PDA

View Full Version : Woman Champion paid more than Men's at Indian Wells.


drakulie
03-24-2009, 06:32 PM
In Indian Wells Equal Purse Does Not Mean Equal Pay

The prize money at Indian Wells was $4.5 million for both men and women. The prize money for performance was not equal, however.

The women’s champion won $700,000, while the top man won $605,000. The women’s finalist won $350,000, and the men’s won $295,500. Semi-Finalists were paid almost equally; women received $150,000 and the men received $148,100

http://www.tennisnews.com/exclusive.php?pID=27758


What are everyone's thoughts on this????

VivalaVida
03-24-2009, 06:43 PM
In Indian Wells Equal Purse Does Not Mean Equal Pay

The prize money at Indian Wells was $4.5 million for both men and women. The prize money for performance was not equal, however.

The women’s champion won $700,000, while the top man won $605,000. The women’s finalist won $350,000, and the men’s won $295,500. Semi-Finalists were paid almost equally; women received $150,000 and the men received $148,100

http://www.tennisnews.com/exclusive.php?pID=27758


What are everyone's thoughts on this????
I think it is unfair. Women's tennis is **** poor these days compared to mens tennis. The men deserved more. If women tennis was more competitive than men's tennis, than women indeed deserved more.

RCizzle65
03-24-2009, 06:47 PM
Someone posted this before the tournament, it's because they broke down the prices differently for each round, I think like the quarterfinals and below got more money, this doesn't hurt anyone except the top players that already have a lot of money (the semis was Federer, Murray, Nadal, and Roddick, I doubt these guys are hurting for money)

JeMar
03-24-2009, 06:50 PM
Wow, this is ********.

I really think the women should hold separate majors so they can see how they'd do without the men.

Sephiroth_FFVII
03-24-2009, 07:03 PM
To be honest...high school tennis is more entertaining / competitive than the WTA right now.

The WTA should pay ME if they want me to watch. I still don't believe women should even be paid equal to the men just because the men are playing a whole different sport compared to the women.

kungfusmkim
03-24-2009, 07:13 PM
AHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA. i just wanted pays to be equal for woman not higher. HAVE THEY GONE MAD?

deltox
03-24-2009, 07:21 PM
prize purse payouts should equal the same percentage as mens.. here is the kicker,, that percentage should be made based on the amount of proceeds they bring in


for example, how many viewers on tv watch mens and how many watch womens. how much advertising money does the men bring in vs the women. ticket sales, and so forth

equal rights would mean you get what you earn. if your on the side that brings in less in proceeds you should get paid less.

another unfair fight the WS were leading.

Tennis_Maestro
03-24-2009, 07:33 PM
Justine Henin was the only saving grace of women's modern day tennis, now shes gone, its nothing!

Absolutely nothing!

Its there for eye candy.

They should scrap it altogether, save money and invest in building better tennis arena stadiums @ big ATP events.

roundiesee
03-24-2009, 07:33 PM
I suppose it was bound to happen; the WTA were fighting hard for equal prize money; now they have simply gone under the radar and overtaken the men. It's not fair of course but their argument will always be that they attract more sponsors and TV audience.

deltox
03-24-2009, 07:35 PM
I suppose it was bound to happen; the WTA were fighting hard for equal prize money; now they have simply gone under the radar and overtaken the men. It's not fair of course but their argument will always be that they attract more sponsors and TV audience.

i hope thats not their argument, lies usually dont make for good evidence.

split-step
03-24-2009, 07:38 PM
The total prize money for the IW men and women's singles was equal.
It was the distribution that was different.

The sponsor gave the two tours the same amount. Each tour just broke down that money differently based on rounds.

I don't see what the problem is.

If anyone is annoyed that the men's champion took home less than the women's blame the ATP's decision to award more than the women did for earlier rounds. (which is probably a good idea given how deep the men's game is).

Has nothing to do with the tournament or its sponsors.

split-step
03-24-2009, 07:40 PM
I suppose it was bound to happen; the WTA were fighting hard for equal prize money; now they have simply gone under the radar and overtaken the men. It's not fair of course but their argument will always be that they attract more sponsors and TV audience.

Can you guys read at all?

The prize money was equal.

kungfusmkim
03-24-2009, 07:43 PM
Justine Henin was the only saving grace of women's modern day tennis, now shes gone, its nothing!

Absolutely nothing!

Its there for eye candy.

They should scrap it altogether, save money and invest in building better tennis arena stadiums @ big ATP events.

May i ask what you are smoking? im really interested. Justine Henin was good in 2007. Just like Mauresmo was in 2006. But she crumbled BIG TIME in 2008 losing in the QF of AO and losing to Serena 62 60. NO COMPETETION. at all. Then going to lose to safina ON CLAY HER SPECIALTY. she knew she was hitting rock bottom. What goes up must come down. And she came down hard in 2008 after the graceful 2007 season.

Tennis_Maestro
03-24-2009, 07:45 PM
May i ask what you are smoking? im really interested. Justine Henin was good in 2007. Just like Mauresmo was in 2006. But she crumbled BIG TIME in 2008 losing in the QF of AO and losing to Serena 62 60. NO COMPETETION. at all. Then going to lose to safina ON CLAY HER SPECIALTY. she knew she was hitting rock bottom. What goes up must come down. And she came down hard in 2008 after the graceful 2007 season.

4 words

"Entertainment", "Value", "Backhand" and "Beautiful"

split-step
03-24-2009, 07:50 PM
May i ask what you are smoking? im really interested. Justine Henin was good in 2007. Just like Mauresmo was in 2006. But she crumbled BIG TIME in 2008 losing in the QF of AO and losing to Serena 62 60. NO COMPETETION. at all. Then going to lose to safina ON CLAY HER SPECIALTY. she knew she was hitting rock bottom. What goes up must come down. And she came down hard in 2008 after the graceful 2007 season.

I respectfully disagree. While her 2008 season was a letdown from her 2007 (her best tennis ever), she still won 2 titles, and in the other 3 tournaments she played she lost to the eventual champion. No shame in that.
She had obviously lost her fire and desire to continue to push herself to the extreme, which is the reason for some of those scorelines (and her loss to Schiavone :oops:)

Henin was a fantastic player, a delight to watch and as a fan, she is sorely missed.

Tennis_Maestro
03-24-2009, 07:50 PM
Grand Slam results
Australian Open W (2004)
French Open W (2003, 2005, 2006, 2007)
Wimbledon F (2001, 2006)
US Open W (2003, 2007)
Major tournaments
WTA Championships W (2006, 2007)
Olympic Games Gold medal (2004)

The guy's evidently talking out his arse, not that i was even refering to success.

Tennis_Wiz
03-24-2009, 09:39 PM
no offense but Federer was right when he said a player who has not won a grand slam shouldnt be ranked #1 in the world...------------>directed to Jelena jankovic

veroniquem
03-24-2009, 09:50 PM
In Indian Wells Equal Purse Does Not Mean Equal Pay

The prize money at Indian Wells was $4.5 million for both men and women. The prize money for performance was not equal, however.

The women’s champion won $700,000, while the top man won $605,000. The women’s finalist won $350,000, and the men’s won $295,500. Semi-Finalists were paid almost equally; women received $150,000 and the men received $148,100

http://www.tennisnews.com/exclusive.php?pID=27758


What are everyone's thoughts on this????
That is (gasp) completely absurd (and I'm a woman!)

boredone3456
03-24-2009, 10:03 PM
May i ask what you are smoking? im really interested. Justine Henin was good in 2007. Just like Mauresmo was in 2006. But she crumbled BIG TIME in 2008 losing in the QF of AO and losing to Serena 62 60. NO COMPETETION. at all. Then going to lose to safina ON CLAY HER SPECIALTY. she knew she was hitting rock bottom. What goes up must come down. And she came down hard in 2008 after the graceful 2007 season.

I agree really..she just lost her will after 2 good years.

LurkingGod
03-24-2009, 10:06 PM
In Indian Wells Equal Purse Does Not Mean Equal Pay

The prize money at Indian Wells was $4.5 million for both men and women. The prize money for performance was not equal, however.

The women’s champion won $700,000, while the top man won $605,000. The women’s finalist won $350,000, and the men’s won $295,500. Semi-Finalists were paid almost equally; women received $150,000 and the men received $148,100

http://www.tennisnews.com/exclusive.php?pID=27758


What are everyone's thoughts on this????

You mean those women actually got PAID for their interruptions between men's matches??:mad:

Put them on a separated tournament for God's sake. If they're so popular they should be doing good on their own, right? *yawn*

DMan
03-24-2009, 10:48 PM
I suppose it was bound to happen; the WTA were fighting hard for equal prize money; now they have simply gone under the radar and overtaken the men. It's not fair of course but their argument will always be that they attract more sponsors and TV audience.

The WTA can make an argument they attract more sponsors and higher TV audience. But can they prove it?

NO!!!

DMan
03-24-2009, 10:55 PM
In Indian Wells Equal Purse Does Not Mean Equal Pay

The prize money at Indian Wells was $4.5 million for both men and women. The prize money for performance was not equal, however.

The women’s champion won $700,000, while the top man won $605,000. The women’s finalist won $350,000, and the men’s won $295,500. Semi-Finalists were paid almost equally; women received $150,000 and the men received $148,100

http://www.tennisnews.com/exclusive.php?pID=27758


What are everyone's thoughts on this????

A total sham!!!

Yes the entire purse was equal. But the Zvonereva getting almost $100K more than Nadal. Puh-lease!

You can bet the ATP will fix this for other combo events. It truly is embarrassing!

Terribly ironic since this is the first year IW offered "equal" purses. In past years men received more. And the women never cried foul. BJK received an award there in 2007, and never uttered a single word about inequality in prize money. And yet for the majors, BJK and Larry Scott were all over everyone, demanding they receive equal prize money, even though the women only play best of 3 int he majors, vs best fo 5 for men.

At least in IW they both play best of three throughout, so there could be an argument for equal prize money.

If watching major league choke-a-holics constitutes "entertainment" for some and the WTA thinks they're equal to the men, then it's time to fold up the sport.

rafan
03-24-2009, 11:10 PM
This is just awful - I have tried to watch women's tennis but it's like watching paint dry. Some of them don't even look fit - how can you be overweight when you play competative tennis every day? No I don't think they should be paid the same as men

Feña14
03-25-2009, 12:26 AM
That's like paying a female plumber who breaks your septic tank more than a man who would give you what you needed, it doesn't happen in everyday jobs so why the hell should it in tennis?

If I were a female tennis player in the WTA, i'd be ashamed to show my face.

jms007
03-25-2009, 12:32 AM
I don't see what the big deal is, if the total prize money was indeed the same for both men and women. The only thing different was the distribution, and it looks like ATP decided to spread the wealth a little.

deltox
03-25-2009, 04:54 AM
I don't see what the big deal is, if the total prize money was indeed the same for both men and women. The only thing different was the distribution, and it looks like ATP decided to spread the wealth a little.

most are just as upset about the wta getting paid equally. wta dont bring in the money the atp does. just facts, so they shouldnt get paid as much since they dont bring in as much

Fedace
03-25-2009, 04:58 AM
What if we made the Women pay more than men for Tickets ?? lol

split-step
03-25-2009, 05:05 AM
no offense but Federer was right when he said a player who has not won a grand slam shouldnt be ranked #1 in the world...------------>directed to Jelena jankovic

What does this have to do with the topic?

Besides Jelena isn't #1 anymore and hasn't been #1 for a while.

split-step
03-25-2009, 05:14 AM
That's like paying a female plumber who breaks your septic tank more than a man who would give you what you needed, it doesn't happen in everyday jobs so why the hell should it in tennis?

It's nothing like that.

The tours each got the same amount from the sponsor. They distributed it differently. It's not that hard

Look at it this way, the ATP could have paid a lot more for later rounds and the winner could have ended up with 100k more than the female winner.
That wouldn't change the fact that the men and women still got paid the same.

Personally, I don't think they should get paid the same, even in events like IW where the men and women both play best of 3 and that is where my problem lies.

jms007
03-25-2009, 05:16 AM
most are just as upset about the wta getting paid equally. wta dont bring in the money the atp does. just facts, so they shouldnt get paid as much since they dont bring in as much

Is that really the case? On one hand I hear ATP brings in more money than WTA, on the other hand I hear WTA makes more money of sponsors and has higher TV ratings. Does anyone have actual numbers?

split-step
03-25-2009, 05:16 AM
most are just as upset about the wta getting paid equally. wta dont bring in the money the atp does. just facts, so they shouldnt get paid as much since they dont bring in as much

Can you provide sources for your 'facts'?

shadows
03-25-2009, 06:21 AM
I've got to say I don't really take too much issue with this, if total prize money is the same then the womens winners taking more than the mens just means that there's more money on offer in earlier rounds for the men as opposed to the women.

Given that there seems to be an almost universal agreement that the Mens game has real depth whilst the womens doesn't, is it not nice to see that people lower down the draw are getting rewarded better for taking part in a more competitive competition?

You could argue that this then lends itself to developing further depth in the field because there's more money available to a wider range of players.

Gen
03-25-2009, 06:28 AM
I suppose it was bound to happen; the WTA were fighting hard for equal prize money; now they have simply gone under the radar and overtaken the men. It's not fair of course but their argument will always be that they attract more sponsors and TV audience.

They don't. Look at the stadiums during women's and men's matches. And the tickets. It's no problem buying them for women's matches (in Rome they have this combined tournament split into "girl's week" and "boy's" week. All the tickets for "boys" were sold out four months before the tournament. "Girls" are still available. Men bring much more money, they should be paid respectively.

drakulie
03-25-2009, 06:32 AM
Wow, this is ********.

I really think the women should hold separate majors so they can see how they'd do without the men.

I honestly feel the ATP and WTA should go their separate ways. No more combined venues of tennis, and this includes the slams. That way, they could have the AO open in the middle of winter so they don't whine about the heat. Additionally, we won't have to bother seeing the damn Williams sisters during slams, when there are better mens matches being played, especially in the earlier rounds.

Quite frankly though, I'm sure the womens tour will end up tanking.

What if we made the Women pay more than men for Tickets ?? lol

LOL. This actually ain't a bad idea. I'm sure the women who are paying for the tickets won't mind. I mean, they are the ones that are yelling about equal this and equal that. Right?? They might as well put their money where their mouth is.

Bud
03-25-2009, 06:39 AM
I don't see what the big deal is, if the total prize money was indeed the same for both men and women. The only thing different was the distribution, and it looks like ATP decided to spread the wealth a little.

Agreed... and the wealth should be spread even more in both the mens' and womens' tournaments.

Without the lower players, the upper players wouldn't have enough competition to even hold a tournament. Plus, it would give the others more money to finance the enormous costs of playing on tour.

At least the ATP has the right idea about giving the lower ranked players a larger share of the wealth.

Feña14
03-25-2009, 12:17 PM
It's nothing like that.

The tours each got the same amount from the sponsor. They distributed it differently. It's not that hard

Look at it this way, the ATP could have paid a lot more for later rounds and the winner could have ended up with 100k more than the female winner.
That wouldn't change the fact that the men and women still got paid the same.

Personally, I don't think they should get paid the same, even in events like IW where the men and women both play best of 3 and that is where my problem lies.

Yes it is.

The womens Champion provided a lesser service/quality that the male winner. Why should she get payed more for it?

deltox
03-25-2009, 01:20 PM
Can you provide sources for your 'facts'?

you can google record attendance "any event name" and compare mens only vs womens only events. its laughable in comparison.. you can find the info off google for attendance for a match mens vs womens. after this weekdn you can find that cbs will release viewer numbers for the mens and womens final.. mens will easily double womens in tv viewer.. more tv viewers means more advertising money from commercials and sponsors.


its simple math, lets not even mention that in slams they only play 60% as many sets as the men, so in that fact alone they deserve 40% less pay for slams.

deltox
03-25-2009, 01:23 PM
Is that really the case? On one hand I hear ATP brings in more money than WTA, on the other hand I hear WTA makes more money of sponsors and has higher TV ratings. Does anyone have actual numbers?

do what i did, find the womens only events and mens only events with the same prize purses.. compare tv number, compare attendance, compare ticket sales. you will see for yourself. its way to many links to make a logical thread that you can understand the train of thought.. but everything you need is searchable from google.com

gj011
03-25-2009, 01:25 PM
I posted a thread about this during IW.

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=249647

Total price money is the same for men and women it is just distributed differently so women winner gets more money than men, but say men's quarterfinallist get more money than women quarterfinallist.

Julieta
03-25-2009, 02:19 PM
It is much more expensive for a girl to be on the circuit than a guy.

deltox
03-25-2009, 02:23 PM
It is much more expensive for a girl to be on the circuit than a guy.

please explain how so? besides the extra clothing, luggage and makeup.. o and the extra seat on the plane for serenas extra large booty.

Julieta
03-25-2009, 03:26 PM
please explain how so? besides the extra clothing, luggage and makeup.. o and the extra seat on the plane for serenas extra large booty.

Women have to spend more on things like personal safety and security and hitting partners than men.

Leublu tennis
03-25-2009, 03:31 PM
In Indian Wells Equal Purse Does Not Mean Equal Pay

The prize money at Indian Wells was $4.5 million for both men and women. The prize money for performance was not equal, however.

The women’s champion won $700,000, while the top man won $605,000. The women’s finalist won $350,000, and the men’s won $295,500. Semi-Finalists were paid almost equally; women received $150,000 and the men received $148,100

http://www.tennisnews.com/exclusive.php?pID=27758


What are everyone's thoughts on this????
Just ridiculous. The great American PC. Women must be equal. Right? Wherether they are or not. WTA is a comedy and its hurting the ATP by drawing so much money away from prizes that should go to ATP.

S H O W S T O P P E R !
03-25-2009, 03:31 PM
To be honest...high school tennis is more entertaining / competitive than the WTA right now.


True that, my schools' JV team went 14-0 and won their conference. Go Lady Huskies!

But anyway, this is ********. The people dividing the cash are being blind to the level of tennis played between the genders.

split-step
03-25-2009, 03:55 PM
Yes it is.

The womens Champion provided a lesser service/quality that the male winner. Why should she get payed more for it?

Tennis players are not payed based on quality. Or by number of hours played.
Your analogy is flawed.

deltox
03-25-2009, 04:00 PM
Tennis players are not payed based on quality.


why not? every other sports professional members are paid by their output year by year.

deltox
03-25-2009, 04:01 PM
Women have to spend more on things like personal safety and security and hitting partners than men.

personal safety??? secrurity? are you kidding , please tell me yes. the mob isnt after some womens tennis player.. geesh.

Leublu tennis
03-25-2009, 04:16 PM
Tennis players are not payed based on quality. Or by number of hours played.
Thats exactly right. And they should be. Let WTA put on tournaments and see what kind of draw/sponsorship they get. My point is that they should stand on their own and not act as cheer leader entertainment for the ATP. Its too expensive. And local talent is available for that.

split-step
03-25-2009, 04:27 PM
you can google record attendance "any event name" and compare mens only vs womens only events. its laughable in comparison..

Link?

I doubt you did any googling or research.

I on the other hand did. I used the Roger's Cup as the model tournament because the men and women both play it, but at different times (weeks apart).

I googled a bunch of searches for 2008 rogers cup and this is the only link I found with a comparison and it is from a press conference

"Q. How much less money are you making with the women's tournament, in terms of percentage?
EUGENE LAPIERRE: What do you mean?

Q. You're making 80% revenues with your woman's tournament than the men's.
EUGENE LAPIERRE: How much? I don't know. I don't know. Attendance is similar. It's mostly in the corporate revenues it's less.

Q. But what's the difference? That's my question.
EUGENE LAPIERRE: Well, the difference, we do just about the same profit with each event, with the men and the women. We pay less prize money, but we make about the same. I don't know. I'd have to check the numbers. But we do less in corporate sales. "

http://www.asapsports.com/show_interview.php?id=51201

Assuming the journalist's figures are accurate, I wouldn't call a 20% difference in revenue laughable.

If anyone has any concrete numbers, please show me. I am very interested in this.

split-step
03-25-2009, 04:27 PM
why not? every other sports professional members are paid by their output year by year.

Stop being obtuse.

Do you want to pay Karlovic by the # of aces he hits a year??

S H O W S T O P P E R !
03-25-2009, 04:29 PM
personal safety??? secrurity? are you kidding , please tell me yes. the mob isnt after some womens tennis player.. geesh.

If they are really paying for "security," then they are getting screwed. Once, Seles was stabbed on court (http://www.tennis.com/features/general/features.aspx?id=154014) and the Williams sisters got streaked at the AO.

split-step
03-25-2009, 04:31 PM
Thats exactly right. And they should be. Let WTA put on tournaments and see what kind of draw/sponsorship they get. My point is that they should stand on their own and not act as cheer leader entertainment for the ATP. Its too expensive. And local talent is available for that.

What are you talking about?

The WTA calendar is (and has been since its inception) full of tournaments just for them.

After Miami, the next big one is Family Circle Cup in Charleston.

deltox
03-25-2009, 04:44 PM
Link?

I doubt you did any googling or research.

I on the other hand did. I used the Roger's Cup as the model tournament because the men and women both play it, but at different times (weeks apart).

I googled a bunch of searches for 2008 rogers cup and this is the only link I found with a comparison and it is from a press conference

"Q. How much less money are you making with the women's tournament, in terms of percentage?
EUGENE LAPIERRE: What do you mean?

Q. You're making 80% revenues with your woman's tournament than the men's.
EUGENE LAPIERRE: How much? I don't know. I don't know. Attendance is similar. It's mostly in the corporate revenues it's less.

Q. But what's the difference? That's my question.
EUGENE LAPIERRE: Well, the difference, we do just about the same profit with each event, with the men and the women. We pay less prize money, but we make about the same. I don't know. I'd have to check the numbers. But we do less in corporate sales. "

http://www.asapsports.com/show_interview.php?id=51201

Assuming the journalist's figures are accurate, I wouldn't call a 20% difference in revenue laughable.

If anyone has any concrete numbers, please show me. I am very interested in this.

would you be the one to point a finger at womens tennis verbally and publically as a tournament organizer? shoot yourself in the foot and cause bad press.. did that ever cross your mind? and even 20% less should equal 20% less pay. im not saying they should make 100k per tourney.. but i think it should vary according to the revenue they bring in. What TO or publically traded company is going to stand up and speak out against women? none who want to stay in business. we on the forums can do it cause i dont give a rat ***** what any womens groups might think of me.

deltox
03-25-2009, 04:46 PM
Stop being obtuse.

Do you want to pay Karlovic by the # of aces he hits a year??

fortunately tennis isnt measured in number of times you hit the ball.. its measured by the NUMBER OF SETS you play. wanna argue that one to?

stop being a feminist and try to be unbiased about things. does womens basketball players make the same .,, no. why? cause they dont bring in the same revenue. its the same in tennis. bring in the revenue and get paid by the results of it. i live in NC and attend the family circle cup yearly since its only 3-4 hours away for me. Lets just say the stands have never been packed in the 2 years ive gone there with the exception of the final.

this question is not sarcasm.. did any tv station pick up the family circle cup?

split-step
03-25-2009, 04:50 PM
would you be the one to point a finger at womens tennis verbally and publically as a tournament organizer? shoot yourself in the foot and cause bad press.. did that ever cross your mind? and even 20% less should equal 20% less pay. im not saying they should make 100k per tourney.. but i think it should vary according to the revenue they bring in. What TO or publically traded company is going to stand up and speak out against women? none who want to stay in business. we on the forums can do it cause i dont give a rat ***** what any womens groups might think of me.

It wasn't the tournament organizer that said they make less money. It was the journalist.

But besides that, where are the google searches you did which brought up the 50% discrepancy. Still waiting...

deltox
03-25-2009, 04:53 PM
It wasn't the tournament organizer that said they make less money. It was the journalist.

But besides that, where are the google searches you did which brought up the 50% discrepancy. Still waiting...

as i said before, do your own google search, im not proving anything to you you cant find yourself.. use the family circle cup and compare to a mens tourney with the same payout.. have fun

split-step
03-25-2009, 04:56 PM
fortunately tennis isnt measured in number of times you hit the ball.. its measured by the NUMBER OF SETS you play.

Is it really measured by the number of sets you play?

Should Federer get paid less because he wins a slam without dropping a set, compared to him winning and going 5 sets each time?

Also would it be okay for a man winning a slam without dropping a set to make the same as a woman winning a slam, while going 3 sets for each match?

Lastly if it is by total possible number of sets, then why does anyone have an issue with the women being paid the same as the men at joint Masters like Indian Wells where they play the same total possible number of sets?


And to answer your question:

Yes, Family Circle cup is broadcast. I have seen it each year since Patty Schnyder beat Justine Henin in the final. THat was 06 or 05. Can't remember.

split-step
03-25-2009, 04:59 PM
as i said before, do your own google search, im not proving anything to you you cant find yourself..

Lol, no link. Next time, try not to pull stats out of your ***. :wink:

use the family circle cup and compare to a mens tourney with the same payout.. have fun

It's sad I have to explain this but you cannot compare Family Circle cup with another men's tournament even if they have the similar payouts.
Comapring attendance in 2 different cities is asinine. There would be very little value to your findings.

Feña14
03-25-2009, 04:59 PM
Tennis players are not payed based on quality. Or by number of hours played.
Your analogy is flawed.

Where did I mention anything about time played?

And yes, tennis players should be based on the product they produce. The females just don't give anything near good enough to deserve being payed the same, let alone more.

boredone3456
03-25-2009, 04:59 PM
this question is not sarcasm.. did any tv station pick up the family circle cup?

FSN had coverage last year, I remember watching the Final, and the Serena Williams/ Srebotnik match specifically on that network.

deltox
03-25-2009, 05:06 PM
well equal work for equal pay right??

ok combine the mens and womens tourney make it all one draw and lets see how many of them get paid by beating the men.

no cry about being unable to compete, and i say its the same with tv ratings revenue and attendance.

one example of the best reason why, is simple, 5 set matches equal more tv breaks which equal more commercial time which equals more revenue, argue that one a minute then.

just as an fyi, this isnt the only forums going berserk over this one.. check tennis.com and several others

deltox
03-25-2009, 05:08 PM
It's sad I have to explain this but you cannot compare Family Circle cup with another men's tournament even if they have the similar payouts.
Comapring attendance in 2 different cities is asinine. There would be very little value to your findings.

its also asinine to compare the same city on different periods in time. but we are working with as close as possible assumptions.

deltox
03-25-2009, 05:12 PM
"It is called capitalism. You get paid according to the profits you bring in, not according to how hard you try. If it were due to how hard you work, ditch digging would be a premium job. If women want to make more money playing sports do one of two things, compete with men or sell your product better. Until then, enjoy the fact that enough sympathy money is out there to give WNBA players a pay check at all."


this was posted on tennis.com

he sums it up very well.

split-step
03-25-2009, 05:14 PM
And yes, tennis players should be based on the product they produce. The females just don't give anything near good enough to deserve being payed the same, let alone more.

women are not paid more.

Tennis players should be paid on how much revenue they bring in, regardless of quality. Low quality will eventually taper how much revenue they bring in.

split-step
03-25-2009, 05:18 PM
he sums it up very well.

Yes he does, for the WNBA.

I am yet to see figures that women's tennis brings in less than men. I am not saying this isn't happening but how can you justify holding such a stance if you don't know for sure this is the case?

I have been looking at nielsen ratings. A good number of times, women's final was higher rated than men's. e.g last year USO final (although this is skewed because of men's final being moved to Monday night).

However, Wimbledon Final 2005 women's final (Davenport/V.Williams) was rated higher than (Federer/Roddick).

Again, if anyone has numbers, let me know.

Also let me state that I don't care who has higher numbers.
My problem is with the ignorance of posters.

deltox
03-25-2009, 05:18 PM
Tennis players should be paid on how much revenue they bring in, regardless of quality. Low quality will eventually taper how much revenue they bring in.

i totally agree, capitalism. you showed yourself a 20% decrease in revenue. im happy with this statement

deltox
03-25-2009, 05:23 PM
I have been looking at nielsen ratings. A good number of times, women's final was higher rated than men's. e.g last year USO final (although this is skewed because of men's final being moved to Monday night).


http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/article/114759
US Open it was good for women for a few years 98-01, but last 3 years has been terribad.,,almost half the rating in 06

like i said, if they bring in as much they can make as much in my book. but the simple fact that 5 sets gives more commercial breaks than 3 sets is a ton of revenue.

split-step
03-25-2009, 05:26 PM
its also asinine to compare the same city on different periods in time.

No it's not.
Roger's cup for men and women is 1 week apart.
It is the same time of year/season, same sample size, same pool of tennis fans...
It is one of the best tournaments to use as a model.


but we are working with as close as possible assumptions.

Asking me to compare Family Circle Cup with another men's tournament elsewhere based on similar payout, is most certainly not working with close assumptions.

kungfusmkim
03-25-2009, 05:30 PM
I respectfully disagree. While her 2008 season was a letdown from her 2007 (her best tennis ever), she still won 2 titles, and in the other 3 tournaments she played she lost to the eventual champion. No shame in that.
She had obviously lost her fire and desire to continue to push herself to the extreme, which is the reason for some of those scorelines (and her loss to Schiavone :oops:)

Henin was a fantastic player, a delight to watch and as a fan, she is sorely missed.

Anyone who lost their fire in matter of months for the sport they dedicated to since they were born is a very sad thing. She loved the sport for soo many years and just lost interest in matter of months. Very selfish move. Very very selfish. She dissapointed her fans and soo many others. Also, she lost to a player that lost to her last year 3 times all in grandslam events. On top of that, losing to players like Schiavone still holding the number 1 is unacceptable. Losing to a top 5 is expected but losing to some one ranked in the double digits is very very disgraceful. Very humiliating. I agree, Henin was a marvelous player with the most aesthetic foot work in woman's history and also a un deniable elegance in her game. But she wasn't the hope in women's tennis.

miniRafa386
03-25-2009, 05:30 PM
honestly, if the women want as much money as the men, then they should play as much as the men. i know this doesnt regard this instance, but for slams, its a joke.

also, women are equal to men. they, under no circumstance, should be payed more than the men when the matches are 2/3 sets- same thing for the men.

at the slams, women should be payed between 33-40% less than the men because of the number of sets they play- a 3 set match is 33% more tennis than a 2 set match, and a 5 set match is 40% more than a 3 set match.

Feña14
03-25-2009, 05:31 PM
women are not paid more.

Tennis players should be paid on how much revenue they bring in, regardless of quality. Low quality will eventually taper how much revenue they bring in.

And does the WTA bring in the same kind of money as the men?

I was at Wimbledon and when Sharapova came on after Fish v Gasquet, the crowed went off for food, drink and a look at the outside courts.

They then came back when Roddick was on. I actually caught the last few games of Sharapova's match and the people were actually mocking her and laughing at her stupid shrieks.

I've seen huge audiences watch Federer practice on an outside court, only for them to go to the court with Ferrer warming up on than stay and see Henin who was on after Federer, what's that say?

deltox
03-25-2009, 05:31 PM
No it's not.
Roger's cup for men and women is 1 week apart.
It is the same time of year/season, same sample size, same pool of tennis fans...
It is one of the best tournaments to use as a model.




Asking me to compare Family Circle Cup with another men's tournament elsewhere based on similar payout, is most certainly not working with close assumptions.

isnt the rogers cup played in toronto for one and montreal for the other?

kungfusmkim
03-25-2009, 05:32 PM
4 words

"Entertainment", "Value", "Backhand" and "Beautiful"

You are very narrow minded and blind fool to think that Henin *IS the only player with all those 4 things.

split-step
03-25-2009, 05:36 PM
http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/article/114759
US Open it was good for women for a few years 98-01, but last 3 years has been terribad.,,almost half the rating in 06



Yet last year US Open, women's final was higher rated than men.
http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/article/123943

split-step
03-25-2009, 05:37 PM
isnt the rogers cup played in toronto for one and montreal for the other?

Yes it is.

deltox
03-25-2009, 05:37 PM
Yet last year US Open, women's final was higher rated than men.
http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/article/123943

cause it was halted splitting its viewer to 2 different days,, lets try not to use numbers from exceptions

also only the womens final was rated and the mens semis and quarters turned in nice revenue numbers .. i dont see any listed for the womens. did they broadcast them at all? mens semi got a 3.0 to the womens 3.3 in the finals

the argument can be made for either side but if someone would just do ALLLLL the numbers from top to bottom i feel certain the revenue intake would vary by much more than 25%.. and that i cant prove, its just opinion.

deltox
03-25-2009, 05:42 PM
Yes it is.

i thought those 2 cities were really far apart like over a couple hundred miles.. 312 to be exact.. how is that a fair comparison?

now compare ticket prices for each finals.. level 300 in the finals is a 10.00 per head price difference if my facts have been researched right. im not saying women should make 50% of mens prize pool but it shouldbe based solely on the revenue they bring in.. within a % point or two

split-step
03-25-2009, 05:48 PM
i thought those 2 cities were really far apart like over a couple hundred miles.. 312 to be exact.. how is that a fair comparison?


Wow...

I am talking about comparing the numbers from the same city from one year to the next. They are a week apart in where the event is placed on the calendar one year from the next. I was not referring to a chronological week time span.

deltox
03-25-2009, 05:50 PM
Wow...

I am talking about comparing the numbers from the same city from one year to the next. They are a week apart in where the event is placed on the calendar one year from the next. I was not referring to a chronological week time span.

wait you totally lost me. now your comparing numbers that are a calendar year apart? im more confused now than when i started trying to debate this topic with you. i see what the nielsen ratings you mentioned say, it clearly favors the men imo. otherwise i dont understand much else your saying atm.. ill reread it tomorrow and maybe i can understand it

split-step
03-25-2009, 05:52 PM
And does the WTA bring in the same kind of money as the men?

I was at Wimbledon and when Sharapova came on after Fish v Gasquet, the crowed went off for food, drink and a look at the outside courts.

They then came back when Roddick was on. I actually caught the last few games of Sharapova's match and the people were actually mocking her and laughing at her stupid shrieks.

I've seen huge audiences watch Federer practice on an outside court, only for them to go to the court with Ferrer warming up on than stay and see Henin who was on after Federer, what's that say?

Fena, unfortunately your anecdotal observation doesn't suffice for an accurate assessment of the amount of revenue WTA and ATP bring in at joint events.

This is what I am looking for. The numbers. TV ratings show not that much difference between the two.
I posted a link I saw where a journalist mentioned a 20% difference in revenue for Roger's Cup (not sure where he pulled that figure from).

split-step
03-25-2009, 05:57 PM
wait you totally lost me. now your comparing numbers that are a calendar year apart?

Of course. How else would one be able to compare Roger's Cup (Toronto or Montreal).
All one would need are the figures for about 6 years.

I would think the nielsen ratings would favour the men. I was surprised that Venus/Davenport had higher ratings than Federer/Roddick.

This is why I actually want to look more into this. It may not be as I had thought. Not a bad idea for others to do so too.

split-step
03-25-2009, 05:59 PM
at the slams, women should be payed between 33-40% less than the men because of the number of sets they play- a 3 set match is 33% more tennis than a 2 set match, and a 5 set match is 40% more than a 3 set match.

Should Nadal get paid less than Murray in (hypothetical) 4th round where he wins in 3 sets, but Murray goes to 5?

Feña14
03-25-2009, 06:11 PM
Should Nadal get paid less than Murray in (hypothetical) 4th round where he wins in 3 sets, but Murray goes to 5?

I'd be more inclined to give them equal pay if they only played a single tie-break! ;)

Nothing more frustrating than waiting for a mens quarter final and having to see the ladies choking away every advantage they get in the match before.

Julieta
03-26-2009, 05:23 AM
personal safety??? secrurity? are you kidding , please tell me yes. the mob isnt after some womens tennis player.. geesh.

No I am not kidding. Even at the lowest level, there are precautions women have to take that men don't. This stuff costs more money. An eighteen year old girl who spends the summer travelling and playing is in a completely different situation than an eighteen year old boy. I knew guys playing futures who would sleep on the beach or in a train station to save money, or in a hostel in the red light. Girls cannot do that type of thing. They have to get a hotel and hopefully in a decent area. Strangers come up to girls travelling all of the time when they are walking around with their tennis bags and talk to them...they may or may not do this to a guy. Girls have to get taxis everywhere and hope that the taxi driver isnt some *******. It is just very different. Not that it is completely safe for men, they can still have problems. I knew a guy who was robbed but everyone actually thought it was another player that did it. But for girls, it is much different and therefore much more expensive. I'm not saying that justifies whatever happens with prize money in events. I thnk in that situation stakeholders need to assess what is best for the game as a whole in terms of growing and promoting the game. But there are cost differences in just doing the job.

Leublu tennis
03-26-2009, 06:03 AM
No I am not kidding. Even at the lowest level, there are precautions women have to take that men don't. This stuff costs more money. An eighteen year old girl who spends the summer travelling and playing is in a completely different situation than an eighteen year old boy. I knew guys playing futures who would sleep on the beach or in a train station to save money, or in a hostel in the red light. Girls cannot do that type of thing. They have to get a hotel and hopefully in a decent area. Strangers come up to girls travelling all of the time when they are walking around with their tennis bags and talk to them...they may or may not do this to a guy. Girls have to get taxis everywhere and hope that the taxi driver isnt some *******. It is just very different. Not that it is completely safe for men, they can still have problems. I knew a guy who was robbed but everyone actually thought it was another player that did it. But for girls, it is much different and therefore much more expensive. I'm not saying that justifies whatever happens with prize money in events. I thnk in that situation stakeholders need to assess what is best for the game as a whole in terms of growing and promoting the game. But there are cost differences in just doing the job.Isn't it part of life for being a girl? But we are not talking about cab fare. Its millions of dollars at stake. The Wms don't take cabs anyway. And I know that tournaments provide transportation for players. You are comparing starting players and not high ranking pros. Thats what the contraversy is all about. Big money for small deeds.

David_Is_Right
03-26-2009, 06:46 AM
Big money for small deeds.

If the deeds were that small, I would expect every loud-mouthed club player on this board to be able to beat the WTA players.

However, I fear that for all their misogynistic braying and pedantry about strings and swingweights, they wouldn't have a chance.

Julieta
03-26-2009, 07:14 AM
Isn't it part of life for being a girl? But we are not talking about cab fare. Its millions of dollars at stake. The Wms don't take cabs anyway. And I know that tournaments provide transportation for players. You are comparing starting players and not high ranking pros. Thats what the contraversy is all about. Big money for small deeds.

The total investment to develop the player is higher for the women from start to finish. Sure once you've made it to a certain tier, everything is comped but even then, Sharapova and Williams sisters require more supervision than equivalent male pros. Again I am not saying that justifies prize money but I think a lot of people assume expenses are equal for both groups and they are not.

Julieta
03-26-2009, 07:17 AM
If the deeds were that small, I would expect every loud-mouthed club player on this board to be able to beat the WTA players.

However, I fear that for all their misogynistic braying and pedantry about strings and swingweights, they wouldn't have a chance.

Excellent points...some people appear to have definite issues with women with constant threads about how women are horrible at this or that.

Of course men are going to beat women at tennis all things being equal, that is just the way things are, but that doesn't mean women are unworthy or something.

bluetrain4
03-26-2009, 07:35 AM
I haven't read this thread so I have no idea if it is true that the women's champion got paid more.

But, I don't think events like Indian Wells and Miami, where the WTA and ATP play at the same time are the same thing as a Slam, where there is truly a combined tournament with a combined purse.

Isn't it the case that while their events are concurrent, the ATP and WTA tournaments at Indian Wells are still "separate" in some senses, with a large amount of the ATP prize money coming from their own sponsors, a large amount of the WTA prize money coming from their own sponsors, and maybe a little bit of prize money coming from joint sponsors.

If this is the case, I'd be less inclined to be upset, because each tour is making an independent determination about what their winner deserves. It is not the result of a single tournament committee awarding equal prize money, as at the Slams (which, honestly, I never really got that upset about). And, in relative terms, Indian Wells is "bigger" for the WTA (on paper), as it doesn't have as many comparable events, as does the ATP your.

Am I making any sense? Probably not.

Tennis_Maestro
03-26-2009, 07:37 AM
You are very narrow minded and blind fool to think that Henin *IS the only player with all those 4 things.

I am the most open minded tennis fan you'll find....

I will watch WTA with half an eye and as far as i'm aware Henin was the only female player, perhaps baring Mauresmo @ one point who had those 4 things.

Modern day Women's tennis is an absolute joke.

Serena and Venus Williams don't play elequant tennis, but thats because no one can match them for power and pace, so their rallies are short lived.

lawrence
03-26-2009, 07:57 AM
Should Nadal get paid less than Murray in (hypothetical) 4th round where he wins in 3 sets, but Murray goes to 5?
Where's your logic gone?

bo3: mens: 3 / 4 / 5 sets
bo2: womens: 2 / 3 sets

The mens minimum set count is the womens maximum.


Rating-wise, or based on public viewing, I still don't see how women's bring in more attention. For example, slam finals for mens in newspapers are huge articles, and the womens winner? A picture-less small box left in the shadows somewhere in the corner of the page.
Also there's no way people are favoring watching the WTA finals over ATP finals on TV. I mean there's good rivalries going on, records being broken (or nearly being broken), etc. The ONLY reason I can think of as to why there would be less ratings for the mens tennis is because everyone falls asleep while waiting for the mens match because they have to wait for the women to get off the court.

deltox
03-26-2009, 08:36 AM
No I am not kidding. Even at the lowest level, there are precautions women have to take that men don't. This stuff costs more money. An eighteen year old girl who spends the summer travelling and playing is in a completely different situation than an eighteen year old boy. I knew guys playing futures who would sleep on the beach or in a train station to save money, or in a hostel in the red light. Girls cannot do that type of thing. They have to get a hotel and hopefully in a decent area. Strangers come up to girls travelling all of the time when they are walking around with their tennis bags and talk to them...they may or may not do this to a guy. Girls have to get taxis everywhere and hope that the taxi driver isnt some *******. It is just very different. Not that it is completely safe for men, they can still have problems. I knew a guy who was robbed but everyone actually thought it was another player that did it. But for girls, it is much different and therefore much more expensive. I'm not saying that justifies whatever happens with prize money in events. I thnk in that situation stakeholders need to assess what is best for the game as a whole in terms of growing and promoting the game. But there are cost differences in just doing the job.

this thread is speaking about MILLIONS of dollars.. not a few thousand for a hotel room and cabrides though. Plus we are talking the top seeds who dont need secruity cause the paparazzi give them tons as it is.

deltox
03-26-2009, 08:39 AM
all i know from my research so far is that mens matches have higher seat prices, there is ALOt MORE matches broadcast on tv whihc brings in more tv revenue. Womens finals may out rank the mens but mens get quarters up rated instead of just finals.


all anyone wants is the pay to be based on the preformance of the sport. i would never have a problem with women getting paid more if they actually brought in more revenue, whihc we know isnt true. if they brought in the same or nearly the same, they should be paid the same, but if they bring in LESS they should be paid less.


its simple capitalism.

David_Is_Right
03-26-2009, 10:02 AM
all anyone wants is the pay to be based on the preformance of the sport.

its simple capitalism.

It is. Players get paid on their individual performances. They win more, they get paid more. You're suggesting individual competitors get paid on the performance of the rest of the competitors. Which is more like socialism than capitalism, by any definition .


i would never have a problem with women getting paid more if they actually brought in more revenue, whihc we know isnt true.

How do we know this isn't true?[/QUOTE]

deltox
03-26-2009, 10:06 AM
How do we know this isn't true?[/QUOTE]

did you read this thread? check the links.. even those arguing in FAVOR of them still couldnt prove equal revenue.. only a 20% difference.

and the ATP and WTA are what is in topic here, not individual players. your making statements that are based on individuals and not their associations which they belong to.

David_Is_Right
03-26-2009, 10:12 AM
and the ATP and WTA are what is in topic here, not individual players. your making statements that are based on individuals and not their associations which they belong to.[/QUOTE]

Tennis players don't play for the benefit of the WTA or ATP, they play for themselves. I don't understand how any system of rewarding players based on the performance of the entire tour could possibly work. Again, this socialism not communism.

David_Is_Right
03-26-2009, 10:13 AM
By the way, anyone know how many posts you need to edit posts? I need to be able to edit my own damn quoting mess-ups!

JoshDragon
03-26-2009, 10:16 AM
The prize money should be the same except at the majors. The men should be paid more at the majors because they play 3 out of 5 set matches.

JamaicanYoute
03-26-2009, 11:34 AM
I think if the prize money comes from the ATP's sponsors and the WTA's sponsors respectively, then that's cool. If it comes from the doing of the actual tournament, then I think it should at the least be equal. Women for years were trying to "equality" - so lets be equal.

Overall though, it's my opinion that the men should be payed more. They play longer hours on the court (well maybe not, but they have to play more games typically) and I think they bring more of a crowd. A common suggestion seems to be to have them playing the same event at different times. I think they should do this to see the true numbers.

In regards to the women having more "issues" to deal with; safety, living quarters, etc - I think that's crap. Women are more and more like men nowadays because they want to be independent. On top of the fact that I don't think it's fair to the men to pay them less if this were the case. It's not their faults that the women may go through this. A lot of people travel with a group or other players when they start off, regardless of gender, to share costs.

Matt

shell
03-26-2009, 11:56 AM
Anyone who lost their fire in matter of months for the sport they dedicated to since they were born is a very sad thing. She loved the sport for soo many years and just lost interest in matter of months. Very selfish move. Very very selfish. She dissapointed her fans and soo many others. Also, she lost to a player that lost to her last year 3 times all in grandslam events. On top of that, losing to players like Schiavone still holding the number 1 is unacceptable. Losing to a top 5 is expected but losing to some one ranked in the double digits is very very disgraceful. Very humiliating. I agree, Henin was a marvelous player with the most aesthetic foot work in woman's history and also a un deniable elegance in her game. But she wasn't the hope in women's tennis.

Have you ever considered that over the course of 20 years of tennis, at incredibly competitive levels, would cause you to say enough? Enough training until I puke, enough travel so that I don't even know my home, enough missing out on family and friends....and on and on. Why do you think it all happened in two months?

I find you post laughable

LuckyR
03-26-2009, 01:33 PM
If this was a different sport where the majority of tournament revenues went to the players (MLB, NBA and NFL are all >>50% of revenues to players), this topic just might mean something. But in tennis where 28% of revenues go to players, arguing about the WTA vs ATP share is a joke. If the ATP (and their fans) want more money, get it from the tournament administration, not the WTA.

kungfusmkim
03-26-2009, 06:18 PM
Have you ever considered that over the course of 20 years of tennis, at incredibly competitive levels, would cause you to say enough? Enough training until I puke, enough travel so that I don't even know my home, enough missing out on family and friends....and on and on. Why do you think it all happened in two months?

I find you post laughable

I find your post laughable. You know why? If you dont want to play tennis then why would any one invest that much in to a sport. She knew the responsibilities of becoming a pro. There are probably thousands of people that would train until they puke and travel so that they dont even know their own home and missing out on family and friends cause they love the sport that much. Then let me ask you this. What about priests? They are commited in a realtionship with god on earth till the day they die. Dont you think sometimes they want family? Pleasure? But their relationship with god is much more to them then the other things. Also if she thought about it since 2007, dont you think it's her duty to tell this to the reporters or something?

Joseph L. Barrow
03-26-2009, 07:16 PM
Someone posted this before the tournament, it's because they broke down the prices differently for each round, I think like the quarterfinals and below got more money, this doesn't hurt anyone except the top players that already have a lot of money (the semis was Federer, Murray, Nadal, and Roddick, I doubt these guys are hurting for money)
It isn't necessarily a question of who "needs" it so much as it is who earns it.

GnRFan
03-26-2009, 07:27 PM
Hey,

This crap is ridiculous... When are the tournament directors going to man up, grab their nads, and step up to these women that are demanding equal pay... and now I guess even MORE pay.

I remember reading about one of the Williams sisters saying it was about time for the grand slams to pay equal money to that of the mens. I am all for that... IF they want to start playing 5 sets. If they can't play 5 sets and their tennis is boring to the crowd and to watch (which is thoroughly is), then too bad they should be earning half or a bit more.

My 2 cents.

Cody

David_Is_Right
03-27-2009, 02:13 AM
these women that are demanding equal pay... and now I guess even MORE pay.

Are we still not able to grasp the simple concept that the total pot was the same, it was just split between the rounds differently?

shell
03-27-2009, 05:27 AM
I find your post laughable. You know why? If you dont want to play tennis then why would any one invest that much in to a sport. She knew the responsibilities of becoming a pro. There are probably thousands of people that would train until they puke and travel so that they dont even know their own home and missing out on family and friends cause they love the sport that much. Then let me ask you this. What about priests? They are commited in a realtionship with god on earth till the day they die. Dont you think sometimes they want family? Pleasure? But their relationship with god is much more to them then the other things. Also if she thought about it since 2007, dont you think it's her duty to tell this to the reporters or something?

Maybe I didn't make my point clear, and I don't understand your point. She played on the pro tour for almost 10 years, and trained since who knows when - probably since she was 5 or 6. I think that is dedication enough.

But no, I don't think she had a responsibility to tell reporters the moment she started feeling fatiqued about the tour. By the way, she did hint in several interviews prior to her announcement. You could read between the lines.

Also, she owns tennis academies, so her commitment to the game is not over. Just the tour.

LurkingGod
03-27-2009, 07:33 AM
Are we still not able to grasp the simple concept that the total pot was the same, it was just split between the rounds differently?

Doesn't matter. The prize money shouldn't have been equal to start with.:(

Bhagi Katbamna
03-27-2009, 11:04 AM
The only way that kind of pay would be justified for the pathetic display put on by the WTA at IW would be a requirement that the pros play in bikinis. Then I guarantee their matches would sell out.

Joseph L. Barrow
03-27-2009, 11:25 AM
Tennis players are not payed based on quality. Or by number of hours played.
Your analogy is flawed.
Actually, they are, at least indirectly. This is why the champion is paid more than someone who loses in the first round; the champion has presumably put out more and better performance. In tennis, the men play more and better tennis than the women do, and yet it is considered some form of injustice to accordingly pay them more money; this is just about the only avenue of occupation in which this kind of backwards logic reigns. In an office setting, for example, if a group of people all have the same job, and it so happens that the women who hold that position work longer hours and are more productive than the men, even if this is the result of some innate advantage women hold over men, then no one would decry it as some evil sexism to accordingly pay the women more money- in fact, it would be an injustice if the women were not paid more. In tennis, we see the exact same situation in reverse, and yet the sort of blinder that political correctness puts over society prevents people from understanding the situation fairly.

LuckyR
03-27-2009, 01:10 PM
Hey,

This crap is ridiculous... When are the tournament directors going to man up, grab their nads, and step up to these women that are demanding equal pay... and now I guess even MORE pay.

I remember reading about one of the Williams sisters saying it was about time for the grand slams to pay equal money to that of the mens. I am all for that... IF they want to start playing 5 sets. If they can't play 5 sets and their tennis is boring to the crowd and to watch (which is thoroughly is), then too bad they should be earning half or a bit more.

My 2 cents.

Cody

So you are in total agreement at Indian Wells where the men and women both play best of 3 sets that the pay should be equal, right?

GnRFan
03-27-2009, 03:09 PM
Hey,

No, I was mainly making a comment based on something one of the Williams sisters said last year based on GRAND SLAMS. Regarding Indian Wells, obviously not 5 sets.

I do realize its the way the money is split, but I don't understand equal pay at the grand slams. I was more or less using this post to bring that up. They should HAVE to play 5 sets to get equal pay at the slams.

Cody

LurkingGod
03-27-2009, 04:59 PM
Actually, it's all Nadal's fault:twisted:;

But the challenge of his rivals is not the only thing on his mind now that Nadal has wider responsibilities on the player council. Regarding the reallocation of prize money on the ATP World Tour this year, he was incensed, enough to have spent more than three hours at the player council meeting before the Masters tournament - he is now a vice-president to Federer's president - arguing against its unfairness. To offer an example, the winner of the tournament in Indian Wells (which happened to be him) would have pocketed $700,000 (about £484,000), a 26 per cent rise on 2008, yet a player who went out in the fourth round was to receive $32,000, down almost 14 per cent. The scheduled prize money at other leading events followed a similar pattern.

There was a bitter reception to this at the Australian Open in January, forcing officials to reconfigure, with the result that prize money for each round is higher than last year. Nadal received $605,000 for winning on Sunday - less than the women's winner, Vera Zvonareva - and fourth-round losers each received $39,800. “I was completely against the way it had been calculated,” Nadal said. “It was stupid, crazy. It is tough for me to be at meetings and to understand all that happens, but I feel like I can say something about important decisions.”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/tennis/article5988925.ece

LuckyR
03-27-2009, 06:21 PM
Hey,

No, I was mainly making a comment based on something one of the Williams sisters said last year based on GRAND SLAMS. Regarding Indian Wells, obviously not 5 sets.

I do realize its the way the money is split, but I don't understand equal pay at the grand slams. I was more or less using this post to bring that up. They should HAVE to play 5 sets to get equal pay at the slams.

Cody

I get your Slam opinion, many share it. So by your logic, if the pay should be unequal at the Slams, it should be equal everywhere else, right?

deltox
03-27-2009, 06:25 PM
Actually, it's all Nadal's fault:twisted:;



http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/tennis/article5988925.ece

im kinda confused as to what he actually wanted it to be. im not certain he wasnt confused about the distribution as well though to be honest

verbatim100
03-27-2009, 06:37 PM
Wow, this is ********.

I really think the women should hold separate majors so they can see how they'd do without the men.

I totally agree. They should have separate majors and see if women can command the same level of popularity and interest.

This is really preposterous. In fact, quite apart from the fact that women's tennis is boring, it's disturbing that the organizers are ignoring equal pay principles.

verbatim100
03-27-2009, 07:13 PM
im kinda confused as to what he actually wanted it to be. im not certain he wasnt confused about the distribution as well though to be honest

I gather from the article, Nadal argued at the Council that there was too great a gap between the winner and those below the Qfinalists in prize money. The IW did recalculation and redistribution of the men's prize money. As a consequence, the men's winner received less than the women's winner.