially strong enough to sustain a high level of performance over 5 sets. Many high profile players are already complaining that the scheule is too intense leading to burnout and injury set backs, this playing 3 sets.

armand
09-21-2005, 05:10 PM
If I had to sit thru endless matches of seeded women cruising thru matches 6-0, 6-1, 6-1, I'd give up watching tennis. Maybe best of 5 from the quarters on, but even that would end up being too painful.

Rickson
09-21-2005, 05:12 PM
No, we're encouraging equal quality work for the same pay.

And also paying what the marketplace will permit, and that's what is driving this train. The women bring in the spectators/sponsors, so they deserve their share of the pie.
I respectfully disagree, VR. Men bring in just as many if not more viewers than women, and the men bring in true tennis fans, not just horny little boys.

LendlFan
09-21-2005, 05:13 PM
Why are there 3 different Threads about the same topic?

VamosRafa
09-21-2005, 05:14 PM
Why are there 3 different Threads about the same topic?

My question exactly. But apparently it's a hot topic, especially among males.

VamosRafa
09-21-2005, 05:18 PM
I respectfully disagree, VR. Men bring in just as many if not more viewers than women, and the men bring in true tennis fans, not just horny little boys.

Finally, I'm being recognized as a true tennis fan . . . .

*rofl*

I take your point, but I still think women wouldn't receive the same pay if the money wasn't there to support it.

And if it is there to support both Tours, why do we care?

I haven't read anything that said that money was being taken from the ATP to subsidize the WTA. In fact, in prior years when the Williamses were at their peak, the reverse has been suggested. So what's the problem?

andfor
09-21-2005, 05:23 PM
I respectfully disagree, VR. Men bring in just as many if not more viewers than women, and the men bring in true tennis fans, not just horny little boys..........or men depending who's in the draw.

POGO
09-21-2005, 05:24 PM
I respectfully disagree, VR. Men bring in just as many if not more viewers than women, and the men bring in true tennis fans, not just horny little boys.
Rickson,

I agree Men tennis brings in many viewers, but I think the majority of those viewers are avid tennis fans/players, but for further recognition of the sport, it is the women that really attracts the common viewers, bringing tennis more commercially.

Who do you think the greater public will recognize, Federer or Sharapova? Sharapova has the image, she has that marketable image to represent tennis that would be more appealing to the general public.

When a Sharapova commercial comes on TV, people will associate her with tennis and perhaps watch her play at a tournament.

My football buddies do not know Safin, Federer, Hewitt or Nadal, but they sure know Maria Sharapova and would want to watch her play at a tournament. They associate her with tennis.

Image is everything, specially if you are trying to market a product.

Fxanimator1
09-21-2005, 05:26 PM
[QUOTE=DashaandSafin][QUOTE=tennisjunkiela]

But you said your rationalization for men getting paid more than women was because they play 3/5 sets and play harder?

Now all the men should get paid more because one man - federer - is amazing to watch. Why not just pay federer more since we now paying more for aesthically pleasing tennis, rather than 3/5 sets.

and for all of those tv fans who watch the more "aesthetically" unpleasing women's tennis over men's tennis, get a life.

Federer is already getting paid more, because he's winning everything.

VamosRafa
09-21-2005, 05:35 PM
[QUOTE=tennisjunkiela][QUOTE=DashaandSafin]

Federer is already getting paid more, because he's winning everything.

Are you sure it isn't Dibbs? *lol*

But seriously, I agree with POGO. The money is there to support women's tennis, regardless of sets played, so let's use it. At least it's promoting the sport.

timmyboy
09-21-2005, 05:55 PM
I disagree to this as many people are saying watching women's games are more entertaining. i completely disagree. the only thing ladies do nowadays is bosh the living crap out of the other player. I'd much rather watch a Nadal match, or Federer match, or Hewitt match, or Agassi match or Roddick match or anyone good in men's tennis than ladies's tennis.

tennisjunkiela
09-21-2005, 06:06 PM
I disagree to this as many people are saying watching women's games are more entertaining. i completely disagree. the only thing ladies do nowadays is bosh the living crap out of the other player. I'd much rather watch a Nadal match, or Federer match, or Hewitt match, or Agassi match or Roddick match or anyone good in men's tennis than ladies's tennis.

once you move past nadal, federer, agassi and a few others (blake on a good day), there is a similar drop-off of entertaining matches among the men too. this is not a problem unique to the wta.

Babblelot
09-21-2005, 06:50 PM
Q: Do women really draw more spectators? How might we determine whether this is fact or merely the rhetoric of a couple of flaming posters?

Hmmm. Let's look at an event that satisfies three criteria:
(1) single gender event
(2) comparable prestiege
(3) same facility

Montreal's Rogers Cup satisfies all three criteria
"Last year’s event, held in Montreal, set a new single-week world attendance record for a women’s professional event with 166,442 spectators."

http://www.rogerscup.com/english/news/press_conf.asp

"This week's Rogers Cup enjoyed the best attendance in its history, attracting 172,686 spectators to Montreal's Uniprix Stadium. Not only is that number a Canadian record, but it's also a world record for a week-long tennis tournament."

http://www.rogerscupmen.com/english/

Conclusion:
Ceteris paribus, looks to me like the men draw 6,244, or 3.8%, more spectators over the course of a week.

Sorry to ruin your fun, ladies. :(

jhhachamp
09-21-2005, 06:54 PM
[QUOTE=Steve Dykstra][QUOTE=tennisjunkiela]

So, should WNBA players, who have the same job (playing basketball) as the NBA players, get the same, more or less because they score less points, in the same amount of game time?

of course nba players get paid more for drawing in more fans.

Likewise, tennis is also a spectator sport and players should be paid for drawing in the spectators. women do that (even more than men) and so should be should be paid equally.

Your analogy of basketball doesn't exactly work here. Basketball players are under a set contract, they do not get paid per task as tennis players do. Also, men's and women's basketball are not a joint event as are the grand slams of tennis. Basketball is a team game whereas tennis and my example are individual "games," so it would be hard to pay individuals by task. For these reasons, I feel the analogy of basketball to tennis is a weak one.

On an unrelated note, do you have any proof that the women's matches draw more people than the men's matches or is this just something you heard?

Aeropro joe
09-21-2005, 06:54 PM
it's not just tennis, in almost all profession's women get paid less so it's surprising that the WTA players get paid less.

jhhachamp
09-21-2005, 06:59 PM
once you move past nadal, federer, agassi and a few others (blake on a good day), there is a similar drop-off of entertaining matches among the men too. this is not a problem unique to the wta.

I completely disagreee, there is no drop off.

DashaandSafin
09-21-2005, 07:06 PM
once you move past nadal, federer, agassi and a few others (blake on a good day), there is a similar drop-off of entertaining matches among the men too. this is not a problem unique to the wta.
I too completly disagree. Thats just a ridiculous statement. Many people on these boards would rather watch Monfils vs Gasquet than Sharapova vs some 20 seed.
Also this topic is getting to be a whole men vs womens rights thing. Once women do as much as men do, the then they deserve equal pay. You keep on rambling on about how if Roger Federer wins in an hour than he deserves to get paid less. Why? Becuase he finished the task faster? We are not talking about that. The men have to play best of 5. The women, best of 3. Once the women play best of 5, then they deserve equal pay. If Sharapova wins in an hour best of 5 then so be it, she deserved it just like Federer did. Its not the time its the amount of task.
Also where are your bull tv ratings? Women's events get signifigantly less attendance records as well as viewers than men's tennis. Simply put, no one really cares about women's tennis quite honestly. Numerous people on this board would turn off the TV if a women's match came on. Its the truth.
So stop trying to be so high up on the moral ladder, advocating everything equal for women, they have thier own advantages that men dont.

jhhachamp
09-21-2005, 07:10 PM
WTA players are not physially strong enough to sustain a high level of performance over 5 sets. Many high profile players are already complaining that the scheule is too intense leading to burnout and injury set backs, this playing 3 sets.

I respectfully disagree and see no reason why women can't get in better shape to compete in 5 set matches. It is only for 4 tournaments a year, so I don't think it would be the major cause of burnout. IMO the reason for burnout among the top women is more a result of playing too many minor tournys. They should follow an example Federer has set and take plenty of time off and focus on the majors. Nadal should probably play less minor tournys in future years as well to avoid burnout. I agree that some women may be too weak to last best of 5 matches for 2 weeks, but this is true to the atp tour as well. Gasquet would probably prefer a best of 3 set format, he completely wilted in that 5th set against Ginepri. Should the atp switch to best of 3 because some players can't handle the best of 5 matches? Fitness is a big part of the game, and I see no reason why it should not be with the women as well.

hduong
09-21-2005, 07:20 PM
For all the people who say the men play more sets, are better players, more exciting, means nothing, It's all about revenue. Revenue meaning TV ratings, gate receipts and sponsorship money. If the women bring in the same revenues as the men. Their total share of the pie should be the same too.

tennisjunkiela
09-21-2005, 07:21 PM
[QUOTE=tennisjunkiela][QUOTE=Steve Dykstra]
Your analogy of basketball doesn't exactly work here. Basketball players are under a set contract, they do not get paid per task as tennis players do. Also, men's and women's basketball are not a joint event as are the grand slams of tennis. Basketball is a team game whereas tennis and my example are individual "games," so it would be hard to pay individuals by task. For these reasons, I feel the analogy of basketball to tennis is a weak one.


First, you used the following analogy below to justify your why women tennis players should be paid less:

[QUOTE=Steve Dykstra]If women deserve equal pay then they should have the same format. Its like at a certain job a man and a women have the same job. Both have to complete a similar task, however, the man has to complete the task 3 times while the woman only has to complete it twice. Do they deserve equal pay? This has nothing to do with length of time spent doing the tasks, just simply with the required work for the job. How fast it is done should not effect pay, the more skilled worker will do it faster, but that doesn't mean he deserves less pay. However, the woman who does not have as much to do does not deserve the same pay.[QUOTE]

So in your first response, women tennis players are like factory workers (i.e. team environment) who are should be paid less for completing a similar task in a less efficient manner than their more efficient male co-workers.

NOW, in your new argument, tennis players are "individuals" who are not paid per task?

i made my basketball analogy in response to your "women tennis players as factory workers", but now you have changed your tune.

In conclusion , it's rather difficult to discuss this objectively if your premises for your arguments keep shifting.

tennisjunkiela
09-21-2005, 07:22 PM
[QUOTE=tennisjunkiela][QUOTE=Steve Dykstra]
Your analogy of basketball doesn't exactly work here. Basketball players are under a set contract, they do not get paid per task as tennis players do. Also, men's and women's basketball are not a joint event as are the grand slams of tennis. Basketball is a team game whereas tennis and my example are individual "games," so it would be hard to pay individuals by task. For these reasons, I feel the analogy of basketball to tennis is a weak one.


First, you used the following analogy below to justify your why women tennis players should be paid less:

[QUOTE=Steve Dykstra]If women deserve equal pay then they should have the same format. Its like at a certain job a man and a women have the same job. Both have to complete a similar task, however, the man has to complete the task 3 times while the woman only has to complete it twice. Do they deserve equal pay? This has nothing to do with length of time spent doing the tasks, just simply with the required work for the job. How fast it is done should not effect pay, the more skilled worker will do it faster, but that doesn't mean he deserves less pay. However, the woman who does not have as much to do does not deserve the same pay.[QUOTE]

So in your first response, women tennis players are like factory workers (i.e. team environment) who are should be paid less for completing a similar task in a less efficient manner than their more efficient male co-workers.

NOW, in your new argument, tennis players are "individuals" who are not paid per task?

i made my basketball analogy in response to your "women tennis players as factory workers", but now you have changed your tune.

In conclusion, it's rather difficult to discuss this objectively if your premises for your arguments keep shifting.

DashaandSafin
09-21-2005, 07:26 PM
Women dont bring in as much money as men. Look at the season ending Masters for Women. I think it was 1 or 2 years ago...the attendance numbers were dismal. More people are in my grade in school than went to the event. Also womens matches attendances are less than men.

tennisjunkiela
09-21-2005, 07:36 PM
Many people on these boards would rather watch Monfils vs Gasquet than Sharapova vs some 20 seed. Numerous people on this board would turn off the TV if a women's match came on.

and, many people would rather mirza vs. sharapova, rather than world #6 davidenko vs. hass, so obviously, everyone has their own personal preferences.

but thank god this overwhelming male board isn't representative of the world at large. women's tennis continues to boom and garner ratings. we will all know that men's tennis have arrived, when they start showing men's finals in primetime.

tv is solely about ratings and they are putting what draws the audience and subsequently the advertising dollars - for the last five years, that has been women's tennis.

Kaptain Karl
09-21-2005, 07:38 PM
Two polls on this at the same time ... and both poorly constructed.

I haven't voted in either.

If "No. Women should not receive the same pay." were one of the options, it would be my vote.

IOW, I would have less interest in tennis, period, if the women had to play the men. Stupid idea.

- KK

DashaandSafin
09-21-2005, 07:38 PM
What ratings. Just where exactly are you getting this from. Arbirator.com? all you did was give us a link..
What the hell is A...com? Never heard of it.

DashaandSafin
09-21-2005, 07:41 PM
Everyone who would rather watch Pierce vs Clijsters say nay
Everyone who would rather watch Agassi vs Fed say yay

The tennis guy
09-21-2005, 07:42 PM
There should be equal pay in men and women combined events. Equal pay doesn't not apply - no one asks for - for men and women separate events.

tonysk83
09-21-2005, 07:47 PM
I think if they can draw the close to the same numbers in television ratings and crowd attendence, then they should, otherwise no. Honestly, would you rather have watched andre and fed or mary pierce and clijsters on tv, yeah...

Babblelot
09-21-2005, 07:55 PM
What ratings. Just where exactly are you getting this from. Arbirator.com? all you did was give us a link..
What the hell is A...com? Never heard of it.
lol :p :p

I hope you get a response--I've been trying for hours.

(I think it's just one of those things some people say when they're losing an argument: "You don't know what you're talking about. Look it up on arbirator.com."

...I wonder if tj is one of my ex-girlfriends????)

Cavaleer
09-21-2005, 08:09 PM
Two polls on this at the same time ... and both poorly constructed.

I haven't voted in either.

If "No. Women should not receive the same pay." were one of the options, it would be my vote.

IOW, I would have less interest in tennis, period, if the women had to play the men. Stupid idea.

- KK

I rather liked my options, Kaptain Karl. ;) Seriously, though, I didn't see the other poll otherwise I would not have made one.

But you must not have read my options. No equal pay is the fourth one.

Clearly the women are not going to play the men but some people felt that if they want equal pay they should compete in exactly the same way that men do, i.e. against other men. That's why I included it as an option.

tennisjunkiela
09-21-2005, 08:10 PM
Julie Anne Russell
March 3, 2005
Columbia University
E-mail: jar2141@columbia.edu

Professional tennis is the best established and most popular women's sport on the planet, with bona fide superstars, growing TV ratings and packed stands at tournaments. So why, at the upcoming French Open and Wimbledon matches, will Serena Williams' paychecks be smaller than

When Wimbledon, the world’s oldest and most prestigious tennis championship, announced this year's record-breaking total prize money of more than 10 million pounds, it kept with tradition: The women's champion will win less than the men's champion by 30,000 pounds, or about $57,000.

The disparity in prize money at Wimbledon demonstrates a paradox in the world of tennis. While the women’s game is attracting record attendance and TV ratings, and creating international superstars like Serena Williams and Maria Sharapova, women still win less money than the male contenders at the two European Grand Slams--Wimbledon and the French Open--and at most other tournaments. As for the other two slams, the U.S. Open has offered equal prize money since 1973, and the Australian Open since 2000.

At the French Open, held late May through early June, the women's champion will win about $1,115,000. That's $17,000 less than the men's champion, who will take home about $1,132,000 this year.

In late April, Wimbledon announced a token increase in the overall women’s singles prize money by 5.9 percent, while raising the men’s singles prize money by only 4.6 percent. That means that the women's winner will take home 600,000 pounds, 95 percent of the equivalent men's prize of 630,000 pounds.

Explaining the slightly greater increase in pay for women, the chairman of the All England Club, where Wimbledon is held, said the tournament is delighted to recognize the current stature of the women’s game.

While Wimbledon and the French Open make slow increases to narrow the pay gap, recognition of the importance of the women’s game is dawning outside of Europe. In March, the Dubai Tennis Championships unexpectedly offered equal prize money, awarding women’s champion Lindsay Davenport the same $1 million as Roger Federer, the Swiss player who won the men’s side of the draw.

Davenport, who played for the first time in Dubai this year, expressed her frustration that the disparity still exists at other tournaments. We hear all the different reasons for that, Davenport told African news agencies. You hear about women playing only three sets while men play five. And the best women are never going to beat the best men. But it’s a different game you go to watch with the women--it doesn’t make it better or worse.?


The organization that runs women's professional tennis, the Sony Ericsson WTA Tour, backed up Davenport’s assertion that shorter play time--the most common explanation for the pay gap--doesn’t make for a lesser match.

There is nowhere else in sports where athletes are paid based on how long they're on the field or court, said Darrell Fry, spokesman for the tour. It’s about entertainment value. You don’t pay more for a longer movie?
Shorter matches are actually better for TV, Fry said. A typical women’s match of less than two hours fits more easily into the networks time slots, as opposed to the sometimes three- or four-hour matches that men play.

Meanwhile, ratings for women’s matches are on par with men’s matches and rising faster. The men’s and women’s finals of this April’s NASDAQ 100 Open in Miami drew the same number of television viewers. But that represented a ratings increase of 50 percent over last year for the women’s match, and only a 25 percent increase over last year for the men’s final. Even a tape-delayed match between the Williams sisters, whose result had already been reported, attracted nearly 350,000 television viewers at past midnight Eastern time, according to the NASDAQ 100 Open Web site.

In Dubai, the women’s championship has only been played since 2001. But it has already established that women are as much of a draw as men, with both equal attendance and television ratings. ?We felt that it was important that the women’s tournament, which runs back-to-back with the [men's] week, had equal prize money, given that both weeks attract the top players and in turn attract an equal number of spectators,? said tournament spokeswoman Sinead El Sibai.

Many of the top women players have much higher profiles--and endorsement checks--than players on the men’s side, with the exception of Andre Agassi. The women’s side has more superstars who transcend the sport, Fry said. They’re recognizable around the world. Serena Williams, perhaps the best example of a female tennis superstar, has earned not just titles on the court, but also tens of millions of dollars in endorsement deals from companies like Nike, McDonalds and Avon.

With new stars on the women’s circuit entering the limelight, the profile of top women in the game may not have peaked yet. Eighteen-year-old Sharapova, the Russian beauty who defeated Serena Williams in last year’s Wimbledon final, holds a coveted spot on People's 50 Most Beautiful people list for 2005. She has signed endorsement deals with not just sporting goods companies like Nike and Prince, but also with Motorola. According to Tennis Life magazine, the deals could net Sharapova more than $100 million over the next decade.

That figure dwarfs any amount she’s likely to earn on the court. Total prize money for the entire Sony Ericcson WTA Tour this year is $58.7 million. Prize money for the men’s tour is almost $80 million.

At the NASDAQ 100 Open, where this year's men's champion pocketed over $100,000 more than the women's champion, tournament directors said difference in pay is simply due to economics, and that the WTA tour needs to contribute more in order to make equal prize money possible. In April, tournament director Adam Barrett said the organizers hope to offer equal purses in the near future. Hopefully this time next year, Barrett said, we won’t have to answer that question again.

Kaptain Karl
09-21-2005, 08:28 PM
... you must not have read my options. No equal pay is the fourth one.I read your options. You must not have read my objection to them.

Your fourth option is "No, women should not receive the same prize money anywhere until they play men." (Emphasis mine.)

The underlined portion "qualifies" the choice. My choice would be an unqualified "No equal pay."

- KK

West Coast Ace
09-21-2005, 08:32 PM
Two polls on this at the same time ... and both poorly constructed.

I haven't voted in either.

If "No. Women should not receive the same pay." were one of the options, it would be my vote.

IOW, I would have less interest in tennis, period, if the women had to play the men. Stupid idea.

- KKI'm with you there. Women playing men? As Homer J Simpson would say "that's crazy talk." And the talk of hand wringing Liberals.

Men should make more because they sell more tickets, sell more advertising, and, considering all the matches at a major, give more total entertainment.

tennisjunkiela
09-21-2005, 08:48 PM
Men should make more because they sell more tickets, sell more advertising, and, considering all the matches at a major, give more total entertainment.

so that's why don't those capitalists at cbs television, who make their money by selling advertisment, televise the men's final in primetime rather than the women's final, since men "sell more advertising", "tickets" and "give more total entertainment?

or maybe cbs is pushing a feminist agenda at the expense of the shareholders and investors, who's primarily goal is a return on investment?

West Coast Ace
09-21-2005, 08:56 PM
so that's why don't those capitalists at cbs television, who make their money by selling advertisment, televise the men's final in primetime rather than the women's final, since men "sell more advertising", "tickets" and "give more total entertainment?Reread my statement - I was talking over the ENTIRE two weeks of the tournament. I'm not arguing that over the last 5-6 yrs, the ladies semis and finals have been better draws lately.

You can televise the men's final whenever you want. But because most people think it's going to be Fed beating someone down, it's probably not going to draw that well. CBS and the USTA were very fortunate Agassi made his run. If it had been Fed vs. Ginepri, the ratings would have been pretty bad.

Kaptain Karl
09-21-2005, 09:06 PM
or maybe cbs is pushing a feminist agenda at the expense of the shareholders and investors, who's primarily goal is a return on investment?Not at all far-fetched, for the Network which had Dan Blather as its primary spokesman for so many years. He lied, twisted and colored the "news" like crazy.

Only when their backs were placed against the wall, did CBS boot him out. (So much for CBS having wise fiduciary policies.)

Nice try though....

- KK

tennisjunkiela
09-21-2005, 09:10 PM
Not at all far-fetched, for the Network which had Dan Blather as its primary spokesman for so many years. He lied, twisted and colored the "news" like crazy.

Only when their backs were placed against the wall, did CBS boot him out. (So much for CBS having wise fiduciary policies.)

Nice try though....

- KK

Last time i checked, CBS had an all-male or 95% male executives, so the feminist agenda makes a lot of sense?

RiosTheGenius
09-21-2005, 09:26 PM
the answer is NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO unless they play best of 5-set matches
that's the whole thing. these girls like Davenport or Clijsters just cruise through the first week with 45min. matches against no name girls while the men play very physical 5 setters that are for some reason much more challenging than the women's early rounds. a no name 150 ranked man can give some serious trouble to top 50 players (Roddick and Mathieu's losses at the last USO). that doesn't happen in women's tennis for some reason. so men do work harder at the slams to earn their money.

jhhachamp
09-21-2005, 09:32 PM
So in your first response, women tennis players are like factory workers (i.e. team environment) who are should be paid less for completing a similar task in a less efficient manner than their more efficient male co-workers.

NOW, in your new argument, tennis players are "individuals" who are not paid per task?

i made my basketball analogy in response to your "women tennis players as factory workers", but now you have changed your tune.

In conclusion , it's rather difficult to discuss this objectively if your premises for your arguments keep shifting.

I never claimed any sort of team environment with the factory workers, you assumed that. The factory workers are acting as individuals just as tennis players.

POGO
09-21-2005, 10:00 PM
Oh c'mon fellows. Women should get equal pay. Women attract attention to the sport of tennis. Now don't you think Anna deserve equal pay here? :)
http://tinypic.com/dwyohj.jpg

rhubarb
09-22-2005, 01:49 AM
Since the French Open has recently announced that women will receive the same prize money as men in 2006, should other tournaments follow suit, especially the other Grand Slams?

You do realise they are only paying the women's singles winner the same as the men's? The rest of the women's draw will not get equal prize money. It's just a cop-out, probably done only for political correctness.

I think the equal pay issue is a complete red herring; a more important problem is the disparity between the prizemoney for the top players and those struggling to make a living, for both sexes.


With regard to the drawing power, I believe the men have a much stronger pull, at least with regard to fans at RG and Wimbledon. It's difficult to show this because fans buy tickets for a single day which usually includes matches from by both sexes, but I know I'm not the only one who uses the time during the women's matches to get lunch, watch the guys practice or find another match on the outside courts. RG once tried to have an all-women's quarter-final day and it was reportedly a disaster. Now they mix the matches so that they get better attendance.

deluxe
09-22-2005, 02:08 AM
I'm with you there. Women playing men? As Homer J Simpson would say "that's crazy talk." And the talk of hand wringing Liberals.

I'm not convinced. I for one would enjoy seeing venus or serena having a really close match with some completely random no-name man with a ranking around 10,000 :-)

I'd have payed good money to see the Karsten Braasch sets.

I think the most interesting number to look at is the relative prize money of the non-majors, where the women and men play different events.

scotus
09-22-2005, 02:19 AM
It's interesting that no one has brought this up yet.

The disparity of the number of sets required to play between men and women should not be ignored because having to play the best of 5 sets does not allow men (at least the top men) to play in the doubles events. The top women, on the other hand, have enough time and energy left to enter doubles and mixed doubles events, thereby increasing their income.

As a result, ATP has trouble attracting their top players to the doubles matches. The top men do not have the extra source of income as the top women do. Also, the best-of-5 requirement in singles also forces many top men's doubles players have to resort to being doubles-only specialists because they just can't play both singles and doubles successfully, which also leave them with less sources of income. How about this for equality?

Women are fully capable of playing the best of 5. Some may not be ready yet, but if the requirement is imposed, then they will adapt to it eventually. But when they truly put themselves in the men's shoes, they too will have to face the fact that their sources of income will have to be cut to meet the demands of the best-of-5 matches.

BLiND
09-22-2005, 02:48 AM
Regardless of wheather someone finds womens or mens tennis more entertaining, women can only demand equil pay when they do the same amount of work... that is best of 5 sets, or bring men's game down to best of 3... but personally there is NOTHING like a 2-all final set match... they are always, always the best.

To say women should get equil pay, yes I agree, but for equil work... you can't have your cake and eat it.

Markus Kaila
09-22-2005, 03:16 AM
Your vote and thoughts........

Once I counted this ( I don' t remember the Grand Slam event wherefrom I took that statistics):
Men (and women) played in their 127 GrandSlam single matches on an average 3,75 sets but women only 2,29 sets. The difference is almost 1,5 sets. Thus men played over 60 % more than women. How could women earn the same salary! The right ratio is something 60 % for men and 40 % for women from the whole prize money. Even that favours women a little at least compared to the statistics! (Men would earn then only 50 % more than women although they would work over 60 % more than women.) But I accept it as a gentleman (and an artilleryman)!

teedub
09-22-2005, 04:44 AM
Oh man, interesting topic...

But imagine if the women eventually did play best of 5 matches at all the slams...with the same boring baseline bashing style all the women play you'd have record long tennis matches ATP inclusive and every slam would last at least 3 weeks....which might not be bad for tournaments regarding ticket sales.

Anyways, in general, it seems ATP tournaments attract more spectators than do the WTA tournaments, if any of you are fortunate enough to get the tennis channel you will notice that as well...

companzo
09-22-2005, 05:05 AM
Hmmmmm maybe they should be payed by the tme they are on court to make it completly fair.

Thoughts?

equinox
09-22-2005, 05:07 AM
I don't watch tennis to see women play.

I watch tennis because some of the girls are attractive and look good.

Nobody cares about the females tennis skill or fitness.

People only care about the celebrity of female tennis players.

If they can bring in the crowds and play best of 5 sets while still looking sexy, give them equal pay.

If not they should be paid 2/3's of the mens prize money.

StraightSets
09-22-2005, 05:14 AM
Definitely not, until they play best of 5 sets. Even then, its still debatable...

Dedans Penthouse
09-22-2005, 05:26 AM
Dude! It was all sarcasm. I am just ****ed off because the networks almost never show the rising stars like him or Monfis if there is some big name from WTA playing at the same time, and there usually is. So the # of times I saw Mofis play this US Open is 0.
Dude! Got it. And (persuant to my previous post), I'd agree with your assessment of TV's coverage of this event. They'd rather cover a "name" WTA player tinkling on some one-dimensional outgunned baseliner (some 6-1; 6-2 match taking 47 minutes) than those upcoming stars that you mentioned. The apologists who rationalize these one-sided "train wrecks" will start rattling off Nielsen rating stats, etc........(sigh).......but your point (and sarcasm) is well taken ;-)

andfor
09-22-2005, 07:00 AM
If you want to see the difference go to a tounament that has WTA and ATP at the same event. Watch a WTA match then an ATP match. You'll know the difference then. It's like watching a Volkswagon take laps around a race track and then watching a F1 car do the same thing.

Not saying there's anything wrong with WTA tennis it just does not compare to the ATP. Nor should it. But for many it may and will create a prefrence in what you would rather pay to see.

tennisjunkiela
09-22-2005, 07:11 AM
If you want to see the difference to a tounament that has WTA and ATP at the same event. Watch a WTA match then an ATP match. You'll know the difference then. It's like watching a Volkswagon take laps around a race track and then watching a F1 car do the same thing.

Not saying there's anything wrong with WTA tennis it just does not compare to the ATP. Nor should it. But for many it may and will create a prefrence in what you would rather pay to see.

Outside of watching agassi, federer, and blake, i preder women's tennis in general to men's tennis, so like you, everyone has a different preference. and since women's tennis growth has been exploding (thanks to sharapova, the williams sisters, the belgians), while men's tennis ratings have been stagnant, obvious a lot of people prefer seeing a volkswagon over a f1. but that ok, like the motto of baskin robbins says - 31 flavors (a flavor to fits everyone tastes)

tennisjunkiela
09-22-2005, 07:14 AM
Once I counted this ( I don' t remember the Grand Slam event wherefrom I took that statistics):
Men (and women) played in their 127 GrandSlam single matches on an average 3,75 sets but women only 2,29 sets. The difference is almost 1,5 sets. Thus men played over 60 % more than women. How could women earn the same salary! The right ratio is something 60 % for men and 40 % for women from the whole prize money. Even that favours women a little at least compared to the statistics! (Men would earn then only 50 % more than women although they would work over 60 % more than women.) But I accept it as a gentleman (and an artilleryman)!

so a person should pay more money for a longer movie, whether or not it is enjoyable?

rhubarb
09-22-2005, 07:15 AM
Outside of watching agassi, federer, and blake, i preder women's tennis in general to men's tennis, so like you, everyone has a different preference. and since women's tennis growth has been exploding (thanks to sharapova, the williams sisters, the belgians), while men's tennis ratings have been stagnant, obvious a lot of people prefer seeing a volkswagon over a f1. but that ok, like the motto of baskin robbins says - 31 flavors (a flavor to fits everyone tastes)

But you're talking about ratings in the one particular market here, aren't you? I don't think that is necessarily valid for the rest of the world.

rhubarb
09-22-2005, 07:16 AM
Definitely not, until they play best of 5 sets. Even then, its still debatable...

Good grief, don't let them play five, three is bad enough ;)

spinbalz
09-22-2005, 07:23 AM
Tennisjunkiela, you are free to prefer to watch Benesova <wta 37> Vs Marrero <wta 54> instead of Verdasco <atp 37> Vs Llodra <atp 54>, but don't believe that the crowd wouldn't be bigger for the Verdasco Vs Llodra match than for the Benesova Vs Marrero...

But c'mon, can you really enjoy watching Benesova Vs Marrero?

Babblelot
09-22-2005, 07:30 AM
Julie Anne Russell
March 3, 2005
Columbia University
E-mail: jar2141@columbia.edu

While the women’s game is attracting record attendance and TV ratings

As I noted, women drew record setting attendance at 2004 Rogers Cup, but it was almost 4% less than what the men drew this year. That's great that more people are attending women's events than in the past, but it doesn't mean that women are the main draw.

Shorter matches are actually better for TV, Fry said. A typical women’s match of less than two hours fits more easily into the networks time slots, as opposed to the sometimes three- or four-hour matches that men play.

True. My displeasure with this fact cannot refute it.

Meanwhile, ratings for women’s matches are on par with men’s matches and rising faster.

Whoops! Did she really mean to acknowledge that ratings for women's matches are actually on par with men's matches? Kinda bursts your little bubble, tj. As for the latter part, neither you nor this author are familiar with the concept of diminishing returns. This argument is analogous to that which claims that women will eventually run faster 100 meter times than men based on the fact that their times are improving at a faster rate.

In Dubai, the women’s championship has only been played since 2001. But it has already established that women are as much of a draw as men, with both equal attendance and television ratings.
Lacking support, I'll have to take Sinead at her word. But again, the opperative words are underscored.

Thus far, everything both you and I have posted flies in the face of your claim that women draw more spectators and higher ratings.

More power to the women for their off-court successes.

Tchocky
09-22-2005, 07:31 AM
Anyone who thinks the Women's game is more entertaining, interesting, etc. than the Men's game is wrong. With the exception of Sharapova & the Williams sisters, most people couldn't name a female player on the tour. If you find shreiking, grunting, yelping, etc. for a couple of hours entertaining, then women's tennis is more entertaining. There are so many breaks of serve in the women's game. The outcome usually comes down to who had fewer unforced errors and who held serve more often. Women's tennis is so generic with 95% of the players right-handed with 2 handed backhands. All women tennis players are just Chris Everet clones.

Markus Kaila
09-22-2005, 07:35 AM
so a person should pay more money for a longer movie, whether or not it is enjoyable?


The lenght of the final movie has very little common with the lenght of filming! I am sure that the latter point still means a lot as to the pay of actors!

joe sch
09-22-2005, 07:35 AM
Ummmn, if you are at a slam, would you rather watch Maria Sharapova play anyone, or would you want to see Jiri Novak take on Arnaud Clement, in what could be a classic 5-set match?
I would rather see 5 sets of Sharapova v Clisters although Im always entertained by the skills Clement uses in his style of tennis. Sharapova & Clisters both have beautiful strokes but just dont have the power of male ATP players.

jhhachamp
09-22-2005, 07:45 AM
so a person should pay more money for a longer movie, whether or not it is enjoyable?

This has no relevance to the topic at hand.

tennis-n-sc
09-22-2005, 07:47 AM
I love them both and would go to both when reasonably available. I prefer the tournaments where both are playing. If a women's match is broadcast the same time a men's match is televised, I look to see who is playing and go from there. Women should be paid equally. They gow the sport, maybe as much as men. Where are the Sharapova's, Williams', Kornikova's of the world in men's tennis off court? The growth of tennis is taking place in the media, not on the courts.

Babblelot
09-22-2005, 07:56 AM
tj,

Now that I've finished arguing my points, I feel I owe it to you to weigh in on the "equal pay" issue.

When I search for tennis events to attend, I only consider events that include both men and women. Though I prefer men's tennis to women's, there's no denying that I'm a huge fan of certain women.

Babblelot's Top 10 (active only)
1. Justine Henin (pre-illness)
2. Marat Safin
3. Tommy Haas
4. Fernando Gonzalez
5. Patty Schnyder
6. Gaston Gaudio (on clay)
7. Kim Clijsters
8. Francesca Schiavone
9. Mariano Puerta (on clay)
10. Paola Suarez-Viginia Ruano Pascual

Having said that, I'm all for equal pay. ;)

Koaske
09-22-2005, 08:17 AM
WTA players are not physially strong enough to sustain a high level of performance over 5 sets. Many high profile players are already complaining that the scheule is too intense leading to burnout and injury set backs, this playing 3 sets.

I second this. A Finnish tennis commentator once said the same thing.
However , I think women should be paid the same amount at least in Grand Slams.

Fxanimator1
09-22-2005, 10:10 AM
Oh c'mon fellows. Women should get equal pay. Women attract attention to the sport of tennis. Now don't you think Anna deserve equal pay here? :)
http://tinypic.com/dwyohj.jpg

Has Allah seen this picture? Oops wrong thread.

Babblelot
09-22-2005, 10:26 AM
Yep, that's called "cameltoe."

lol

IIRC, Cameltoe was the name of the girlband in John Waters' "Serial Mom." Pretty funny.

Kaptain Karl
09-22-2005, 10:42 AM
tennisjunkiela - You surely get points for "persistence". You and Markus must be related.

(Trouble is, you're still wrong....)

Last time i checked, CBS had an all-male or 95% male executives, so the feminist agenda makes a lot of sense?Last time, so pay close attention. My point is CBS' "agendas" have already been exposed to "make no sense." They pursue ideological goals at the expense of their stockholders. Your premise that CBS makes sensible choices is demonstrably flawed.

My point stands.

- KK

Kaptain Karl
09-22-2005, 10:49 AM
Good grief, don't let them play five, three is bad enough That was good!

And then Joe really made me gag, with...

I would rather see 5 sets of Sharapova v Clisters ...AAAaack!!!

Sharapova (and Pierce) already make a 3 set match take way too long with her delaying tactics. The casual viewer might enjoy looking at that skinny screamer, but true tennis fans would eventually tire of suffering through *those* broadcasts.

"Yuck-sick!" (as my son used to say....)

- KK

LendlFan
09-22-2005, 11:24 AM
Contract Negotiations is the name is this game.

The WTA negotiates a very different contract then the ATP does. The WTA can not base its' deals according to what the ATP deals are. They are a seperate conglomerate subject to commercial marketing and such. You could see in the future that the WTA makes even more than the ATP Plyaers do ... not

rfprse
09-22-2005, 11:50 AM
For the sake of settling this non sense argument which seems only to revolve around tennis, the 4 majors should hold the seperate tournaments (on different dates) for each gender and decide the prize money depending on the money that each generates for the corresponding tournament.
It might be a win-win situation for the majors, because by spreading out the product, they can generate more revenue from tv, ticket sails,... They don't need to tweak the schedule in such a shameless manner to meet the TV need,.. Heck maybe they can promote doubles...or better tennis....who knows?

max
09-22-2005, 11:56 AM
Doesn't it all depend on the size of audience attention and interest?

rfprse
09-22-2005, 12:10 PM
so that's why don't those capitalists at cbs television, who make their money by selling advertisment, televise the men's final in primetime rather than the women's final, since men "sell more advertising", "tickets" and "give more total entertainment?

or maybe cbs is pushing a feminist agenda at the expense of the shareholders and investors, who's primarily goal is a return on investment?

Um...the decision probably was based on the very financial reason that you are giving but, maybe,... the ground that was supposed to support the financial decision is not based on gender but on nationality.
At the time it seemed a reasonable decision because no one expected the surprisingly quick decline of the Willams sisters and lack of having a prominent us female player.
Having two semifanals for men held in the afternoon seemed to work well with usta since they can minimize the blame (for a popular semifinalist's loss in the final) or the accusation of favoritism.

janipyt05
09-22-2005, 12:27 PM
I dont agree with equal pay im all for women power and all that blah but, if u watched the french open final this year both mens and womens u would hav been shocked at the womens final and very happi with the mens, im sorry yes women do play some great matches but not consistantly were as men play great finals all most all the time, even the us open feds and agassi was way better than kims and mary the only reason why there was a big hoop la was because kim needed a grand slam after all those failed attempts. sorri no equal pay if they want equal pay the women should play longer sets, so we get our moneys worth. Womens matchs are like tyson fights 1 minute and they are over.

i stress not all womens matchs are short but more often than not they are lifeless. so pls don't drag me into petty lashes. thanx

DashaandSafin
09-22-2005, 12:29 PM
Tennisjunkala...you may prefer women's tennis over mens...but how many people do. You are the .0001% on these boards.

Gary Britt
09-22-2005, 01:08 PM
So we should send out a notice to all the corporate advertisers during the us open that the usta is cheating them by, playing their ad spots during a less popular women finals in primetime, when in fact the men are getting higher rating and the men's final should really be in primetime?

Yes by all means you should start sending out notices.

http://tv.zap2it.com/tveditorial/tve_main/1,1002,272%7C%7C%7Csports,00.html (http://tv.zap2it.com/tveditorial/tve_main/1,1002,272%7C%7C%7Csports,00.html)

Men's Final US OPEN TENNIS-SUNDAY-09/11/2005

CBS Sun 4:28 PM 4.8/10 5,281,000 7,135,000 173m

Women's Final US OPEN TENNIS-SAT-2-09/10/2005

CBS Sat 8:00 PM 2.7/5 2,962,000 4,056,000 120m

The men's final drew almost twice as many viewers. Further, you only have to look at the stadium matches to see that the stadiums don't fill up for the women's matches nearly as much or as often as they do for the men's matches. Its the men's matches that put butts in the seats for the most part.

Just giving a link to arbitron's website isn't enough. You have to actually look at the numbers once you are there.

Gary

Babblelot
09-22-2005, 02:21 PM
Julie Anne Russell
March 3, 2005
Columbia University
E-mail: jar2141@columbia.edu

Shorter matches are actually better for TV, Fry said. A typical women’s match of less than two hours fits more easily into the networks time slots, as opposed to the sometimes three- or four-hour matches that men play.


This part of the argument leaves so much to be desired.

Q1: Just how long is a "typical" women's match? 1:45 or 0:55?
Q2: Sometimes men's matches go 3 or 4 hours, but often they don't. Just how long is a "typical" men's match? 3:45 or 2:30?
O1: The author seems to imply that spectators and the network alike were thrilled with the Clijsters/Pierce final, which lasted just 1:05, and (...?) bored by the (more compelling) SF match between Clijsters and Sharapova, which lasted (beyond the magicical 2 hour time slot) 2:14. And how about that 2:30 hour Wimbledon final between Davenport and Venus? Seemed to produce the opposite reaction that the author predicts.

How do you reconcile O1? Since the author was merely speculating, I'll join her. My hunch is that both spectators and networks would rather watch/broadcast the Clijsters/Sharapova SF (2:14) than the Clisters/Pierce final (1:05). Alternatively, fans/networks are more interested in what women's tennis is capable of producing (Clijsters/Sharapova) irrespective of its duration, as opposed to the alternative (Clijsters/Pierce).

Babblelot
09-22-2005, 02:34 PM
Yes by all means you should start sending out notices.

http://tv.zap2it.com/tveditorial/tve_main/1,1002,272%7C%7C%7Csports,00.html (http://tv.zap2it.com/tveditorial/tve_main/1,1002,272%7C%7C%7Csports,00.html)

Men's Final US OPEN TENNIS-SUNDAY-09/11/2005

CBS Sun 4:28 PM 4.8/10 5,281,000 7,135,000 173m

Women's Final US OPEN TENNIS-SAT-2-09/10/2005

CBS Sat 8:00 PM 2.7/5 2,962,000 4,056,000 120m

The men's final drew almost twice as many viewers. Further, you only have to look at the stadium matches to see that the stadiums don't fill up for the women's matches nearly as much or as often as they do for the men's matches. Its the men's matches that put butts in the seats for the most part.

Just giving a link to arbitron's website isn't enough. You have to actually look at the numbers once you are there.

Gary
Thanks Gary!

Maybe this explains why she was so reluctant to help us understand what her posting the link was all about.

lol

tennisjunkiela
09-22-2005, 04:25 PM
I always find it interesting how facts are manipulated or ignored to support a point:

First of all babblelot, notice the title of this thread: “Finally, equal pay for women”.

So, if women are getting the same ratings as men, as you acknowledge above, then women should get equal pay – NOT MORE – equal.

In terms of attendance, you used the Roger’s Cup tournament as an example to compare tennis attendance for men vs. women. This is scientifically-flawed (not comparing apples to apples, in laymen’s terms) for numerous reasons including: at the Roger’s Cup, the men play one year and then the subsequent year, the women play. So you are trying to compare data from 2 different years (which can be skewed by a lot of variables including the strength of the economy in the 2 different years, strength/weakness of the fields, even things such as fear of terrorism, war). Also, they play in 2 different cities – one year in Montréal and the next year in Toronto. Not apples to apples.

On the other hand, the Columbia economics professor uses a tournament, the NASDAQ, to compare men vs. women’s attendance head to head in the same year. And once again, the women are drawing the same attendance numbers as the men, and thus, should get equal pay.

Now, a lot of people on this board are using the agassi/federer match as “proof” that the men outdraw the women in terms of ratings. Be clear - the agassi/federer match was an exception to the rule (an anomaly in scientific terms).

Please review the following from CBS:“Andre Agassi didn’t win Sunday’s U.S. Open, but he’s still going out on top. Agassi, who many expect to retire soon, pushed CBS’s coverage of the men’s final to its highest rating in six years, according to Nielsen overnights.

The match between Agassi and Roger Federer, which Federer won in four sets, averaged a 6.2 household rating and 12 share.

That doubled last year’s 3.1/6 rating for the Federer-Lleyton Hewitt final. It was the highest-rated men’s final since 1999, when Agassi’s win over Todd Martin averaged a 7.1/14 overnight.

It also stopped a slide for men’s tennis in recent months, with Federer dominating and viewers yawning. July’s Wimbledon final averaged a 2.1/7, and the French Open mustered just a 1.6/5 in June.”

So yes, a “lot of people”*** tuned in to this year’s US Open because they thought it might be their last time seeing Agassi there, but the REAL key phrase here is – it also stopped a slide for men’s tennis.

Furthermore, these number pail in comparison to the Williams finals which drew a 9.7/19 overnight.

So yes, the men’s ratings are now “on par” with the women but only because the women have come down with the decline of the Williams sisters (who, like Tiger for golf, helped expand the audience beyond whites, 30+).

BTW, the Wimbledon women’s final this year outdrew the men’s final again.
In conclusion, I could go on writing to dispel all of your misinformation, but it is really a Moot Point!

Everyone that really matter – the television networks, the corporate advertisers, the usta, the French open, etc – have spoken. They all understand who is really bringing in the bucks and are finally rewarding the women with equal pay. They understand that the explosion of women’s tennis is the key to resurrecting tennis to its earlier glory days, so if Wimbledon and the dinosaurs on this board want to be in the dark ages, god bless them.

In the meantime, take up your futile argument with that “feminist” economics professor at Columbia, all those “liberals” at the television networks, and the fortune 500 madison avenue corporations, who are wasting their shareholder’s money throwing money at women’s tennis, when in fact they should be spending it on the real draw - men’s tennis.

Long rule those “inferior” athletes - clisters, venus, sharapova, serena - and all the other women players have made tennis a relevant sport again, to the world of sports and entertainment at large (last time I checked, television was a entertainment medium).

BTW, Arbitron/Nielsen ratings represent 80% of the major television markets in the world and are considered the gold standard of ratings. corporations use their numbers to determine what to pay for advertising

VamosRafa
09-22-2005, 04:45 PM
Kudos to tennisjunkiela. It isn't how much time you spend on court -- it's whether what you do justifies the payment in terms of the dollars you bring in. Apparently the women do that, for the reasons you mention. If the ATP/ITF believes it must do away with 5-set matches for the men, so they aren't unfairly treated, they can do so. I think it would be a mistake, because I think it's something that makes the slams a bit more special, but I think that would be fairer than saying, "Okay, ladies, even though you are bringing in the advertisers and the paying public, who are willing to pay the same amount to see you or the guys, you spend less time on court, so you get less pay."

DashaandSafin
09-22-2005, 04:47 PM
Ok whatever...im tired of arguing with a troll. He wont even help us with the stupid website, which i bet will dispel all his "therioes". Face it no one cares about women's tennis and no one reads your essay posts.
If you enjoy equal pay so much fine...be happy. Your lifelong dream has finally come true. Why the hell do you care anyway? Is this going to affect you in any way?

spinbalz
09-22-2005, 05:04 PM
I would love to see the slam events played separately at different dates for both genders, then we would have a clear proof about which gender is the most attractive. IMHO the answer is obvious, but nobody could continue to argue if the experience was made.

POGO
09-22-2005, 05:34 PM
Very good rebutal tennisjunkiela!!! Well written and supported argument with interesting points.

akj27
09-22-2005, 05:43 PM
I have nothing to add, so I'll just say this. Women should get paid less, they cant play 5 set matches, and if they put federer(or anyone in the top 20) against the best women's doubles team, he'd still beat them.

VamosRafa
09-22-2005, 05:57 PM
I have nothing to add, so I'll just say this. Women should get paid less, they cant play 5 set matches, and if they put federer(or anyone in the top 20) against the best women's doubles team, he'd still beat them.

That seems to be an argument for doing away with women's tennis altogether. Bit extreme, and it probably would happen if there weren't people who wanted to see women's tennis, in addition to Fed and the rest of the ATP.

Which brings us back to the point above. If people want to go out and watch women play women, and advertisers and sponsors are willing to support the sport as it is being played, what's the problem? Isn't it good for the sport of tennis as a whole?

Babblelot
09-22-2005, 06:06 PM
On the other hand, the Columbia economics professor uses a tournament, the NASDAQ, to compare men vs. women’s attendance head to head in the same year. And once again, the women are drawing the same attendance numbers as the men, and thus, should get equal pay.Of all the idiotic things you've posted, this takes the cake.

I've attended 5 slams. Nowhere on my ducket does it say, "admittance for men's (women's) matches only." You're making up sh1t your professor can't support. For instance, if I start at court A to watch the 1st set of a women's match, after which I move to court B to watch a men's match in it's entirety. But when I get to court B, the first (women's) match hasn't yet finished, how is your professor counting me?

Actually, my Rogers Cup example was a "next best" case which I pulled out of my *** in just a few minutes ("same facility" and "Montreal" were repeated throughout the post and both links). But if women's tennis has been more popular than men's for 5 or 6 years, as you claim, then a 1 year lag is completely acceptable. Dubai, on the other hand, may indeed be a better case study. Unfortunately, however, your professor doesn't back her conclusions up with numbers; she merely speaks in generalities. When she says, "attendance for women's tennis is on par with men's tennis," what exactly does that mean? Is a -4% differential "on par" by her standard? By contrast, I give you the data I use to arrive at my conclusion: men outdraw women by nearly 4%.

Funny that you refer to this year's "Agassi effect" as being an anomoly. Clearly, neither you nor your professor have ever considered that the predominant anomoly in tennis remains the "Williams effect." So if you want to throw out each anomoly on the men's side, throw those out on the women's side as well, and what you will find is that the men have long been tennis' main draw.

As for the topic of the thread, I addressed that in a separte post. If you missed it, I stated that I attend slams because, though I prefer men's tennis, I definitely follow certain women (then I listed my favorite active players, many of which are women). Having said that, I have no problem with women earning the same as men.

If you've paid attention to my contention (not at all likely), you'd have noticed that I was merely attacking the flaming comments made by you and VR--that women's tennis is the main draw.

DashaandSafin
09-22-2005, 06:14 PM
Very well said Babolot. Again Tennisjunk is just pulling things out of his ***. Hes just making claims according to his "creditable" professers are various other sources. Noticed that he stopped defending himself. We win.

VamosRafa
09-22-2005, 06:32 PM
Babblelot, I don't think we made flaming comments at all. We were just saying that there's a lot of info out there showing that women's tennis is popular. I could research it and give you details, but I remember a number of times where the women's semis or final pulled in more ratings than the men's semis and final in slam events. Typically the Williamses were involved, but also Capriati and Seles as well.

I've been to a number of tennis events, including the US Open, and also to Indian Wells and Miami, where the women also play. The women's matches generate a lot of interest. If Lindsay is out on Court 1 at IW, for example, and Hewitt is taking on someone in the main stadium, you are going to see more people out on Court 1.

The converse can be true, too. If Henin-Hardenne is playing in stadium, and the Bryans are out on Court 1 -- well, Court 1 will be busy.

I cannot possibly draw conclusions from what I see at these events, though. I can only say that the Indian Wells organizers were nuts one year when they set Anna Kournikova's doubles match out on Court 6 or whatever it was. I thought I'd go out there and see what this was all about with Anna, and you couldn't even get near the court. I saw her in her next round match, which was played in a larger stadium.

I'm repeating myself, but the money that is paid these players comes from sponsors of the events. If they are willing to support the tours equally, who are we to complain?

Where is the downside???

And that is one thing I haven't seen addressed here. How does it hurt the ATP if women get the same money in these events?

Babblelot
09-22-2005, 06:41 PM
so since women's tennis consistently outperforms men tennis in tv ratings
lol

:p :p

FYI: It's sh1t like this I'm attacking. Your professor only sheepishly states "ratings for women's tennis is on par with men's tennis." Why you bothered to post her pile of crap I'll never understand.

VamosRafa
09-22-2005, 06:44 PM
lol

:p :p

FYI: It's sh1t like this I'm attacking. Your professor only sheepishly states "ratings for women's tennis is on par with men's tennis." Why you bothered to post her pile of crap I'll never understand.

I think she's right, actually.

Guess I need to fire up Google and give you some stats myself.

And perhaps while I do that, you can give us the info that says men's tennis always garners higher ratings/money. You are keen on saying that, but show us the money!!!

VamosRafa
09-22-2005, 06:48 PM
Here's a start, from 1998:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/tennis/1998/wimbledon/news/1998/06/26/wta_money/

No love lost in tennis pay

Women merit prize money equal to men, WTA head says
Click here for more on this story
Posted: Friday June 26, 1998 02:00 PM

Money matters: Sampras (left) earned $702,471 for his Wimbledon title in 1997, while Hingis took home just $596,106 for winning the women's crown (AP, Gary M. Prior/Allsport)

LONDON (Reuters) -- Women's tennis is pure theater and deserves equal billing with the men's game, the new boss of the WTA said Friday.

Arguing that women's tennis is rich in personalities who adorn pop and fashion magazines, regularly outgun the men in television ratings and have made tennis the hip sport, Bart McGuire has begun the long, hard climb to equal pay at the Grand Slams.

Gentle persuasion, he believes, will work.

"The women on the tour are great players and great theater," McGuire said. "This is a sport, it is not microbiology. It is supposed to be fun."

According to McGuire, women's tennis is a marketing man's dream nowadays, with enough page-turning twists and turns among its stars to make a tennis thriller.

Russian teenager Anna Kournikova is as famous for her looks as she is for her lobs.

Venus and Serena Williams, two feisty sisters dubbed "Ghetto Cinderellas" by their outspoken father, sport trademark beads in their hair and serve as hard as the men.

Monica Seles has fought back from the trauma of being stabbed and the recent death of her father. Steffi Graf is battling back after being plagued by injuries and personal agonies.

For McGuire, that is a dream script.

Last year, 3.5 million people went to watch women play tennis, the highest figure ever. In television ratings, surveys show women outdo the men by about 20 percent every time.

"Indeed I have said -- somewhat tongue in cheek -- I could make a strong case that women could get higher prize money than the men," McGuire, a soft-spoken lawyer, told Reuters in the Wimbledon canteen during yet another rain break in the 1998 tournament.

He argues that more women worldwide are attracted to tennis and racket technology has revolutionized the game.

Tennis, he believes, has learned the painful lessons of teenage burn-out. The girls are brought on to the tour later and last longer. "They are phased in gradually ... there is less risk of injury," he said.

McGuire is all for "bringing out the human side of the players. The popularity of the women's game is not transitory."

"Yes, of course, Anna Kournikova gets attention because she is attractive. But she is also an excellent player. It is the combination that adds zest and spice to the game," McGuire said.

"This is positive, not a trivialization," he insisted. "We are competing for the entertainment time and the entertainment dollar."

The U.S. Open already gives equal prize money to women and men. McGuire has now turned his persuasive talents to the bosses at the French, Australian and Wimbledon championships.

He said that at the French Open this year, the appearance of Venus and Serena Williams in the mixed doubles final made the U.S. television ratings shoot up after the men's final.

But he stressed: "I am not going to make non-negotiable demands on the Grand Slams. I will respectfully present the case to them. I believe that over the next year or two that will give us progress toward equality."

VamosRafa
09-22-2005, 06:56 PM
I need to go eat dinner (which my sons have made *lol*), but I found this article of interest:

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/03_15/b3828130.htm

"Still, it's hard to argue that women's tennis is a disaster. In a difficult business climate, the tour is healthier than many leagues, such as the contracting WNBA. Buoyed by the flamboyant appeal of players such as Serena Williams -- who recently posed in Sports Illustrated's swimsuit issue -- and sassy newcomers such as ninth-ranked Daniela Hantuchova of Slovakia, the WTA still packs stadiums and posts respectable TV ratings.

Tourwide attendance has risen in the past five years, to a record 4.5 million in 2002. With some $52 million in prize money, players are competing for $1 million more than last year -- though that's still about $25 million less than the men. After rising during the past few years, TV ratings are flattening but have still outranked the men in six of the past eight Grand Slam finals. And the WTA recently sealed a $40 million extension of its 1998 contract with Hollywood producer New Regency Enterprises Inc., which will continue to control international TV rights to the tour's top 28 tournaments through 2007.

Nevertheless, a lot of other businesses would be knocking the cover off the ball if they had the WTA's roster of stars. Just consider the superathletes who are recognizable by only their first names -- Michael, Tiger, Lennox, Lance, and, um,.... Then think about the number of women tennis players who need no introduction other than Serena, Venus, Anna, and Jennifer -- to name four. That tell you anything?"

Babblelot
09-22-2005, 07:00 PM
VR,

Forget slams. I'm on board with you two-equal pay.

Something you'll need to explain to me, however, is how the men's tour continues to pull the wool over sponsors eyes when the women are away.

Specifically, why are sponsors (and spectators via the gate) willing to pony-up $2.2m for an obviously inferior event--Masters Series--yet the obviously superior event--Tier I--garners just a $1.3m payout? Wouldn't the opposite be the case? Surely it would. I mean, do the sponsors really have it all backwards... or does tj?

Maybe you can help make sense of all this.

Thanks.

Babblelot
09-22-2005, 07:17 PM
In television ratings, surveys show women outdo the men by about 20 percent every time.
Yes, I found similar articles in 2001, and I stated that in one of my initial posts.

But this data appears to reflect 1997 TV ratings. It wouldn't at all surprise me if there were years that women's tennis received higher ratings than men's tennis, and vice versa. The problem is, articles like this only seem to appear during seasons women's tennis is on top.

Tennis has been on television for years. If we go back 30 years, how many of those years did the women outrate the men?

The girls are brought on to the tour later and last longer. "They are phased in gradually ... there is less risk of injury," he said.Well, that certainly sounds nice, but obviously, this man was dead wrong. So if women's ratings are tied to the health of marquee players, we should expect that networks will shift back to the men's tour before to long.

VamosRafa
09-22-2005, 07:34 PM
Well, that certainly sounds nice, but obviously, this man was dead wrong. So if women's ratings are tied to the health of marquee players, we should expect that networks will shift back to the men's tour before to long.

As for that point, remember when both Safin and Federer were out of the Montreal Masters, and Hewitt (who had the flu) and Roddick lost early, and many people here were saying it was basically a challenger event???

Injuries aren't solely a WTA problem. I can show you more articles/info on that, if you like.

VamosRafa
09-22-2005, 07:39 PM
Yes, I found similar articles in 2001, and I stated that in one of my initial posts.

But this data appears to reflect 1997 TV ratings. It wouldn't at all surprise me if there were years that women's tennis received higher ratings than men's tennis, and vice versa. The problem is, articles like this only seem to appear during seasons women's tennis is on top.

Tennis has been on television for years. If we go back 30 years, how many of those years did the women outrate the men?



Perhaps you or some other researchers can go back and find that info. I've been following tennis pretty closely for 7-8 years now, so I had a recollection of the data that we've just discussed, but I don't know the historical data. And I'm not sure it's particularly relevant, as what happened 20 years ago isn't going to justify what Sony Ericsson or other sponsors are going to pony up now to support the WTA.

I also don't understand your point re the Masters and Tier I events. I don't go to strictly WTA events myself. I have limited vacation time, and I prefer the ATP, but that's my preference. And truthfully, I love the events that combine both Tours. I think they give the best bang for tennis fans' buck. I enjoy watching women's tennis, but usually the later rounds.

Babblelot
09-22-2005, 07:44 PM
TV ratings are flattening but have still outranked the men in six of the past eight Grand Slam finals.
lol

Actually, I Googled this one up to when I first threw myself at this thread, but passed on it because I wasn't so impressed by a two year span in which ratings alternated between men and women, though heavily (6-2) favored women. (The 2005 USO rating war was won by the men...)

It's funny that only Grand Slam finals are ever mentioned. Tennis is on Television all year round. Do Tier I events outrate Masters Series events, etc..? Grand Slams televise matches for 14 days. The US Open has featured matches all day and night. What are the ratings for non-finals like?

Okay, enough with TV ratings. I don't have access to the type of information that I'm looking for and seriously doubt that it exists.

As for attendance, can you do better than my Rogers Cup model to demonstrate that women's tennis outdraws men's tennis at the gate? And keep in mind, I gave actual data to arrive at my conclusion.

You're all right, VamosRafa. I apologize (to you) for getting nasty. And I still am holding out hope that Rafa and Hanescu meet in 2R or 3R of 2006 RG.

lol

:p :p

tennisjunkiela
09-22-2005, 07:52 PM
I need to go eat dinner (which my sons have made *lol*), but I found this article of interest:

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/03_15/b3828130.htm

"Still, it's hard to argue that women's tennis is a disaster. In a difficult business climate, the tour is healthier than many leagues, such as the contracting WNBA. Buoyed by the flamboyant appeal of players such as Serena Williams -- who recently posed in Sports Illustrated's swimsuit issue -- and sassy newcomers such as ninth-ranked Daniela Hantuchova of Slovakia, the WTA still packs stadiums and posts respectable TV ratings.

Tourwide attendance has risen in the past five years, to a record 4.5 million in 2002. With some $52 million in prize money, players are competing for $1 million more than last year -- though that's still about $25 million less than the men. After rising during the past few years, TV ratings are flattening but have still outranked the men in six of the past eight Grand Slam finals. And the WTA recently sealed a $40 million extension of its 1998 contract with Hollywood producer New Regency Enterprises Inc., which will continue to control international TV rights to the tour's top 28 tournaments through 2007.

Nevertheless, a lot of other businesses would be knocking the cover off the ball if they had the WTA's roster of stars. Just consider the superathletes who are recognizable by only their first names -- Michael, Tiger, Lennox, Lance, and, um,.... Then think about the number of women tennis players who need no introduction other than Serena, Venus, Anna, and Jennifer -- to name four. That tell you anything?"

Wow, great research VF!!!

VamosRafa
09-22-2005, 07:56 PM
No problem, Babblelot. Many of those events are shown on The Tennis Channel anyway, and only a few of us get to watch them. So it's hard to tell the ratings for them.

Re the Rogers Masters, one was held in Toronto and the other in Montreal, so there's already a big difference. And the women's purse was a lot less than the men's. I don't know why, and to be honest, as I said, I don't go to strictly WTA events and don't follow them closely enough to give you more info. Perhaps someone else can do so. Any WTA followers here?

I did notice, as I was watching Fed Cup on TTC last week, that the Roland Garros stadium was packed to watch the FRA vs. RSA final. Just as packed (and noisy) as it was for the men's Davis Cup a couple years ago.

But I do think that the two Tours together are better than they are apart -- because then you get the best of both worlds. Granted, it costs the tourneys a lot more to sponsor both Tours at the same time, and you have to have a bigger venue (with more courts) to have the events going on simultaneously, but it's a big plus for tennis fans.

Babblelot
09-22-2005, 07:56 PM
I also don't understand your point re the Masters and Tier I events.
In short, shouldn't Tier I events (without men) have larger payouts than MS events (without women) if tj's claim is correct: women's tennis draws more sponsor money?

I'm saying that, indeed, that should be the case, but in fact it isn't. So there's probably little merit to tj's claim.

VamosRafa
09-22-2005, 08:04 PM
In short, shouldn't Tier I events (without men) have larger payouts than MS events (without women) if tj's claim is correct: women's tennis draws more sponsor money?

I'm saying that, indeed, that should be the case, but in fact it isn't. So there's probably little merit to tj's claim.

Not necessarily, because they may not have the same TV coverage and advertising sponsorship for that event. They are in different cities, as mentioned, and it just may not justify bigger bucks. I suspect there are women's events that pay out more than some of the men's events, but I also suspect, overall, that women's tennis gets less. I know that's true at the Memphis event -- where the women get a small fraction of what the men get. But of course, the No. 1 women's seed there tends to be No. 45 in the world.

The fact that the money wasn't at this event doesn't show that it isn't there for the slams. If you have info to the contrary, it would be nice to know.

Babblelot
09-22-2005, 08:45 PM
Re the Rogers Masters, one was held in Toronto and the other in Montreal, so there's already a big difference. And the women's purse was a lot less than the men's. I don't know why, and to be honest, as I said, I don't go to strictly WTA events and don't follow them closely enough to give you more info. Perhaps someone else can do so. Any WTA followers here?
Nah, you didn't see it (Montreal v. Montreal). It's the first post on page #6 of this thread if you are interested. I'll just add this one amendment: if women's tennis has been significantly more popular than men's tennis for several years running, one could reasonably expect women (2004) to outdraw men (2005). In other words, the 1 year lag is a red herring--it's not relevant.

Babblelot
09-22-2005, 08:47 PM
Not necessarily, because they may not have the same TV coverage and advertising sponsorship for that event. They are in different cities, as mentioned, and it just may not justify bigger bucks. I suspect there are women's events that pay out more than some of the men's events, but I also suspect, overall, that women's tennis gets less. I know that's true at the Memphis event -- where the women get a small fraction of what the men get. But of course, the No. 1 women's seed there tends to be No. 45 in the world.

The fact that the money wasn't at this event doesn't show that it isn't there for the slams. If you have info to the contrary, it would be nice to know.
Wow, this is a lot to think about, and my brain is weary. I'll have to look at it tomorrow. ;)

VamosRafa
09-22-2005, 09:06 PM
Wow, this is a lot to think about, and my brain is weary. I'll have to look at it tomorrow. ;)

Fair enough. I don't have any answers either; it's been a subject of much debate for years now. Has anyone asked Mr. Weller Evans about it? Now that could be interesting. Guess I should go check . . . .

I didn't see that, but I did see this more recent post from him:

ELIMINATE BEST OF FIVE SET MATCHES: I believe sometime down the road (maybe not anytime soon, however) Grand Slams will have to face this issue. In today's climate of short attention spans and hundreds of choices at the click of your remote control, who but the hard-core tennis fan(atic) sits and watches an ENTIRE five set match. Come on now, as compelling as it was, who out there saw every point of the Blake-Agassi match, an instant classic?



And maybe this is where we are headed? And I have this comment as a tennis-goer. I've been to Davis Cup events, where you see 3 to 5 best of 5 matches, over a weekend. And it's no issue, because it's just 3 days of tennis. But when I went to the US Open, I went to a Moya match at 1 p.m. It went 5 sets, and I didn't get out until 5 p.m. I missed a lot of other tennis going on at the same time, as it was early in the tournament. And I realized, even then, that if you go to even two five-setters, that's your whole day, and you miss a lot of other stuff going on.

But if it's on TV, you can do what Mr. Evans says, and skip over a set or two. Tape it, and watch the good parts later.

spirit
09-23-2005, 06:00 AM
Fair enough. Come on now, as compelling as it was, who out there saw every point of the Blake-Agassi match, an instant classic?


I watched every point. Well, I might have missed a point or two for a bathroom break, or to get a beer out of the fridge.

I was thinking of shutting it off after Agassi lost the first two sets, but am I glad I didn't.

I agree that to get the casual tennis fan to watch through all of a 5 setter is a losing battle. But, still, if tennis were to do away with 5 setters all together, something unique will be given up. No longer, will an aging legend be able to come back from two sets down to win the match in the 5th. That would be a loss. I vote to keep them at the slams. Perhaps Wimby should put in the tie break to decide the 5th set though.

Gary Britt
09-23-2005, 09:18 AM
Actually, my Rogers Cup example was a "next best" case which I pulled out of my *** in just a few minutes ("same facility" and "Montreal" were repeated throughout the post and both links). But if women's tennis has been more popular than men's for 5 or 6 years, as you claim, then a 1 year lag is completely acceptable. Dubai, on the other hand, may indeed be a better case study. Unfortunately, however, your professor doesn't back her conclusions up with numbers; she merely speaks in generalities. When she says, "attendance for women's tennis is on par with men's tennis," what exactly does that mean? Is a -4% differential "on par" by her standard? By contrast, I give you the data I use to arrive at my conclusion: men outdraw women by nearly 4%.

Funny that you refer to this year's "Agassi effect" as being an anomoly. Clearly, neither you nor your professor have ever considered that the predominant anomoly in tennis remains the "Williams effect." So if you want to throw out each anomoly on the men's side, throw those out on the women's side as well, and what you will find is that the men have long been tennis' main draw.



Excellent points. BTW, Columbia is one of the most politically correct far left wing nut job universities in the country. Ward Churchill would be very welcome there. Not at all what I would consider a neutral source on anything related even slightly to gender politics.

Gary

Grimjack
09-23-2005, 12:49 PM
FWIW, we should toss out any comparison of rankings where the women's US Open final draws higher ratings than the men's.

If the women's final DOESN'T draw higher ratings, it should be an embarrassment for the game. Lots of recreational sports fans watch the finals of the women's half of one of the world's largest tennis tournaments. Virtually no recreational sports fans watch the men's final, as the USTA keeps compromising its men's final ratings by putting it on opposite early season NFL football. It's only hardcore tennis fans watching that.

TOPSPIN23
09-23-2005, 10:18 PM
I think that the women are nowhere near as good as the men, so why should they get payed the same? If the men have to work harder to get paid than the women why should the women get payed the same amount. I'd be willing to bet that Sharapova couldnt beat any man in the top 50 or so.

RiosTheGenius
09-23-2005, 10:34 PM
I would rather see 5 sets of Sharapova v Clisters although Im always entertained by the skills Clement uses in his style of tennis. Sharapova & Clisters both have beautiful strokes but just dont have the power of male ATP players.
you have no idea what we're on about do you.

hoosierbr
09-23-2005, 10:40 PM
The disparity in prize money between men and women starts at the ATP and WTA tour level. Prize $$$ for men on their tour is much higher than the WTA tour. Women players, I feel, need to start there first b/c it doesn't matter if they're paid equally at the Slams when they're making far less week in, week out.

With the exception of some men's events having a five set final, the ATP and WTA tour play best-of-three set matches. Therefore, the women should be paid equally. However, it doesn't happen b/c sponsorship money isn't there for the WTA as it is for the ATP. The men draw more attention, bigger crowds and more money. That doesn't make it right but that's the way it is. Billie Jean King's work needs to be picked up again to rectify this situation.

BigboyDan
09-24-2005, 12:08 AM
... it doesn't happen b/c sponsorship money isn't there for the WTA as it is for the ATP. The men draw more attention, bigger crowds and more money. That doesn't make it right but that's the way it is.
Nope.

Endorsements, dude, titles and prize money are for wimps.

Maria Sharapova makes more money in endorsements and appearance fees than does Federer. The Top Ten women combined make more in endorsement money than the the Top Ten men combined. The only mega-star the ATP has is Agassi...

Kaptain Karl
09-24-2005, 09:39 AM
Bottom line comments:
1 - The Women have a much more severe drop-off in talent and ability after the top 50. The Men's talent curve is way more gradual. There is still excellent talent down to the 300's.

2 - For those who think this is a "chicken / egg" debate, I say the girls have had their "egg" for 25 years. The quality of their tennis and the depth of their tennis has not significantly improved. It appears the Womens game is about as good (relatively) as it's going to get. "No way" does it warrant equal pay.

- KK

tennisboygr
04-22-2006, 08:30 PM
As soon as women start playing 3 out of 5 sets, then they can start talking about equal pay. Until then, shut it.

TheSneakerologist
04-22-2006, 08:36 PM
i love it hahaha

VamosRafa
04-22-2006, 08:38 PM
What a novel idea. *rollseyes*

Volly master
04-22-2006, 08:39 PM
lol i cant see women getting passed a 4th set and have energy to play a 5th.

i see some intense best of 3 that would jsut kill them if they had to play more

orangeblood
04-22-2006, 08:52 PM
Why not use a doubles-system tiebreak for the 5th set so if it does get to a 5th set, WTA players will still be standing? They'd also learn to conserve energy through matches in the event of the decisive tiebreak.

LowProfile
04-22-2006, 09:43 PM
They would die. Period. You'd have girls retiring in the fourth set due to exhaustion.

So I guess there'll be no equal pay. They can get equal pay when they turn out some serve-and-volleyers (not going to happen soon).

edberg505
04-22-2006, 09:43 PM
Wasn't there a women's tournament that was played as best of 5?

FromThailand
04-22-2006, 10:20 PM
I read another thread saying that women can't compete against men, now women don't deserve to earn the same amount money than men, pretty soon you're gonna say that women are only good in the kitchen or what! You are so MMMMMMMMMachos guys.

VamosRafa
04-22-2006, 10:25 PM
^^^^ No worries, we'll just ignore what they say just as the WTA does. I mean, if the women are generating the sponsors to generate the income, what's the problem??? They aren't taking anything or any money away from the ATP.

devila
04-22-2006, 10:28 PM
Can you see Serena, Sharapova, Davenport and Justine huffing and puffing and double faulting as much as Coria? :o

VamosRafa
04-22-2006, 10:34 PM
Can you see Serena, Sharapova, Davenport and Justine huffing and puffing and double faulting as much as Coria? :o

I can see it with Dementieva. ;-)

theace21
04-22-2006, 10:43 PM
As soon as women start playing 3 out of 5 sets, then they can start talking about equal pay. Until then, shut it.
You couldn't pay me to watch those early round women matches. How many of early rounds are competitive...Not many/enougt...Semis on - maybe.

VamosRafa
04-22-2006, 10:57 PM
You couldn't pay me to watch those early round women matches. How many of early rounds are competitive...Not many/enougt...Semis on - maybe.

You may not pay to watch them, but others do.

So your point is?

Alexandros
04-23-2006, 04:11 AM
Stupid, myopic logic. Do men get less pay if they get blown out in straight sets? Quantity does not equal quality in tennis.

Turning Pro
04-23-2006, 04:34 AM
Absolutely agreed on the thread starter.

slice bh compliment
04-23-2006, 04:41 AM
Wait a minute. Let me get this straight. So you people want MORE women's tennis?

vive le beau jeu !
04-23-2006, 04:48 AM
Wait a minute. Let me get this straight. So you people want MORE women's tennis?

you want them to play "best of 1 set" ?!

tennisboygr
04-23-2006, 06:05 AM
Stupid, myopic logic. Do men get less pay if they get blown out in straight sets? Quantity does not equal quality in tennis.

If they get blown out in straight sets, they still as much as if not more than a women does. All I'm saying is, if they want to get paid the same amount for playing tennis, then they should play 3 out of 5 sets. How is this illogical? It makes sense to me. Equal pay, for equal work.

Warriorroger
04-23-2006, 07:27 AM
I think it depends who is playing and attracting crowds. I can't believe I am saying this, but Monica Seles had a point in the 90s where she said something about a Haarhuis-Steeb match, that wasn't much of a match, compare it to the time when she and Graf were both ranked number one and I can see her point. It's not all about the 5 setters, maybe the fans should pay for the matches on the spot, that would be equal :)

Captain America
04-23-2006, 07:33 AM
If they get blown out in straight sets, they still as much as if not more than a women does. All I'm saying is, if they want to get paid the same amount for playing tennis, then they should play 3 out of 5 sets. How is this illogical? It makes sense to me. Equal pay, for equal work.


I don't think ATP/WTA prize money should be based on this definition of "work" -- we're not talking about hourly employees at a supermarket. If a women's match lasts longer than a men's match, would you say the women deserve to get paid more?? Doesn't make sense to me. :confused:

jhhachamp
04-23-2006, 08:15 AM
Stupid, myopic logic. Do men get less pay if they get blown out in straight sets? Quantity does not equal quality in tennis.

Your logic isn't the sharpest either. The men and women play different formats. No one is suggesting they base pay on how many sets the match goes.

Andres
04-23-2006, 08:21 AM
Wasn't there a women's tournament that was played as best of 5?
I can only recall ONE single match being played as best of 5, and it was like 10 years ago, Seles vs. Sabatini.

tonysk83
04-23-2006, 08:23 AM
you want them to play "best of 1 set" ?!

Fine with me.

rob61
04-23-2006, 08:28 AM
was "equal pay for equal work". That's what the feminists always wanted. Play the same amount of tennis, and get the same pay. Its unbelievable that they want to play less for the same money. If they want equality, fine, but that means EQUALITY, not "we're MORE equal than YOU".

The rules should be the same too. No "heat breaks" as the men don't have those either. And they should play the best 3 of 5 in events where the men do. Why do the women clamor for equal pay, yet NEVER bring up the INequalities which exist in the way the game of tennis is played?

Equal is EQUAL.

slice bh compliment
04-23-2006, 08:30 AM
and quantity is quantity.

avmoghe
04-23-2006, 10:12 AM
I have a simple suggestion to assure gender equailty - simply eliminate the WTA.

As far as I know, nothing prevents a female from joining the Association of Tennis Professionals (ATP). They will all play by the exact same rules (whether it be best of three or best of five).

Seriously, the top females play about as well as top male college players. What makes them qualified enough to receive the same pay as the men? What's next? Junior's Grand slam winners deserve the same pay as well?

No. The women on the WTA are inferior players when compared with the men (in general, of course). That alone takes away the equal work equal pay argument. The WTA's "work" (where work is defined as quality of tennis) is inferior to the ATP's.

About the only reason I can see for demanding equal pay for women is if women generate the same amount of revenue for the tournament as the men. (I don't have any hard statistics, so I cannot say whether this is true or not) In this case. the "work" referred to above would be defined as 'generating revenue'.

Personally, I would rather have "work" in tennis defined as as 'quality of tennis' rather than 'generate revenue'. But, that's just my own personal opinion.

In conclusion, if a tournament sees itself as a real tennis competition, women do not deserve equal pay. If a tournament sees itself as a means to generate revenue, AND if the women generate revenue equal to the men, then women do deserve equal money.

Just my two cents on the issue...