equal pay at majors, the debate is over

[Flash O'Groove]

Originally Posted by Mustard

That's ridiculous. There was once a time when some people said that women were incapable of running a marathon. The reality is that they can do it. There is no physical reason, anymore than the men, to prevent the women from playing 5 sets in the majors.

In fact a lot of male player are unable to do it, as show their cramping. Seems to me that thoose male player are also the one who don't often play 5 setters because they have poor slam result. They are not trained to play 5 setters so they can't.

Just the same for the women. If they trained for it, they could do it. Maybe not with the same intensity than the male, but what is the problem if they have to developp a different game in ordre to shorten points and efforts.

[NonP]

Originally Posted by Flash O'Groove

Very good point. Mayhaps the companies which afford the prize money believe that women tennis is interesting to bring women to watching tennis, and thus watching TV advertisment. In that regard, not only women tennis bring a lot of money to these companies (ans do following the logic of the OP they deserve reward), but it is also a good move to pay them equal than men because otherwise women would stay away from watching tennis, considering it as a sexist sport.

Yes, PR is no doubt a big part of it. And a perfectly valid reason for the equal pay, if they think it's good for the sport overall. These people aren't running a charity.

[oberyn]

Originally Posted by NonP

Anyway why are so many people obsessed with this nonissue? The powers that be decided that the men and the women are worth the same prize money, and only at the majors for that matter. The fact that the women don't play best-of-5 matches is besides the point, what really matters is that the head honchos thought it a good business move, and one they haven't reversed in years. What exactly is the problem?

I wholeheartedly agree with you and have made similar posts whenever this "issue" comes up.

[srinrajesh]

Originally Posted by Mustard

There's plenty of people out there who are much more into women's tennis than men's tennis.

am not really sure about that even the ladies seem to follow men's tennis more and state Nadal, Federer as faves ..
Maybe the young girls follow more women's tennis than men's

[srinrajesh]

Women's tennis can definitely benefit from best of 5 the last 2 matches SF and finals .. but it is a big step for the organizers to take we might see a lot of 6-0 sets though initially

[rynjt]

I agree that now women's tour do not deserve equal prize money because of quality of players produced.

IMO, there was a time around late 90's early 2000's when the women's tour was strong and could be argued was more of an attraction than the men.

[DRII]

Originally Posted by rynjt

I agree that now women's tour do not deserve equal prize money because of quality of players produced.

IMO, there was a time around late 90's early 2000's when the women's tour was strong and could be argued was more of an attraction than the men.

You're absolutely right; but who was arguing for reduced men's pay back then? No one probably, and thats when the men were making more than the women!

[Wilander Fan]

Originally Posted by DRII

[/b]

You're absolutely right; but who was arguing for reduced men's pay back then? No one probably, and thats when the men were making more than the women!

The reason was that the speed of the game back then combined with the lack of power led to great balance of styles. There were S&Vers as well as baselines. In addition, the great legends like Evert and Navratilova were able to hang in there against a new crop of greats. At the same time, the mens game became homogenous with 2-3 shot tennis. You would think Agassi/Sampras would be a compelling match up in styles but somehow even that failed to be compelling.

Anyway, the fair thing would be to allocate prize money based on attendance but the WTA would not last long so there needs to be some subsidy by the men.

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by srinrajesh

am not really sure about that even the ladies seem to follow men's tennis more and state Nadal, Federer as faves ..
Maybe the young girls follow more women's tennis than men's

I know somebody (a man) who cares more about women's tennis than men's tennis, and because of the tennis not sex appeal. He's obviously not the only such person.

[ZeroSkid]

they should get half of what the men get, womens tennis is a joke

[DRII]

Originally Posted by Wilander Fan

The reason was that the speed of the game back then combined with the lack of power led to great balance of styles. There were S&Vers as well as baselines. In addition, the great legends like Evert and Navratilova were able to hang in there against a new crop of greats. At the same time, the mens game became homogenous with 2-3 shot tennis. You would think Agassi/Sampras would be a compelling match up in styles but somehow even that failed to be compelling.

Anyway, the fair thing would be to allocate prize money based on attendance but the WTA would not last long so there needs to be some subsidy by the men.

What

We were talking about the late 90's early 2000's when women's tennis was more popular than men's. Not Everett/Navrat years...

[reversef]

I'm female, so I can't be accused of being sexist. For me, IN THE SLAMS, there are two possibilities: women play best of five and earn the same money as men or they play best of 3 and earn much less. Simple.

[TERRASTAR18]

Originally Posted by ChrisRF

Interesting question. I have a try:

AO 10: ?
RG 10: Schiavone
WIM 10: ?
USO 10: Clijsters

AO 11: Clijsters
RG 11: Li Na
WIM 11: Kvitova
US 11: Stosur

AO 11: Azarenka
RG 11: Sharapova

Maybe I have 8. In the decade of 2000-2010 I know only a handful, but I think I'm quite well about the winners in the Graf-Seles-Sanchez era.

In men's tennis I could name all major winners since at least 1988.

By the way, I agree with your whole post in most parts.

you aren't a real fan-
AO 10: serena
RG 10: Schiavone
WIM 10: serena
USO 10: Clijsters

AO 11: Clijsters
RG 11: Li Na
WIM 11: Kvitova
US 11: Stosur

AO 11: Azarenka
RG 11: Sharapova


the end...

[Flash O'Groove]

Originally Posted by reversef

I'm female, so I can't be accused of being sexist. For me, IN THE SLAMS, there are two possibilities: women play best of five and earn the same money as men or they play best of 3 and earn much less. Simple.

Actually I think we should factor each player revenue by the time he has spent on court. I think that it is outrageously unfair than when Federer won AO2010, he won exactly the same amount than Djokovic in 2012. For god sake, Djokovic and Nadal played for 6 hours (SIX!!!). That's a lot more time than Fed crushing Murray.

Really, working hour in tennis are only the one that we get to see on court, and no minute should be paid to someone who is not on court for the said minute.

Hell, the prise-money of Wimby2011 should be immediately redistributed to Isner and Mahut. Thoose guy spent real time on the court, unless thoose *** Nadal and Nole (if i m gay can I be homophobe?)

[DRII]

Originally Posted by reversef

I'm female, so I can't be accused of being sexist. For me, IN THE SLAMS, there are two possibilities: women play best of five and earn the same money as men or they play best of 3 and earn much less. Simple.

Sorry madam...

but women can be some of the most sexist... Particularly those who have hated the whole women's liberation movement in the first place!

Just like if you give a black man a badge; and he can (and often does) commit major racist acts against other blacks! Trust me, I know what I'm talking about...

[DRII]

Originally Posted by Flash O'Groove

Actually I think we should factor each player revenue by the time he has spent on court. I think that it is outrageously unfair than when Federer won AO2010, he won exactly the same amount than Djokovic in 2012. For god sake, Djokovic and Nadal played for 6 hours (SIX!!!). That's a lot more time than Fed crushing Murray.

Really, working hour in tennis are only the one that we get to see on court, and no minute should be paid to someone who is not on court for the said minute.

Hell, the prise-money of Wimby2011 should be immediately redistributed to Isner and Mahut. Thoose guy spent real time on the court, unless thoose *** Nadal and Nole (if i m gay can I be homophobe?)

Absolutely!

Great point!

Often times the most homophobic individuals tend to be gay themselves! We see it with politicians here in the States all the time...

[CDestroyer]

Originally Posted by Mustard

I know somebody (a man) who cares more about women's tennis than men's tennis, and because of the tennis not sex appeal. He's obviously not the only such person.

We all know you love watching only men play. Really love it.

[sportsfan1]

Do the ATP and WTA split the entire revenue from both tours currently, or do they handle it separately? Sounds like the former, otherwise there would be no issue? Could someone confirm/clarify?

[RogerRacket111]

Make sure your girlfriend or wife doesn't read it. I agree Equal work for Equal pay. They need to do equal work. In the end its entertainment if they can get more people to watch than mens they can play only 3 sets. If they cant then need to play 5 sets.

[dominikk1985]

I don't really care what they get.

however I do think that the women are slightly overpaid. this is evidenced by a lot of stars losing their hunger and getting lazy or fat after a slam or being no.1.

look at safina, wozniacki, jankovic and ivanovic. they were really got and then suddenly lost it. I think having too much money and suddenly having a high lifestyle has a lot to do with that.

especially in today's game where 80% are from poor eastern european countries. the american and european girls of the past came from richer families and thus were able to deal with the wealth better. but if you give people from a poor background tons of money they often will go overboard.