Men & Women: Equal Prize Money [Merged]

jukka1970 · Jan 31, 2009

oranges said:
That is a very bad analogy Care to give an example of a comparable profession or do we need to stick to those paid by hours worked so that you and Jukka can have a point.

Evidently.

Once again, if women contribute to the profits of a tournament as much as men, why should they receive less money? Why tickets or anything else generating profits from a match are not cheaper? There are no double standards, there are only a few guys who have nothing better to do then whine that organizers are getting less money than they used to so as to pay all equally.

Ciao from me, utterly boring topic.

Boring, because you refuses to answer the question of why should the men play 3 out of 5, while the women play 2 out of 3

And you can **** off as far as trying to make this a sexism thing, especially since you can't give a reason why both genders shouldn't be playing 3 out of 5 without making the women sound unequal, then you're pretty screwed at trying to make your point.

Jukka

Ruzica · Feb 1, 2009

Benefactor said:
I don't claim to know whether or not a 3 set match is as hard for a woman as a 5 set match is for a man, but that's really missing the point. The reason the men should get paid more is because they generate more interest for the sport and more money for the sport. Why do you think that female golfers (let's just take their majors, where they play 4 rounds - the same as the men) make so much less than the men do? It's because nobody gives a **** about them and so they don't generate as much money via ticket sales, merchandising, TV deals, etc. The higher purses for men are really (should be) only a just "reward" for the extra revenue that the men create. All the tournament organizers are doing is passing along the money to the players that generated it. The women are piggy backing on the men's success/hard work just like a remora does to a shark. Just for the sake of comedy, I wish they'd split the tournaments just for one year to see the disparity in revenues. Then everybody would shut the hell up about equal pay.

Totally agree. In fact as far as I heard it, this is precisely the reason why WTA are pushing for more combined events - because they do need the mens' game to carry the womens in these hard economic times, - especially in Europe. Last year the Rome Masters' ATP event was sold out months before - but you could buy womens' final tickets the following week on the day. Go figure?

Holly · Feb 1, 2009

WHY DO YOU GUYS CARE????

I mean you are not the ones that are getting paid? Women have been discriminated against everywhere.....what is the big deal if we finally obtain equality in something?

oranges · Feb 1, 2009

jukka1970 said:
Boring, because you refuses to answer the question of why should the men play 3 out of 5, while the women play 2 out of 3

And you can **** off as far as trying to make this a sexism thing, especially since you can't give a reason why both genders shouldn't be playing 3 out of 5 without making the women sound unequal, then you're pretty screwed at trying to make your point.

Jukka

Boring because it attracts dimwits to vent their frustration and it's never a discussion. Nam at least tries to make it a discussion by addressing what the other side is saying, though I still have no desire to discuss it ad infinitum, I don't care enough. You're not, you're just repeating the only point you have like a parrot.
Go back to the question why should they receive less if they generate enough profits to warrant what they receive and let others know what you came up with. Again, contact those slam organizers, I'm sure they'll see the light when you speak to them.

000KFACTOR90000 · Feb 1, 2009

jukka1970 said:
Please understand though, it's not just the quality (though as I said, it's probably the worst it's been in a while). The point is that how can someone get paid the same as someone else for working less. The men play 3 out of 5, the women play 2 out of 3. I really think fans should try and do something about this.

Jukka

Completely agree - why can't the women play best of 5, you don't see the womens endurance events at the olympics all half the distance

Benefactor · Feb 1, 2009

Holly said:
WHY DO YOU GUYS CARE????

I mean you are not the ones that are getting paid? Women have been discriminated against everywhere.....what is the big deal if we finally obtain equality in something?

Because you don't deserve equality...because *gasp* you aren't equal. Not when it comes to tennis.

Leublu tennis · Feb 1, 2009

Ruzica said:
Well Wimbledon, which most people think is the most prestigious Slam of all, didn't have equal prize money until 2007, neither did Roland Garros, and I never remember reading of any boycotts by womens' groups or embarrassment/adverse publicity for either tournament. I admit that maybe things are different in The States, with home-grown female champions like the Williams' Sisters, but here in Europe the womens' game is very much the "poor relation" to the ATP, and that is shown by the empty seats at most European WTA events, whilst places like Rotterdam ATP, Queens, and Halle are sold out months in advance. I'm not lying when I say that most of the females I know who attend Grand Slams, never watch the women at all, - preferring to watch mens' singles, mens' doubles, and then mens' practice sessions (LOL!) at Wimbledon and Roland Garros, to any WTA match So I don't think it's necessarily good business here - unless the tournament want to make extra money from the catering, as the queues for refreshments grow one-hundred fold at Wimby and RG when the women are playing on the main courts, and the fans are "stocking" up before Federer/Nadal or whoever get on court .

Good observation. And I do think its the US PC syndrome that has driven this equality in pay but not play policy.

kungfusmkim · Feb 1, 2009

JeMar said:
Serena used to be able to tear through fields carrying about 20 pounds of extra fat while only playing part-time. A man would not be able to do the same.

And no, Nalbandian isn't as fat as Serena used to be.

you think she wants to look like a body builder? i dont think so. Women are imaged as unattractive with muscle. Shes already called a muscle man even with the 20 extra pounds.

srinrajesh · Feb 1, 2009

well I believe the equal pay is something that the slams should pay based on statistical research-- if there are enough people paying to watch the womens tennis as compared to mens tennis it could be equal. How is the prize money for single WTA tournaments as compared to single ATP tourneys.

Otherwise please forgive me ladies ... i believe playing best of 3 sets by womens as opposed to best of 5 by mens doesnt advocate equal pay.. there should be some reduction in pay.

There was one masters tournament a few years back which witnessed best of 5 sets final.. Can the women in future play best of 5 set matches through all the rounds at Grand slams ? We could see that in future but there could be lesser quality matches if the players are not as fit for 5 setters.

CocaCola · Feb 1, 2009

Mens tennis is more interesting and way better than womens for sure.

AndrewD · Feb 1, 2009

wmoore said:
I'm not sure that any of the arguements FOR equal prize money hold water - logically speaking that is.

On the contrary, the arguments for equal prize money ARE logically sound. It's when you begin to look at them emotionally that the problems begin.

Logically - the women undertake exactly the same training as the men, they play just as many matches as the men and they're subject to the same rules as the men. That's why they deserve equal prize money. Job is the same, training is the same, work environment is the same, work requirements are set by the same people = equal pay. True, the men play more sets. However, that IS NOT a decision made by the women so they can't be penalised for it. IF they were asked to play best of five and refused, then it would be a valid argument. Until then, it's just emotion talking.

If you want to talk Marquee Value then why didn't we pay Hingis, Venus Williams, Serena Williams, Davenport, Capriati, Henin, Kournikova, Cljisters and Hantchukova more than any of the men apart from Agassi and Becker. They, especially Kournikova, drew a significantly bigger crowd every time they played and generated more interest when they played each other.

Personally, I do believe the women deserve equal prize money BUT I don't think they earn it. How you go about making them earn it (5 sets will never happen and it won't be their choosing) I have absolutely no idea.

CyBorg · Feb 1, 2009

I prefer to watch men's tennis, but I'm in favour of equal or close to equal prize money assuming that the revenue reflects equality.

I believe that businesses act upon their interests and the move towards equal prize money is something that made financial sense.

This has nothing to do with whether the men's game is of better quality. If we go on quality, then, really, no athlete should make millions of dollars, because athletics is mere fun-and-games that mask the complexities of the real world.

Women's tennis is making a lot of money. If the players aren't the ones to get a large chunk of it, then who does?

Slicendicer · Feb 1, 2009

AndrewD said:
On the contrary, the arguments for equal prize money ARE logically sound. It's when you begin to look at them emotionally that the problems begin.

Logically - the women undertake exactly the same training as the men, they play just as many matches as the men and they're subject to the same rules as the men. That's why they deserve equal prize money. Job is the same, training is the same, work environment is the same, work requirements are set by the same people = equal pay. True, the men play more sets. However, that IS NOT a decision made by the women so they can't be penalised for it. IF they were asked to play best of five and refused, then it would be a valid argument. Until then, it's just emotion talking.

If you want to talk Marquee Value then why didn't we pay Hingis, Venus Williams, Serena Williams, Davenport, Capriati, Henin, Kournikova, Cljisters and Hantchukova more than any of the men apart from Agassi and Becker. They, especially Kournikova, drew a significantly bigger crowd every time they played and generated more interest when they played each other.

Personally, I do believe the women deserve equal prize money BUT I don't think they earn it. How you go about making them earn it (5 sets will never happen and it won't be their choosing) I have absolutely no idea.

Alright then, how would you feel about the women at your job, if you have a job, get paid the same as you for 20 hours per week to your 40 hours per week.

CyBorg · Feb 1, 2009

Slicendicer said:
Alright then, how would you feel about the women at your job, if you have a job, get paid the same as you for 20 hours per week to your 40 hours per week.

Female tennis players do not have the same job as male tennis players. They play on a separate circuit.

thalivest · Feb 1, 2009

Women actually were far more worthy of the equal prize money at the time King and co were compaigning for it. I wasnt alive then but everything I have ever read or found seems to indicate the 60s and 70s were the golden age of BOTH womens and mens tennis. So many capable stars with varied playing styles and interesting personalities. The men were in an incredible time with Laver, Rosewall, Connors, McEnroe, Borg, but the women were putting out an amazing product at that time too.

Such is not the case now. Now talking the years I have been alive to follow tennis the current gap between the quality between the men and womens product at this exact moment is by far the biggest I have ever seen it, and that is despite that the mens game is not exactly the strongest it has ever been as a whole either, still infinitely stronger than the womens. The product the women are putting out now is quite frankly garbage with a lack of top notch talent, so many out of shape women near the top, so many injuries, no intersting rivalries, lack of commitment, early retirements, poor quality games and play. The women simply do not deserve equal pay at this moment. For many years I would say they did, but not now.

thalivest · Feb 1, 2009

CyBorg said:
Women's tennis is making a lot of money. If the players aren't the ones to get a large chunk of it, then who does?

I thought the WTA were losing money at the moment?

autumn_leaf · Feb 1, 2009

if as many people watch womens tennis as men then give them equal prize. i think prizes should reflect revenue brought in by the players.

anointedone · Feb 1, 2009

autumn_leaf said:
if as many people watch womens tennis as men then give them equal prize. i think prizes should reflect revenue brought in by the players.

As many people dont watch womens tennis as mens today.

Topaz · Feb 1, 2009

thalivest said:
I thought the WTA were losing money at the moment?

No, that is just what lots of people on here like to post. Nobody has actually come up with any *facts* to back this up.

Certainly doesn't seem like the WTA is losing money, does it?

anointedone said:
As many people dont watch womens tennis as mens today.

Really? Have you polled *every* single tennis fan in the world? Do you have any actual *facts* to back this up?

davey · Feb 1, 2009

AndrewD said:
On the contrary, the arguments for equal prize money ARE logically sound. It's when you begin to look at them emotionally that the problems begin.

Logically - the women undertake exactly the same training as the men, they play just as many matches as the men and they're subject to the same rules as the men. That's why they deserve equal prize money. Job is the same, training is the same, work environment is the same, work requirements are set by the same people = equal pay. True, the men play more sets. However, that IS NOT a decision made by the women so they can't be penalised for it. IF they were asked to play best of five and refused, then it would be a valid argument. Until then, it's just emotion talking.

If you want to talk Marquee Value then why didn't we pay Hingis, Venus Williams, Serena Williams, Davenport, Capriati, Henin, Kournikova, Cljisters and Hantchukova more than any of the men apart from Agassi and Becker. They, especially Kournikova, drew a significantly bigger crowd every time they played and generated more interest when they played each other.

Personally, I do believe the women deserve equal prize money BUT I don't think they earn it. How you go about making them earn it (5 sets will never happen and it won't be their choosing) I have absolutely no idea.

By your logic WNBA players should be paid the same as NBA players. Do WNBA games have the ticket sales and tv ratings to support million dollar contracts?

The most fair way to do it would be to make prize money a percentage of tournament profits.

leonidas1982 · Feb 1, 2009

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/tennis/article5634916.ece

Martina Navratilova calls women's final pathetic
Serena Williams strolls to title for loss of only three games as Dinara Safina makes mockery of equal prize-money status
Neil Harman, Tennis Correspondent, in Melbourne

“Pathetic” was Martina Navratilova's dismissal of an Australian Open women's final that lasted a minute under an hour and was a lesson in meek capitulation.

Enough of these wretched matches have been witnessed to question whether the grand-slam tournaments were not pandering to the equal rights lobby more than considering value for money when they all fell into line and offered the same prize-fund for the women as the men.

Dinara Safina won three games in the final against Serena Williams, earned $1,000,000 (about £685,000) and did not look the slightest bit miffed about it. So did Roger Federer, for winning 25 games in the men's climax.

Give Williams her due, for she annihilated Safina, the world No 3 from Russia, and thoroughly merited her tenth grand-slam title. At 27, Williams has earned more money than any female athlete in the world, so there was plenty of reason for her to dance a jig of joy.

One has to wonder who is around who might challenge Serena - and her sister Venus - in the other three grand-slam events this year. Maria Sharapova's right shoulder cannot heal quickly enough, Elena Dementieva has to show her pedigree finally at this level and Jelena Jankovic must start to play in these championships as she does in the lesser events.

Until that happens, more finals such as this will have to be endured, as well as the rows of empty seats that greeted the participants, a lot more of which were without occupants at its end.

autumn_leaf · Feb 1, 2009

anointedone said:
As many people dont watch womens tennis as mens today.

well that's why they shouldn't really be paid equally if they're not.

people forget that this is entertainment. if they don't draw in just as big of crowd as men's tennis does than they don't DESERVE to be paid equally.

Look at the Japanese baseball player who got PAID because of the fans who he would draw in.

also they really should make it 5 sets for womens if they want equal pay just so it's "fair".

nickarnold2000 · Feb 1, 2009

I've always been a big supporter of equal pay for equal work. That being said, the WTA must be making $ or they wouldn't be able to have these big payouts for the girls.

richied · Feb 4, 2009

Equal Pay? No Way!!!

I'm sure this is an old debate, but I'm not up to speed with the latest. Do the women get payed the same as the men in all the Grand Slams?? Because, I'm watching the guys play for hours in 35+ temperatures over 5 sets wondering if the boys need a pay raise!! The current crop on the women's tour need a pay cut, maybe then we will see some passion out there!!! COME ON girls!!!!

kimbahpnam · Feb 4, 2009

They get the same pay. I know they're trying to be fair and all, but the guys DO play a best out of 5...there should be something accounted for that.

NamRanger · Feb 4, 2009

I actually think that would be a hilarious idea.

"WTA cuts prize money in order to increase level of play!"

richied · Feb 4, 2009

NamRanger said:
I actually think that would be a hilarious idea.

"WTA cuts prize money in order to increase level of play!"

It would probably work, less money up for grabs might see the girls work that little bit harder!!!

verbatim100 · Feb 5, 2009

I agree, it's getting more and more redicuolus.
Women's final at AO, for example, it took less than the first set of men's final between Nadal and Fed. Equal prize money? BS.
This is a blatant discrimination against men.

saram · Feb 5, 2009

If Graf, Evret, and Navratilova were still on tour--I'd be all for equal pay. And a year or two ago--I was for it as well. But right now with the horrid display of tennis pouring from the WTA--I'm not so certain I'm for it. I understand that they devote their lives to the game just as much as men--but I'm wondering why the sudden decline in quality of tennis in the WTA. We need Kim and Justine back so darn badly....

Underhand · Feb 5, 2009

richied said:
Because, I'm watching the guys play for hours in 35+ temperatures over 5 sets wondering if the boys need a pay raise!!

It wasn't a Djoković match I guess. Shouldn't he play on WTA tournaments?

Leublu tennis · Feb 5, 2009

verbatim100 said:
I agree, it's getting more and more redicuolus.
Women's final at AO, for example, it took less than the first set of men's final between Nadal and Fed. Equal prize money? BS.
This is a blatant discrimination against men.

Thats the direct influence of the American PC fiasco.

NandoMania · Feb 5, 2009

richied said:
I'm sure this is an old debate, but I'm not up to speed with the latest. Do the women get payed the same as the men in all the Grand Slams?? Because, I'm watching the guys play for hours in 35+ temperatures over 5 sets wondering if the boys need a pay raise!! The current crop on the women's tour need a pay cut, maybe then we will see some passion out there!!! COME ON girls!!!!

Are you Australian by any chance? I've noticed that the Aussies refer to women as "girls" and tennis matches as "games."

NandoMania · Feb 5, 2009

NamRanger said:
I actually think that would be a hilarious idea.

"WTA cuts prize money in order to increase level of play!"

LOL/ That would improve performance, wouldnt it?

1970CRBase · Feb 5, 2009

Simple. Don't hold the mens and womens events together. Host their GS events separately. I'm sure that if they don't have to play in the shadow of the men, they would be paid much more.

NineMileSkid · Feb 5, 2009

richied said:
I'm sure this is an old debate, but I'm not up to speed with the latest. Do the women get payed the same as the men in all the Grand Slams?? Because, I'm watching the guys play for hours in 35+ temperatures over 5 sets wondering if the boys need a pay raise!! The current crop on the women's tour need a pay cut, maybe then we will see some passion out there!!! COME ON girls!!!!

Tournaments like the US Open are almost forced to pay the same amount in prize money for men and women. Otherwise, too many of the top women would enter the men's tournament in the hope of winning more money.

cokebottle · Feb 5, 2009

The women deserve more pay. The current womens field is the toughest and deepest in history, something people dont admit since they hate the Williams. The mens field is getting alot better but still not as tough as the womens.

pennc94 · Feb 5, 2009

As a test, they should split the female and male slam events on different dates. Then they examine the ticket and related revenue and television ratings. Whichever event (female or male) does better (financially) should determine the prize money allocation. The market is the ultimate barometer of fairness.

Underhand · Feb 5, 2009

cokebottle said:
The women deserve more pay. The current womens field is the toughest and deepest in history, something people dont admit since they hate the Williams. The mens field is getting alot better but still not as tough as the womens.

LOL you're a comedy genius.

bobbynorwich · Feb 5, 2009

Why don't the women play best of 5? They are well-conditioned athletes, not hothouse flowers.

illkhiboy · Feb 5, 2009

Regardless of the length of time spent playing on the court, men do deserve more as they play best of 5. Similarly women deserve equal pay at events where both genders play best of 3.

bobbynorwich · Feb 5, 2009

Women should definitely get paid more than the men. They have so many more expenses, --- such as make-up, facials, hair stylings, waxings, bigger wardrobe, body lotions, tampons, bobby pins, jewelry bling, tennis panties, birth control pills, bellboy tips, plastic surgery, body guards, traveling mother, and just general maintenance. Kind of obvious, isn't it?

duketennisgal · Feb 5, 2009

bobbynorwich said:
Women should definitely get paid more than the men. They have so many more expenses, --- such as make-up, facials, hair stylings, waxings, bigger wardrobe, body lotions, tampons, bobby pins, jewelry bling, tennis panties, birth control pills, bellboy tips, plastic surgery, body guards, traveling mother, and just general maintenance. Kind of obvious, isn't it?

I'm a woman and I actually agree that men deserve higher pay than women at events where the men have to play best of 5, but there is no need for sexist comments here.

bobbynorwich · Feb 5, 2009

duketennisgal said:
I'm a woman and I actually agree that men deserve higher pay than women at events where the men have to play best of 5, but there is no need for sexist comments here.

Hey, it's a joke, lighten up a little.

P. S. Forgot perfume, manicures and electrolysis.

batz · Feb 5, 2009

Women played best of 5 finals in the early days of the US Open.

penang · Feb 5, 2009

If someone would argue, women trains as hard as men. Why don't make it the best of 5 game to see how equal the quality of the game is.

cknobman · Feb 5, 2009

1970CRBase said:
Simple. Don't hold the mens and womens events together. Host their GS events separately. I'm sure that if they don't have to play in the shadow of the men, they would be paid much more.

Actually it would be much more likely that the womens GS would struggle to even exist because there would be no interest in it. The women are lucky as is because millions of viewers are forced to watch their televised matches instead of the more entertaining mens matches.

duketennisgal · Feb 5, 2009

bobbynorwich said:
Hey, it's a joke, lighten up a little.

P. S. Forgot perfume, manicures and electrolysis.

I knew you were joking/being sarcastic, but I felt it came off as sexist. I apologize for the misunderstanding.

It is ridiculous to me that a woman that spends 1 hour on the court gets paid the same as a man that spends 4 hours on the court.

I wouldn't want somebody to be paid the same amount that I make for doing 1/4 of the work that I do (although it's rampant around here).

Cavaleer · Feb 5, 2009

cknobman said:
Actually it would be much more likely that the womens GS would struggle to even exist because there would be no interest in it. The women are lucky as is because millions of viewers are forced to watch their televised matches instead of the more entertaining mens matches.

That would be an interesting experiment, although I think tennis is a sport that is equally entertaining whether a man or a woman is playing. Even at the club level you enjoy watching a good match regardless who's playing.
It's the nature of the sport, like volleyball or track and field.

Cavaleer

Cavaleer · Feb 5, 2009

Exactamundo!!!

pennc94 said:
As a test, they should split the female and male slam events on different dates. Then they examine the ticket and related revenue and television ratings. Whichever event (female or male) does better (financially) should determine the prize money allocation. The market is the ultimate barometer of fairness.

That would be a very interesting experiment and it would get us a lot closer to the true value of each.

I think the viewing public has been watching women's tennis for so long, however, that the difference wouldn't be nearly as great as say women's and men's college basketball, where women's bball is actually LOSING MONEY, but the men's is at an all-time high.

Also, tennis is a good spectator sport regardless who's playing.

If the women started playing best of five and maybe showed some true grit it might improve their ratings. Then again, they might just tank in the 4th.

Sentinel · Feb 6, 2009

cokebottle said:
The women deserve more pay. The current womens field is the toughest and deepest in history, something people dont admit since they hate the Williams. The mens field is getting alot better but still not as tough as the womens.

So true. The women don't quit matches for sore throats, stubbed toenails, feeling hot etc. They dont take injury timeouts like the men do, and throw on court fits. They don't bawl upon losing (well rarely, if you count Hingis).

They should be paid more.

Men & Women: Equal Prize Money [Merged]

Should women receive the same prize money as men?

Yes, women should receive the same pay at all events

Yes, women should receive the same pay only at non 5-set events

Yes, women should receive the same pay at Slams only if they play best of 5-set matches

No, women should not receive the same prize money anywhere until they play men

Professional

New User

Banned

Hall of Fame

Professional

Banned

Legend

Professional

srinrajesh

Guest

Professional

Legend

Legend

Slicendicer

Guest

Legend

Banned

Banned

Hall of Fame

Banned

Legend

Rookie

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Rookie

Hall of Fame

G.O.A.T.

Rookie

Rookie

Legend

Legend

Legend

Rookie

Rookie

1970CRBase

Guest

Rookie

Banned

Professional

Legend

New User

Hall of Fame

New User

Rookie

New User

G.O.A.T.

Rookie

Legend

Rookie

Semi-Pro

Semi-Pro

Bionic Poster

Similar threads