Feña14
G.O.A.T.
It's a good theory but can you imagine how bored you would be watching it? Sharapova shrieking for 5 hours and the like...
Men & Women: Equal Prize Money [Merged]
- Thread starter barry
- Start date
It's a good theory but can you imagine how bored you would be watching it? Sharapova shrieking for 5 hours and the like...
35ft6
Legend
I put I don't care.
For one, if they play best of 3 doesn't matter to me at all. Most entertainers and athletes aren't getting paid by the hour anyway. Marlon Brando got paid more for 3 minutes of Superman than probably every other actor combined for months of work. Also, what do you do if Federer wins in straight sets and Clijsters goes 3 sets? If they both play 3 sets, would you adjust Federer's pay for that round accordingly if you REALLY CARE ABOUT HOW MUCH THEY PLAY WHICH NOBODY REALLY DOES.
Economically, if they Grand Slams were played separately, the womens then the men's, or vice versa, no doubt in my mind the women's event would suffer greatly. If anything, this is what it would be based on, but don't know if the Grand Slams would be willing to do the amount of research required to prove this irrefutably.
In the end, I don't care because it doesn't affect me. The only way to really prove that it's an egregious injustice is to separate the men and women events, and that's not going to happen. I just wish people would stop carping on the "how long they play" argument. It has no merit.
For one, if they play best of 3 doesn't matter to me at all. Most entertainers and athletes aren't getting paid by the hour anyway. Marlon Brando got paid more for 3 minutes of Superman than probably every other actor combined for months of work. Also, what do you do if Federer wins in straight sets and Clijsters goes 3 sets? If they both play 3 sets, would you adjust Federer's pay for that round accordingly if you REALLY CARE ABOUT HOW MUCH THEY PLAY WHICH NOBODY REALLY DOES.
Economically, if they Grand Slams were played separately, the womens then the men's, or vice versa, no doubt in my mind the women's event would suffer greatly. If anything, this is what it would be based on, but don't know if the Grand Slams would be willing to do the amount of research required to prove this irrefutably.
In the end, I don't care because it doesn't affect me. The only way to really prove that it's an egregious injustice is to separate the men and women events, and that's not going to happen. I just wish people would stop carping on the "how long they play" argument. It has no merit.
Feña14
G.O.A.T.
Hmm.
When you watch Roddick's matches he usually has a little army of female fans going crazy for him, same goes for Nadal and Safin.
I don't tend to see men cheering for the women with the flags and banners.
If you ever stumble across one of those websites like MTF all it seems to be is female posters drooling over the male players.
Golden Retriever
Hall of Fame
Feña14
G.O.A.T.
J011yroger
Talk Tennis Guru
Here is a fantastic idea, instead of ATP/WTA, just merge the two into one big tour, and make the men and women play with each other. The women want equal rights and equal pay, then there it is. They want to be so equal, let them play with the men. The first 500 or so spots will be filled with men, and the top 15 or 20 women can play futures, see how that works out for them.
THAT my friends is what I call equal rights. If you don't want it to be that equal, then you should be willing to accept whatever pay that sponsors are willing to give you. Three sets and five sets be damned, if you want to earn what the men earn, then beat them.
I am tired of this I am woman hear me roar B.S.
J
THAT my friends is what I call equal rights. If you don't want it to be that equal, then you should be willing to accept whatever pay that sponsors are willing to give you. Three sets and five sets be damned, if you want to earn what the men earn, then beat them.
I am tired of this I am woman hear me roar B.S.
J
Lleytian3
Semi-Pro
lol that is a good idea. but no women would ever be ranked in the top 300 or so. lol
it is obviously stupid to pay men n women equal. the logic here is simple. men put in more hours on the court so to speak. if you wanna do it for those smaller tournyes then go ahead, cuz den men n women play both 2 out of 3. but in slams is in a much different matter. all men play 3 out of 5. when women only play 2 out of 3. u mite say if federer wins in 3 n sharapova gets pushed to 3. but that wuld be fo the whole tourney n federer not to drop a set. both r reelie not possible to happen. although fed didn win a slam without droppin a set. but no women has won a slam being pushed to 3 sets every match begining from the first match.
i agree for womens rights and all that, but it does not apply here. i ask a bunch of women collegiate players n dey agree that women should not be payed as much as the men do. until women start playin 3 out of 5. we reelie have no discussion. wimbledon shuld seriously conisder changing it back.
WORD, BROTHER. Wimbledon is a business venture. The athletes that generate the most revenue should be payed more (the female champion is payed more than the male champ).
joeyscl
Rookie
Funny how the poll results are quite the opposite of that on www.tennis.com
My thoughts exactly. I could write a book on how neo-feminist you-know-whats make me want to swallow a bullet.
mellofelow
Semi-Pro
They should come up with a system much like multi-screen theaters. If the spectators enters the gate to watch Women's match equals the number enter to watch the men's match, then the equal pay is fair.
On the other hand, the prize money are mostly sponsored by prominent major corporations. They would not be caught dead in this gender equity, diversity, political correctness...etc crap.
Only Augusta Nationals Golf Club, the site of the Masters and privately sponsored event had the balls to stand up to Martha Burke.
On the other hand, the prize money are mostly sponsored by prominent major corporations. They would not be caught dead in this gender equity, diversity, political correctness...etc crap.
Only Augusta Nationals Golf Club, the site of the Masters and privately sponsored event had the balls to stand up to Martha Burke.
mellofelow
Semi-Pro
But I thought Wimbledon is all about tradition... all white and all. And from which century is having a 'QUEEN'??? Obviously, the Royal Highness ordered the equal pay!!!
malakas
Banned
Hmm.
When you see the tv ratings they are usually much bigger in women's matches which means that more fans (even if they are not tennis fanatics) sit in their couch and watch women play tennis than men.
If you ever stumble across one of those websites like MTF you may notice it is EXCLUSIVELYabout the ATP and MEN tennis players and not the WTA.You may want to check into the WTAworld for that-IF you can take the paranoia.
I think that it was about time Wimby made that decision.
And oh yes,women play best of 3 and not best of 5 like men and stay on court less time
but they bring much more money to the purse.
vive le beau jeu !
Talk Tennis Guru
<< if you don't give me this, i will be sulking again. >>
one more time, we gave them what they want, so that they stop complaining... and let us watching (male) tennis in peace, while having a beer.
hey, that's (partly) how they rule the world...
one more time, we gave them what they want, so that they stop complaining... and let us watching (male) tennis in peace, while having a beer.
hey, that's (partly) how they rule the world...
Maybe next year they'll play 5 sets...
Its similar to golf, Michelle Wei & others before here, have tried & failed to qualify for any of the men's major tournaments.
Warriorroger
Hall of Fame
I voted no, stupid remark.
prosealster
Professional
CanadianChic
Hall of Fame
I stand by my belief that women and men should play the same amount of sets. Doing half the work regardless of the crowd draws hardly seems equitable. Once there is equity in work there should be equity in pay.
FedFan_2007
Banned
Good one! I guess they all took it to heart, because the WTA is boasting some of the fittest players ever on their tour. Just look at Jankovic, Ivanovic, and that Czech girl with the shoulders.
well I don't mind the ladies getting the same amount of money as the men.So you mean to tell me that it's ok for someone like Federer to rape another guy 6-0/6-0 like he did at the Masters 3 years ago and someone like Henin/Mauresmo or any top woman and it's not fair?
Some of these women are fitter than a fat arse Nalbandian for example and he should be ok for him to get money because during world cup,Argentina is playing and he wants to watch football and loses a match?
Most of the men can't say they are all court,all surface players like a Mauresmo/Henin/Hingis but dirtballers like Safin with all due respect to him can't play on grass,Blake-Roddick who can't make it past 3th round at the French,Blake can't win a 5 setter match for example.
here's what that fool Haas Had to say today on the equal price money thing.
Not all the male players approve.
"I don't think it's really fair," ninth-ranked Tommy Haas said Thursday at the ATP tournament in Memphis, Tenn. "I think the depth of men's tennis is much tougher than the women's, plus we play best of five sets."
Haas acknowledged the growth of women's tennis.
"Not to say that the women don't deserve it," the German said. "The top players train very hard and are very good tennis players, but in general I don't agree with it."
http://sports.yahoo.com/ten/news?slug=ap-atp-wimbledon&prov=ap&type=lgns
Since smart arse doesn't find it "fair" I'll remind Tommy that he's only won 10 titles and made
9 finals
compared to well since we're talking WTA tour and all it's "fat and lazy pigs" as someone stated here's the deal with the ladies in the top 10 worth mentioning(let's not forget the Williams sisters who aren't in the top 10).
Titles and Finals:
Sharapova:15-5
Henin:29-15
Mauresmo:23-20
Clijsters:34-16
Kuznetsova:8-7
Hingis:43-25
a combined 16 Grand Slams and forget the Grand Slam finals runner-ups on yes all darn 4 surfaces
so really Tommy should really stfu since he's never even made the finals of a GS at his age and with Federer being 100x better than he'll ever dream of being on all surfaces;Nadal on clay,Roddick on Hardcourts and grass and Blake on Hard and the young guns now with constant improvement and fitness gunning for him and the rest up there,really he should just shut it
Some of these women are fitter than a fat arse Nalbandian for example and he should be ok for him to get money because during world cup,Argentina is playing and he wants to watch football and loses a match?
Most of the men can't say they are all court,all surface players like a Mauresmo/Henin/Hingis but dirtballers like Safin with all due respect to him can't play on grass,Blake-Roddick who can't make it past 3th round at the French,Blake can't win a 5 setter match for example.
here's what that fool Haas Had to say today on the equal price money thing.
Not all the male players approve.
"I don't think it's really fair," ninth-ranked Tommy Haas said Thursday at the ATP tournament in Memphis, Tenn. "I think the depth of men's tennis is much tougher than the women's, plus we play best of five sets."
Haas acknowledged the growth of women's tennis.
"Not to say that the women don't deserve it," the German said. "The top players train very hard and are very good tennis players, but in general I don't agree with it."
http://sports.yahoo.com/ten/news?slug=ap-atp-wimbledon&prov=ap&type=lgns
Since smart arse doesn't find it "fair" I'll remind Tommy that he's only won 10 titles and made
9 finals
compared to well since we're talking WTA tour and all it's "fat and lazy pigs" as someone stated here's the deal with the ladies in the top 10 worth mentioning(let's not forget the Williams sisters who aren't in the top 10).
Titles and Finals:
Sharapova:15-5
Henin:29-15
Mauresmo:23-20
Clijsters:34-16
Kuznetsova:8-7
Hingis:43-25
a combined 16 Grand Slams and forget the Grand Slam finals runner-ups on yes all darn 4 surfaces
so really Tommy should really stfu since he's never even made the finals of a GS at his age and with Federer being 100x better than he'll ever dream of being on all surfaces;Nadal on clay,Roddick on Hardcourts and grass and Blake on Hard and the young guns now with constant improvement and fitness gunning for him and the rest up there,really he should just shut it
Feña14
G.O.A.T.
Hmm.
When you see the tv ratings they are usually much bigger in women's matches which means that more fans (even if they are not tennis fanatics) sit in their couch and watch women play tennis than men.
If you ever stumble across one of those websites like MTF you may notice it is EXCLUSIVELYabout the ATP and MEN tennis players and not the WTA.You may want to check into the WTAworld for that-IF you can take the paranoia.
I think that it was about time Wimby made that decision.
And oh yes,women play best of 3 and not best of 5 like men and stay on court less time
I don't know anyone who I talk to in England that would prefer to watch womens tennis than mens tennis. People who aren't tennis fans and only watch Wimbledon watch the men play.. they only watch it for 2 weeks a year and whenever I see them they say "did you see Federer yesterday?" or "did you see Roddick?" they don't say "did you watch Henin pummel that no namer?"
I have seen WTA world and quite frankly I didn't stay there to read much more than a few threads it was that poor, the world dribble comes to mind to be honest.
Women bringing much more to the purse? I can't see how that happens! As people have said before, if you were to hold Grand Slams for men and for women on different weeks, you will be sure to see more people going to watch the men in action. Nottingham and Edgbaston are located pretty close to each other and you always get people going to watch the men at Nottingham over the women at Edgbaston.
Why should women get the same when they don't have the same skill level? Haas has the right idea.
What a load of crap! Why don't you move to Saudi Arabia?
4brotherdrive
Rookie
Women make more money for the tournament, more ppl go to pay for womens matches and watch them on tv. Therefore what I think is that since they bring more money they should get equal pay(because they obviously arent better than men). Do you honestly think that women could play as much as men? So I dont see the logic in mixing the two tours together, or men getting more pay if they are putting in the same amount of work as women(effort-wise, cause women would get blown away by a male pro). At the end of the day though I can really care less because it doesn't affect me, but this is just my opinion on the matter.
I'm all about the idea that the tour that makes the most money should pay the most. Regardless of how many swimsuit modeling pictures you will find sharapova in, men's tennis is more popular than women's. Men play a higher level of tennis, so why wouldn't it be more popular? And why does the fact that more than 50% of event spectators are women mean that they are ALL there to watch women's tennis only? With this decision in place, it is evident that they clearly do not make their pay based on revenue or popularity.
So they made the decision because of equal rights then? With equal rights, they should get paid exactly proportionally to how much they play compared to men. If they want equal pay, then that means equal sets played. This is beating a dead horse, but I don't see of the 17 people who voted YES coming up with any good reasons why this is fair.
Shouldn't the highest level of a sport get paid the highest amount? Apparently not in tennis.
So they made the decision because of equal rights then? With equal rights, they should get paid exactly proportionally to how much they play compared to men. If they want equal pay, then that means equal sets played. This is beating a dead horse, but I don't see of the 17 people who voted YES coming up with any good reasons why this is fair.
Shouldn't the highest level of a sport get paid the highest amount? Apparently not in tennis.
This is impossible to determine since the Slams are played together. Another way to resolve the situation would be to split up the Slams by gender, and pay each slam according to the revenues. We'd simply have 8 slams instead of four.
Nothing in that post is a load of crap. It's one of the many ways in which men and women would be forced to play by the same rules. Suggesting that he move to Saudi Arabia makes you look like an idiot.
Last edited:
J011yroger
Talk Tennis Guru
I don't speak the language, they don't have many tennis players, and the weather really isn't my cup of tea.
J
ferocious4hand
Semi-Pro
the only logical and fair solution is to eliminate all singles format and focus on mix dubs. until then I don’t see how the ladies should be paid equally.
35ft6
Legend
Yes, it's all about revenue, nothing else.I've learned, over many years, that I'd better go political on this kind of
question.
Anyway, if women bring in similar revenue to Wimbledon, why not ?
IT HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH HOW LONG THEY PLAY.
The Rolling Stones get more money for one song than The Gin Blossoms might get for performing a 2 hour set.
THIS IS NOT MCDONALD'S, ATHLETES AND MOVIE STARS DON'T GET PAID BY THE HOUR.
This equal pay for equal play thing is quite possibly the most ******** on-going idea on these boards if only because of how easily it can be dispelled. Do you understand? A WNBA starter who plays the whole game still makes less than the 8th man on an NBA team. A high powered lawyer makes more in one hour than what a burger flipper will make in 50 hours.
Unless you want to start paying men less for winning in straight sets, STOP THE EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL PLAY argument. That's not how appearance fees work, the prize money isn't adjusted for how many minutes you spend on court, it has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS.
There are certainly many valid ways to criticize equal prize money, but the whole best of 3 in contrast to best of 5 thing is not one of them.
Then the argument should be "equal pay for equal revenue"... not "equal pay for equal play". After all, using this logic, two junior ATP players would be producing play "equal" to Federer vs. Safin providing the same number of spectators are at both matches.
"Equal Play" to many, including myself, consists of (among other things) the duration of the play as well as the quality of the play. There is little doubt that the women are inferior to the men in both these areas. The women do no produce equal play, they may possibly produce 'equal revenue'.
Last edited:
35ft6
Legend
Absolutely. That's exactly what it's about in western economies.
bluecephas
New User
If women generate more revenue now because they're more interesting, fine. Then they should play 5 sets and let the men play 3 setters. I don't mind the women equal pay, but they actually get paid more. Since they only play 3 setters, they have more time and energy to get more $$$ from playing doubles and mixed doubles matches after their 45-minute singles matches.
35ft6
Legend
You still don't get it.
federerfanatic
Banned
Except for the great Federer, Sampras, and Edberg I have hated mens tennis for over 10 years now. Becker and Agassi were the most hyped up media campaigns and both made me want to puke. Agassi was lazy assed most of his career and did not live up to his end of the bargain to give mens tennis a great rivalry. Instead they got stuck with Sampras beating a bunch of losers like Pioline to win his slam titles, YAWWWWNNN! Nadal and Roddick are also ridiculous media campaigns, trying to push a rivalry between them and Federer, what a joke! Neither is worthy to massage Roger's feet and morons like Peter Bodo predicting them to beat Roger before any bit match is pathetic attempt to PR the game.
Agassi is probably the most overrated player of all time, winning a flukish French Open where everyone **** themselves and choked, and he even got help from the officials to beat moya and Medvedev; combined with a bunch of cheap Aussie Open titles beating losers like Clement and Schuettler to pad his slam stats. If Sampras did not miss a U.S Open with an injury he would have no years as #1 or with 2 slams. Becker is also overhyped to the tilt, Sampras and even Agassi made him look like a dwarf at the end of his career 80% of the time and Federer would have done the same if he played him. He is a jerk and thinks he is all that when he isnt.
So I agree with women getting atleast equal prize and if I wasnt for Federer I would give them double. Mens tennis would die if Federer wasnt around now, the rest of the guys other then Federer, Edberg the classy champion, and Sampras, have sucked both on and off the court for awhile now. I wish I was older and around through all the 70s and 80s when the really great mens tennis, other then 1 or 2 players was played. The last 15 years it is the great Sampras, the great Federer, the classy Edberg, and a bunch of chumps after them.
The womens has a bunch of great and interesting players. The sexy and classy Williams girls, the undersized girls who play beautiful not powerful tennis in Henin and Hingis, the courageous lesbian Mauresmo, the powerful and clean hitting Davenport, a great group of vets, middle aged, and up and comers from U.S, Russia, variety of Eastern European countries, and now China.
Agassi is probably the most overrated player of all time, winning a flukish French Open where everyone **** themselves and choked, and he even got help from the officials to beat moya and Medvedev; combined with a bunch of cheap Aussie Open titles beating losers like Clement and Schuettler to pad his slam stats. If Sampras did not miss a U.S Open with an injury he would have no years as #1 or with 2 slams. Becker is also overhyped to the tilt, Sampras and even Agassi made him look like a dwarf at the end of his career 80% of the time and Federer would have done the same if he played him. He is a jerk and thinks he is all that when he isnt.
So I agree with women getting atleast equal prize and if I wasnt for Federer I would give them double. Mens tennis would die if Federer wasnt around now, the rest of the guys other then Federer, Edberg the classy champion, and Sampras, have sucked both on and off the court for awhile now. I wish I was older and around through all the 70s and 80s when the really great mens tennis, other then 1 or 2 players was played. The last 15 years it is the great Sampras, the great Federer, the classy Edberg, and a bunch of chumps after them.
The womens has a bunch of great and interesting players. The sexy and classy Williams girls, the undersized girls who play beautiful not powerful tennis in Henin and Hingis, the courageous lesbian Mauresmo, the powerful and clean hitting Davenport, a great group of vets, middle aged, and up and comers from U.S, Russia, variety of Eastern European countries, and now China.
Are you s****** me? You go on about how Agassi Becker etc are overrated and then you come up with this pile of crap about the women's game? Sexy and classy Williams? Excuse me but didn't Serena win the recent AO despite being at least 30lbs heavier than a fit athlete should be? And classy? Have you heard some of the comments the women have made about their competition? The women don't have anywhere near the athleticism and footwork of the men much less the ability to utilise the full length and breadth of the court. Just pull up any routine WTA match and I bet you the Winners to Unforced Errors ratio will be worse than the male equivalent. Women's tennis is worse than watching paint dry.
Just my pennies worth admidst all that's being said and I admit that I haven't read every other post, so if this has been said already ...
I voted "No" because the only way to say 'fair is fair' is that it should be the same for everyone, men & women alike. I don't begrudge the women getting the same cash at all, but I don't see any reason why they shouldn't play 5 sets like the men. Same game, same cash, same rules for everyone with no special cases.
To my mind, it just means more money for the top women players who are comfortable at best of 3 sets as it stands. The Slams for the men mean that on top of your tennis skills, you need to have that extra fitness (physical and mental) over the two weeks to win - and that is what makes the ranking points, the prestige and the pay day more important.
Unless someone really believes that women are the weaker sex, there's no good reason that, over the coming years, it should not become best of 5, same as the men.
There's really no excuse for 4 tournaments each year.
I voted "No" because the only way to say 'fair is fair' is that it should be the same for everyone, men & women alike. I don't begrudge the women getting the same cash at all, but I don't see any reason why they shouldn't play 5 sets like the men. Same game, same cash, same rules for everyone with no special cases.
To my mind, it just means more money for the top women players who are comfortable at best of 3 sets as it stands. The Slams for the men mean that on top of your tennis skills, you need to have that extra fitness (physical and mental) over the two weeks to win - and that is what makes the ranking points, the prestige and the pay day more important.
Unless someone really believes that women are the weaker sex, there's no good reason that, over the coming years, it should not become best of 5, same as the men.
There's really no excuse for 4 tournaments each year.
MoFed
Semi-Pro
The whole crap about females being weaker is total bull. You people need to come up with a better argument than that. Women are not weaker, the WTA Tour is not weaker. I'll bet the women on the tour could beat any of you.
Like it or not, the women's tour does have draw to it more so than the men's tour at the moment. The women may not appeal to the masses here, but more people watch their matches than the men. (Which could possibly be because ESPN and the like play more women's matches so we have no choice but to watch if we want to see any tennis.)
Like it or not, the women's tour does have draw to it more so than the men's tour at the moment. The women may not appeal to the masses here, but more people watch their matches than the men. (Which could possibly be because ESPN and the like play more women's matches so we have no choice but to watch if we want to see any tennis.)
MoFed
Semi-Pro
She was reading a teleprompter with the politically correct words she needs to say. No creedance is given to "journalists."
drakulie
Talk Tennis Guru
Uhmm, lots of women have never made it to the finals of a Grand Slam>>>>>>> We'll start with Maria Sharapova, who is still the most popular female tennis player, although she hasn't played in years.
The women don't work as hard as the men. So there is not "equal pay for equal play". In actuality, the women are now getting paid more than the men>>> which is absurd.
J011yroger
Talk Tennis Guru
Eh...they really are not as good, it isn't even close. I would say anyone on the womans tour would have her hands full with a good 5.5 teaching pro, or D1 college player, or nationally ranked open/35s player. If you wanted to make it closer you could play on clay. I am pretty sure that isn't what you were talking about tho. And I agree that 99.99% of the people sitting at home spouting about how this player or that player sucks, have no basis or grounds for that. I have a lot of friends, that play 3.5 4.0 and 4.5, I coach a lot of juniors boys and girls, I have hit with and played with former tour players, (Guys only on that so there goes my credibility), and I have yet to say someone sucks, nevermind anyone, male or female, who is good enough to make a living flying around the world playing a game.
J
35ft6
Legend
By the way, instead of women playing best of 5, men might want to get rid of best of 5. Make it equal that way. At least get rid of best of 5 in the early round of slams. And maybe even get rid of best of 5 for the first 3 matches of a Slam. It's astonishing to me when guys DON'T get injured. Winning the Tour De France is the only other major sporting event I can think of comparable to the grind of winning the French Open.
oberyn
Professional
Great post. I tried to say something similar on another thread. No tennis player (regardless of gender) is paid by the set, minute, hour, number of balls struck, etc.
I personally don't care about the equal pay issue, because, ultimately, it's not my money.
Also, if players did get paid by the set, I have a sneaking suspicion that there'd be a tremendous increase in the number of best of 5 set matches going 5 sets and the number of best of 3 set matches going 3 sets if you catch my meaning.
Again, very well said. In the wonderful world of capitalism you're "worth" whatever someone is willing to pay you. This means that there will be plenty of instances in which someone gets paid more or less per hour than you do.
ETA: Also, it's not as if this is a zero sum game. The men's champion is not going to be paid less. The overall purse in the men's draw is not going to be reduced. If ticket prices go up as result, the spectators in attendance could, conceivably, have a right to complain, but that's about it. Otherwise, if Wimbledon wants to come up with the extra $$$$, that's their business.
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Poll
