Dinara Safina: Women don't deserve equal prize money

[President]

Taken from her twitter account: "I know that lots of women will kill me now... But equal prize money after this matches... I'm quiet..."

She was referring to the Djokovic Wawrinka match, which was undoubtedly a classic. Thoughts on this?

[Prisoner of Birth]

I think equal pay is fine. It's the organizers that are thieving it all, anyway.

[Clarky21]

She's right. Last years mens finalists were paid the same amount as last years womens finalists. Something is definitely messed up about that. If I were the men I would have been livid at the fact that they made the same money as me for such little effort. They also only play 3 sets which makes it unfair as well.

[als47]

Like everyone else, she's welcome to her opinion. Conversely, after what Tipsarevic did, one could make the opposite argument pretty easily, too. That's the problem with taking one match and drawing general conclusions from it... with Tipsy's behavior, we could say, "Men are quitters who don't stick it out til the end because they're too scared to lose - they don't deserve to make more money than women who play with two herniated discs in their back but never give up!" With Djokovic and Wawrinka's match, we could say, "That was such a battle! They definitely deserve more money because they're out there longer!"

And so on. Match length, or what two individual competitors do on any given day, probably shouldn't be used as any kind of guideline.

[xan]

Originally Posted by als47

Like everyone else, she's welcome to her opinion. Conversely, after what Tipsarevic did, one could make the opposite argument pretty easily, too. That's the problem with taking one match and drawing general conclusions from it... with Tipsy's behavior, we could say, "Men are quitters who don't stick it out til the end because they're too scared to lose - they don't deserve to make more money than women who play with two herniated discs in their back but never give up!" With Djokovic and Wawrinka's match, we could say, "That was such a battle! They definitely deserve more money because they're out there longer!"

And so on. Match length, or what two individual competitors do on any given day, probably shouldn't be used as any kind of guideline.

they can be stripped of their winnings if ther retire from a said match.
its not really the same case here.
and i agree with safina. how can you require equality for something that ISN'T equal. boggles the mind.

[als47]

Tipsarevic is going to be stripped of his winnings?

[NadalAgassi]

I think women should get 60% the pay. They do best of 3 matches which is 60% the work so that would be about right. If they agree to best of 5 matches at all the same tournaments then they deserve equal pay though.

[Vanhool]

I know I'm in the minority, but I wish the men would play best of 3. I don't even watch the first 2 sets. I don't have the attention span. It's great for hardcore fans, but I doubt it helps attract new fans. I think 3 sets would see more intense play. They'd be less tired and have fewer injuries.

[Steve0904]

I agree. Men play best of 5, women play best of 3. Men should get paid more, it's very simple, and you'll have to believe that I'm not saying this just because I'm a guy. I know Tipsarevic's scenario, but it still doesn't change the fact that men play longer matches. It also doesn't change the fact that Tipsarevic was actually out of gas after 2 5 setters in a row. I can't stand Tipsarevic btw.

[TennisLovaLova]

Gilles Simon, get out of this body!

[als47]

Originally Posted by Steve0904

I agree. Men play best of 5, women play best of 3. Men should get paid more, it's very simple, and you'll have to believe that I'm not saying this just because I'm a guy. I know Tipsarevic's scenario, but it still doesn't change the fact that men play longer matches. It also doesn't change the fact that Tipsarevic was actually out of gas after 2 5 setters in a row. I can't stand Tipsarevic btw.

Yeah, I was just using that as an example of how silly it is to look at one match and say, "This proves this." Tipsy being a quitter doesn't mean Ferrer, for example, isn't lionhearted. You can't judge all men by one man, or all women by one woman, good or bad.

I do think women should play best of five, actually. It'd force more athleticism, and I don't think there's as much potential for back-and-forth drama when a match can be over after 2 sets. That said, I'm really not sure why prize money and sets played would be linked... the link really should be in what kind of a draw the women are vs the men (in which case the men would still get paid more). That would force the women to start pushing for their matches to be more entertaining (which might lead to doing best of five).

[JayChu]

Originally Posted by als47

Yeah, I was just using that as an example of how silly it is to look at one match and say, "This proves this." Tipsy being a quitter doesn't mean Ferrer, for example, isn't lionhearted. You can't judge all men by one man, or all women by one woman, good or bad.

I do think women should play best of five, actually. It'd force more athleticism, and I don't think there's as much potential for back-and-forth drama when a match can be over after 2 sets. That said, I'm really not sure why prize money and sets played would be linked... the link really should be in what kind of a draw the women are vs the men (in which case the men would still get paid more). That would force the women to start pushing for their matches to be more entertaining (which might lead to doing best of five).

The problem with having the women play best of 5 in the majors is that it is horrendous to schedule. The grand slam is already packed as it is. Having best of 5 singles matches for 2 128-size draws is crazy. The majors will need to be extended to three weeks instead.

[als47]

Originally Posted by JayChu

The problem with having the women play best of 5 in the majors is that it is horrendous to schedule. The grand slam is already packed as it is. Having best of 5 singles matches for 2 128-size draws is crazy. The majors will need to be extended to three weeks instead.

Ah, that's a good point. :/ And three weeks would be an awfully long time. Maybe they should keep it at best of three, then. But in that case, if prize money IS being decided based on match length, they shouldn't be penalized for playing shorter matches to facilitate the schedule.

Of course, maybe they could do two separate events entirely, but I think it's more fun to keep them combined.

[Headshotterer]

LOL. Says the retired injured woman who never won a GS and is in many times a major head case. If she was still in the top 100 we wouldnt have this thread here.

[Vanhool]

Sometimes those 5 setters force matches well past midnight, and then the guy who guts it out and wins is so gassed that they lose their next match. Maybe best of three for men and women throughout, then best of 5 for both at finals.

[dominikk1985]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

I think women should get 60% the pay. They do best of 3 matches which is 60% the work so that would be about right. If they agree to best of 5 matches at all the same tournaments then they deserve equal pay though.

does that mean that a Marathon runner should get 420 times the Money of a 100 m sprinter?

[DRII]

Equity and equality are not the same thing...

[fed_rulz]

Originally Posted by dominikk1985

does that mean that a Marathon runner should get 420 times the Money of a 100 m sprinter?

only if men's marathon runners run 420x longer than women's.. otherwise you're comparing apples and oranges.

[jwjh]

I think the real problem behind the disgruntlement is the gap in the quality of play from men and women.

[dominikk1985]

Originally Posted by fed_rulz

only if men's marathon runners run 420x longer than women's.. otherwise you're comparing apples and oranges.

no but they are running 420 times longer than a 100 m sprinter. why does usain bolt get more Money for 9.5 seconds of work than a Marathon runner gets for 2 plus hours. isn't that unfair too by that Standard?

BTW: I don't think like that. women don't deserve less because they Play shorter. however I also don't believe in equal pay just because of gender equality-

they should compare TV Ratings and attendance and then split the Money accordingly.