Bartelby
Bionic Poster
If Company A earns more than Company B we usually say it's better and fairness does not come into it. As long as the ATP and WTA are separate fairness does not come into it.
Why is there equal prize money only in joint events?
- Thread starter tennis3
- Start date
If Company A earns more than Company B we usually say it's better and fairness does not come into it. As long as the ATP and WTA are separate fairness does not come into it.
Bartelby
Bionic Poster
At the Sydney International women get more than men because it's easier to attract them in the week before the AO as the men want to rest up.
Yes. We care about equality. I work the same hours as my CEO - my salary should be equal to him.
taster
Rookie
At a certain level of abstraction equality can seem an attractive notion, but the devil is in the detail.
The winner of any tennis match gets far more than the loser, financially and in terms of prestige, what would make it more equal is if every match had the same amount of money and prestige, but in order to achieve that, you literally undermine the very idea of sport - which is inequality.
Men's tennis attracts more than women's, women's attracts more than wheelchair tennis, which attracts more than amateur, and so on. Great players tend to attract more than those who aren't so great, really great players get the lions share of money and attention.
And you can't make tennis equal - even in terms of participation, if you're a man who is 5'2", and old, it's unlikely you'll ever be great, our biology makes it an unfair fight right from the start. Even if you did try to rig the sport so men and equal get equal prize money, most of us can never get that prize money because the cards were stacked against us in the form of biology.
There's a science fiction short story by Kurt Vonnegut called Harrison Bergeron about a society that tries to make everything equal - those who have skills, who are beautiful, intelligent, funny etc, are handicapped so everyone is the same, but it's a dystopian society for that very reason.
Bartelby
Bionic Poster
And the further argument is that if you work 40% more than him you should always get paid more, according to the five-set versus three-set argument.
I think OP might be just trolling. But it's hard to tell sometimes.
Different pay is fair because "men's tennis" and "women's tennis" are different sports, period. Which means they're different entertainment products with different economic structures.
Yeah, that argument is stupid too.
Different pay is fair because "men's tennis" and "women's tennis" are different sports, period. Which means they're different entertainment products with different economic structures.
mtommer
Hall of Fame
BJK just wanted more money and wrapped that desire in a more palatable "struggle for women". Nothing wrong with that but it is that.
mtommer
Hall of Fame
Oh stop already. You know very well that this all makes sense. Heck, even your $150 example bears it out. Let's keep it simple. Per event, top three get paid. ATP event. $150. Let's say a $100, $40 and $10. split. WTA event. $150. Same dole out. Now, combine the event. $150. $100/2 = $50 for men and women winner. $40/2= $20 each at second place. And ...$10/2 = $5 per third place.
Equal pay at combined events doesn't make sense because it isn't about "making sense" as if it needs to be some foregone righteous conclusion. Rather, some key figures, like BJK, have managed to convince tournament organizers to do so. Again, nothing wrong with that. They fought for it and managed to achieve it. Good for them. It has nothing to do with equality, morality, virtue or anything else philosophical. They, like most people, simply like more money rather than less. Okay.
That's what I'm trying to figure out. But they tell me I don't understand math.
taster
Rookie
We're not talking about equal pay in the abstract here, we're talking about the commercial imperative in relations to men and women's tennis, if you read many of the threads they answer your question.
taster
Rookie
You don't have to be particularly mathematically literate to get the numerous points that have been made.
Pavla
Semi-Pro
It baffles me.
math can be baffling to a lot of people
tennis_pro
Bionic Poster
Cause the whole world is watching, it's tougher to hide.
There is only one argument that should be said here that matters:
mtommer
Hall of Fame
Why does questioning the virtue signaling offend you?
mtommer
Hall of Fame
What I find interesting is that other women's sports aren't clamoring to try and follow suit with combined events. It's actually a good way to increase viewership, regardless of that being incidental.
nolefam_2024
Talk Tennis Guru
WTA should never make as much as ATP. They have quitters on the tour. Osaka and Barty stabbed fans in the back. We don't support quitters.
ATP our top players at least are loyal to the game.
ATP our top players at least are loyal to the game.
No one questions equal pay. If a director makes a movies that tops box office, irrespective of the gender one should be able to earn same. If studios discriminate based on gender, it is a cause that everyone SHOULD stand up to. Same thing for corporate world. A female CEO of any company should get same pay as male CEO if they bring same results.
nolefam_2024
Talk Tennis Guru
It's zero sum game. More money for girls means less money for boys. We don't live in unicorn land.
And if this happens in tennis it will happen in other areas of life too.
This isn't true. You can look at prize money numbers. Men's prize money isn't decreased in combined events.
Someone else is footing the bill.
nolefam_2024
Talk Tennis Guru
Just because men's money isn't decreased means nothing. Women are taking more chunk of money than they should. So men are suffering.
It's hard to say since we don't have access to the financials. But it is for sure true that men don't make less at combined events. So they aren't "suffering" in this straightforward way.
Should they be making more at combined events? How is anyone to know? How much do you think the prize money should be for men at Indian Wells (a combined event) vs a Masters 1000 event that isn't combined?
I agree, "someone" is footing the bill for higher prize money for women at combined events. But it isn't clear that it is the ATP players that are footing the bill based on the prize money numbers.
nolefam_2024
Talk Tennis Guru
You are diverting the subject. Someone (unknown) is footing the bill just diverts from the main issue. Men and women are getting prize money from the same pile. And if they are not generating same revenue then equal pay is injustice vs men.
It's how the entertainment industry works.
Let's say you want to book Taylor Swift for a show for a night. "Her people" will send you a contract with various things you have to abide by, including how much she is to get paid. So Taylor Swift is just a line item expense like any other. It's now up to you to advertise the event and sell as many tickets (and anything else you can) to get as much revenue as possible.
I imagine WTA players agree to a prize purse payout (based on data from past events). This is then a known line item expense. Then the owner of the event can try to make as much money as possible.
Sure, but an injustice to who?
I'm saying the event owner probably has to foot the (majority of the) bill and not make as much money as "she" otherwise could.
nolefam_2024
Talk Tennis Guru
To ATP players.
I imagine they probably foot some of the bill. But I imagine the event owner foots some of the bill too.
And I don't think it would be easy to figure out who's "suffering" more, even if you had full access to the financials.
So, this is where your prejudices come in, to help fill in those knowledge gaps..........
nolefam_2024
Talk Tennis Guru
Wow so no responsibility taken for giving equal money to wta. Makes sense.
You can call it prejudices.
I told you, somebody has to foot the bill. You say it's 100% ATP players. You might be right. I just don't know how you (or anyone else) could know this. That's the "prejudices" part.
This seems to be "the line" everyone uses now.
Do you use the same rationale when the $500 billion dollar Saudi Family empire "fights the good fight" and makes the rules? Or is it only certain groups that can use political / financial pressure to further their (self interested) agenda? If this is only "OK" for certain groups, how do you decide?
I'd ask you the same question
happyandbob
Legend
you’re not making any sense at all. How are you linking Billie Jean King’s fight for equal pay with the Saudi royal family? What point are you trying to make?
If a group is discriminated against I support them advocating for equal treatment.
In the case of separate ATP and WTA event all of the participants of each separate tournament are being treated equally according to the rules of each separate event.
Fair enough
Bartelby
Bionic Poster
Your question makes no sense as it is based on a false analogy. In any event, tennis is a commercial enterprise and not one oriented to social justice.
Last edited:
Of course it makes sense. If you don't think fairness or "justice" plays any role, then why on earth would you object to what anyone does?
Doesn't "might make right" for everyone? Or just certain people (that you agree with)?
Ah, I see. You are saying that in joint events, if women don't get equal pay, they are being discriminated against and you support them advocating for equal treatment.
I thought you were simple making a "might makes right" argument when you said "Billie Jean and her friends fought the good fight and got equal pay" (not a direct quote...I know you are a stickler for these things). That's why I asked why all "might makes right" type situations aren't the same for you (like say for example the Saudi family is able to use their wealth and power to get their way).
But tell me, how exactly are women being discriminated against if they aren't paid the same at joint events (be as detailed with your argument as you can, not some rhetoric nonsense just designed to shame me (which will work by the way... I'll stop engaging with you instantly)).
ChaelAZ
G.O.A.T.
That's just BS. Men and women's tennis are separate, so each can define and pay whatever they want. Neither effects the other.
If women's make less than men in advertising, the cost for equal pay comes from profit sharing more equally to players. If men pay the same, but garner more in advertising and totoal sales, that is just less money going to players and more to some shirts with degrees. There may be cross subsidies in ITF (somewhat), but WTA and ATP file separate for taxes and as orgs.
Vincent-C
Hall of Fame
word salad..
ChaelAZ
G.O.A.T.
Sorry you find simple things complicated.
Vincent-C
Hall of Fame
touchy..
Women are criminally overpaid at grand slams. It's not equal for the men. The men do way more work, yet receive the same prize money. it's a joke. A man has to spend way more hours on the court to win his grandslam as compared to a woman who only steps out there for like 1-1.5 hrs each time, yet she still gets the same prize money.
Where is the equality?
Where is the equality?
optic yellow
Legend
I agree, it's a farce they only play BO5.
Similar threads
