Woman Champion paid more than Men's at Indian Wells.

drakulie · Mar 24, 2009

In Indian Wells Equal Purse Does Not Mean Equal Pay

The prize money at Indian Wells was $4.5 million for both men and women. The prize money for performance was not equal, however.

The women’s champion won $700,000, while the top man won $605,000. The women’s finalist won $350,000, and the men’s won $295,500. Semi-Finalists were paid almost equally; women received $150,000 and the men received $148,100

http://www.tennisnews.com/exclusive.php?pID=27758

What are everyone's thoughts on this????

VivalaVida · Mar 24, 2009

drakulie said:
In Indian Wells Equal Purse Does Not Mean Equal Pay

The prize money at Indian Wells was $4.5 million for both men and women. The prize money for performance was not equal, however.

The women’s champion won $700,000, while the top man won $605,000. The women’s finalist won $350,000, and the men’s won $295,500. Semi-Finalists were paid almost equally; women received $150,000 and the men received $148,100

http://www.tennisnews.com/exclusive.php?pID=27758

What are everyone's thoughts on this????

I think it is unfair. Women's tennis is **** poor these days compared to mens tennis. The men deserved more. If women tennis was more competitive than men's tennis, than women indeed deserved more.

RCizzle65 · Mar 24, 2009

Someone posted this before the tournament, it's because they broke down the prices differently for each round, I think like the quarterfinals and below got more money, this doesn't hurt anyone except the top players that already have a lot of money (the semis was Federer, Murray, Nadal, and Roddick, I doubt these guys are hurting for money)

JeMar · Mar 24, 2009

Wow, this is ********.

I really think the women should hold separate majors so they can see how they'd do without the men.

Sephiroth_FFVII · Mar 24, 2009

To be honest...high school tennis is more entertaining / competitive than the WTA right now.

The WTA should pay ME if they want me to watch. I still don't believe women should even be paid equal to the men just because the men are playing a whole different sport compared to the women.

kungfusmkim · Mar 24, 2009

AHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA. i just wanted pays to be equal for woman not higher. HAVE THEY GONE MAD?

deltox · Mar 24, 2009

prize purse payouts should equal the same percentage as mens.. here is the kicker,, that percentage should be made based on the amount of proceeds they bring in

for example, how many viewers on tv watch mens and how many watch womens. how much advertising money does the men bring in vs the women. ticket sales, and so forth

equal rights would mean you get what you earn. if your on the side that brings in less in proceeds you should get paid less.

another unfair fight the WS were leading.

Tennis_Maestro · Mar 24, 2009

Justine Henin was the only saving grace of women's modern day tennis, now shes gone, its nothing!

Absolutely nothing!

Its there for eye candy.

They should scrap it altogether, save money and invest in building better tennis arena stadiums @ big ATP events.

roundiesee · Mar 24, 2009

I suppose it was bound to happen; the WTA were fighting hard for equal prize money; now they have simply gone under the radar and overtaken the men. It's not fair of course but their argument will always be that they attract more sponsors and TV audience.

deltox · Mar 24, 2009

roundiesee said:
I suppose it was bound to happen; the WTA were fighting hard for equal prize money; now they have simply gone under the radar and overtaken the men. It's not fair of course but their argument will always be that they attract more sponsors and TV audience.

i hope thats not their argument, lies usually dont make for good evidence.

split-step · Mar 24, 2009

The total prize money for the IW men and women's singles was equal.
It was the distribution that was different.

The sponsor gave the two tours the same amount. Each tour just broke down that money differently based on rounds.

I don't see what the problem is.

If anyone is annoyed that the men's champion took home less than the women's blame the ATP's decision to award more than the women did for earlier rounds. (which is probably a good idea given how deep the men's game is).

Has nothing to do with the tournament or its sponsors.

split-step · Mar 24, 2009

roundiesee said:
I suppose it was bound to happen; the WTA were fighting hard for equal prize money; now they have simply gone under the radar and overtaken the men. It's not fair of course but their argument will always be that they attract more sponsors and TV audience.

Can you guys read at all?

The prize money was equal.

kungfusmkim · Mar 24, 2009

Tennis_Maestro said:
Justine Henin was the only saving grace of women's modern day tennis, now shes gone, its nothing!

Absolutely nothing!

Its there for eye candy.

They should scrap it altogether, save money and invest in building better tennis arena stadiums @ big ATP events.

May i ask what you are smoking? im really interested. Justine Henin was good in 2007. Just like Mauresmo was in 2006. But she crumbled BIG TIME in 2008 losing in the QF of AO and losing to Serena 62 60. NO COMPETETION. at all. Then going to lose to safina ON CLAY HER SPECIALTY. she knew she was hitting rock bottom. What goes up must come down. And she came down hard in 2008 after the graceful 2007 season.

Tennis_Maestro · Mar 24, 2009

kungfusmkim said:
May i ask what you are smoking? im really interested. Justine Henin was good in 2007. Just like Mauresmo was in 2006. But she crumbled BIG TIME in 2008 losing in the QF of AO and losing to Serena 62 60. NO COMPETETION. at all. Then going to lose to safina ON CLAY HER SPECIALTY. she knew she was hitting rock bottom. What goes up must come down. And she came down hard in 2008 after the graceful 2007 season.

4 words

"Entertainment", "Value", "Backhand" and "Beautiful"

split-step · Mar 24, 2009

kungfusmkim said:
May i ask what you are smoking? im really interested. Justine Henin was good in 2007. Just like Mauresmo was in 2006. But she crumbled BIG TIME in 2008 losing in the QF of AO and losing to Serena 62 60. NO COMPETETION. at all. Then going to lose to safina ON CLAY HER SPECIALTY. she knew she was hitting rock bottom. What goes up must come down. And she came down hard in 2008 after the graceful 2007 season.

I respectfully disagree. While her 2008 season was a letdown from her 2007 (her best tennis ever), she still won 2 titles, and in the other 3 tournaments she played she lost to the eventual champion. No shame in that.
She had obviously lost her fire and desire to continue to push herself to the extreme, which is the reason for some of those scorelines (and her loss to Schiavone

)

Henin was a fantastic player, a delight to watch and as a fan, she is sorely missed.

Tennis_Maestro · Mar 24, 2009

Grand Slam results
Australian Open W (2004)
French Open W (2003, 2005, 2006, 2007)
Wimbledon F (2001, 2006)
US Open W (2003, 2007)
Major tournaments
WTA Championships W (2006, 2007)
Olympic Games Gold medal (2004)

The guy's evidently talking out his arse, not that i was even refering to success.

Tennis_Wiz · Mar 24, 2009

no offense but Federer was right when he said a player who has not won a grand slam shouldnt be ranked #1 in the world...------------>directed to Jelena jankovic

veroniquem · Mar 24, 2009

drakulie said:
In Indian Wells Equal Purse Does Not Mean Equal Pay

The prize money at Indian Wells was $4.5 million for both men and women. The prize money for performance was not equal, however.

The women’s champion won $700,000, while the top man won $605,000. The women’s finalist won $350,000, and the men’s won $295,500. Semi-Finalists were paid almost equally; women received $150,000 and the men received $148,100

http://www.tennisnews.com/exclusive.php?pID=27758

What are everyone's thoughts on this????

That is (gasp) completely absurd (and I'm a woman!)

boredone3456 · Mar 24, 2009

kungfusmkim said:
May i ask what you are smoking? im really interested. Justine Henin was good in 2007. Just like Mauresmo was in 2006. But she crumbled BIG TIME in 2008 losing in the QF of AO and losing to Serena 62 60. NO COMPETETION. at all. Then going to lose to safina ON CLAY HER SPECIALTY. she knew she was hitting rock bottom. What goes up must come down. And she came down hard in 2008 after the graceful 2007 season.

I agree really..she just lost her will after 2 good years.

LurkingGod · Mar 24, 2009

drakulie said:
In Indian Wells Equal Purse Does Not Mean Equal Pay

The prize money at Indian Wells was $4.5 million for both men and women. The prize money for performance was not equal, however.

The women’s champion won $700,000, while the top man won $605,000. The women’s finalist won $350,000, and the men’s won $295,500. Semi-Finalists were paid almost equally; women received $150,000 and the men received $148,100

http://www.tennisnews.com/exclusive.php?pID=27758

What are everyone's thoughts on this????

You mean those women actually got PAID for their interruptions between men's matches??

Put them on a separated tournament for God's sake. If they're so popular they should be doing good on their own, right? *yawn*

DMan · Mar 24, 2009

roundiesee said:
I suppose it was bound to happen; the WTA were fighting hard for equal prize money; now they have simply gone under the radar and overtaken the men. It's not fair of course but their argument will always be that they attract more sponsors and TV audience.

The WTA can make an argument they attract more sponsors and higher TV audience. But can they prove it?

NO!!!

DMan · Mar 24, 2009

drakulie said:
In Indian Wells Equal Purse Does Not Mean Equal Pay

The prize money at Indian Wells was $4.5 million for both men and women. The prize money for performance was not equal, however.

The women’s champion won $700,000, while the top man won $605,000. The women’s finalist won $350,000, and the men’s won $295,500. Semi-Finalists were paid almost equally; women received $150,000 and the men received $148,100

http://www.tennisnews.com/exclusive.php?pID=27758

What are everyone's thoughts on this????

A total sham!!!

Yes the entire purse was equal. But the Zvonereva getting almost $100K more than Nadal. Puh-lease!

You can bet the ATP will fix this for other combo events. It truly is embarrassing!

Terribly ironic since this is the first year IW offered "equal" purses. In past years men received more. And the women never cried foul. BJK received an award there in 2007, and never uttered a single word about inequality in prize money. And yet for the majors, BJK and Larry Scott were all over everyone, demanding they receive equal prize money, even though the women only play best of 3 int he majors, vs best fo 5 for men.

At least in IW they both play best of three throughout, so there could be an argument for equal prize money.

If watching major league choke-a-holics constitutes "entertainment" for some and the WTA thinks they're equal to the men, then it's time to fold up the sport.

rafan · Mar 24, 2009

This is just awful - I have tried to watch women's tennis but it's like watching paint dry. Some of them don't even look fit - how can you be overweight when you play competative tennis every day? No I don't think they should be paid the same as men

Feña14 · Mar 25, 2009

That's like paying a female plumber who breaks your septic tank more than a man who would give you what you needed, it doesn't happen in everyday jobs so why the hell should it in tennis?

If I were a female tennis player in the WTA, i'd be ashamed to show my face.

jms007 · Mar 25, 2009

I don't see what the big deal is, if the total prize money was indeed the same for both men and women. The only thing different was the distribution, and it looks like ATP decided to spread the wealth a little.

deltox · Mar 25, 2009

jms007 said:
I don't see what the big deal is, if the total prize money was indeed the same for both men and women. The only thing different was the distribution, and it looks like ATP decided to spread the wealth a little.

most are just as upset about the wta getting paid equally. wta dont bring in the money the atp does. just facts, so they shouldnt get paid as much since they dont bring in as much

Fedace · Mar 25, 2009

What if we made the Women pay more than men for Tickets ?? lol

split-step · Mar 25, 2009

Tennis_Wiz said:
no offense but Federer was right when he said a player who has not won a grand slam shouldnt be ranked #1 in the world...------------>directed to Jelena jankovic

What does this have to do with the topic?

Besides Jelena isn't #1 anymore and hasn't been #1 for a while.

split-step · Mar 25, 2009

Feña14 said:
That's like paying a female plumber who breaks your septic tank more than a man who would give you what you needed, it doesn't happen in everyday jobs so why the hell should it in tennis?

It's nothing like that.

The tours each got the same amount from the sponsor. They distributed it differently. It's not that hard

Look at it this way, the ATP could have paid a lot more for later rounds and the winner could have ended up with 100k more than the female winner.
That wouldn't change the fact that the men and women still got paid the same.

Personally, I don't think they should get paid the same, even in events like IW where the men and women both play best of 3 and that is where my problem lies.

jms007 · Mar 25, 2009

deltox said:
most are just as upset about the wta getting paid equally. wta dont bring in the money the atp does. just facts, so they shouldnt get paid as much since they dont bring in as much

Is that really the case? On one hand I hear ATP brings in more money than WTA, on the other hand I hear WTA makes more money of sponsors and has higher TV ratings. Does anyone have actual numbers?

split-step · Mar 25, 2009

deltox said:
most are just as upset about the wta getting paid equally. wta dont bring in the money the atp does. just facts, so they shouldnt get paid as much since they dont bring in as much

Can you provide sources for your 'facts'?

shadows · Mar 25, 2009

I've got to say I don't really take too much issue with this, if total prize money is the same then the womens winners taking more than the mens just means that there's more money on offer in earlier rounds for the men as opposed to the women.

Given that there seems to be an almost universal agreement that the Mens game has real depth whilst the womens doesn't, is it not nice to see that people lower down the draw are getting rewarded better for taking part in a more competitive competition?

You could argue that this then lends itself to developing further depth in the field because there's more money available to a wider range of players.

Gen · Mar 25, 2009

roundiesee said:
I suppose it was bound to happen; the WTA were fighting hard for equal prize money; now they have simply gone under the radar and overtaken the men. It's not fair of course but their argument will always be that they attract more sponsors and TV audience.

They don't. Look at the stadiums during women's and men's matches. And the tickets. It's no problem buying them for women's matches (in Rome they have this combined tournament split into "girl's week" and "boy's" week. All the tickets for "boys" were sold out four months before the tournament. "Girls" are still available. Men bring much more money, they should be paid respectively.

drakulie · Mar 25, 2009

JeMar said:
Wow, this is ********.

I really think the women should hold separate majors so they can see how they'd do without the men.

I honestly feel the ATP and WTA should go their separate ways. No more combined venues of tennis, and this includes the slams. That way, they could have the AO open in the middle of winter so they don't whine about the heat. Additionally, we won't have to bother seeing the damn Williams sisters during slams, when there are better mens matches being played, especially in the earlier rounds.

Quite frankly though, I'm sure the womens tour will end up tanking.

Fedace said:
What if we made the Women pay more than men for Tickets ?? lol

LOL. This actually ain't a bad idea. I'm sure the women who are paying for the tickets won't mind. I mean, they are the ones that are yelling about equal this and equal that. Right?? They might as well put their money where their mouth is.

Bud · Mar 25, 2009

jms007 said:
I don't see what the big deal is, if the total prize money was indeed the same for both men and women. The only thing different was the distribution, and it looks like ATP decided to spread the wealth a little.

Agreed... and the wealth should be spread even more in both the mens' and womens' tournaments.

Without the lower players, the upper players wouldn't have enough competition to even hold a tournament. Plus, it would give the others more money to finance the enormous costs of playing on tour.

At least the ATP has the right idea about giving the lower ranked players a larger share of the wealth.

Feña14 · Mar 25, 2009

split-step said:
It's nothing like that.

The tours each got the same amount from the sponsor. They distributed it differently. It's not that hard

Look at it this way, the ATP could have paid a lot more for later rounds and the winner could have ended up with 100k more than the female winner.
That wouldn't change the fact that the men and women still got paid the same.

Personally, I don't think they should get paid the same, even in events like IW where the men and women both play best of 3 and that is where my problem lies.

Yes it is.

The womens Champion provided a lesser service/quality that the male winner. Why should she get payed more for it?

deltox · Mar 25, 2009

split-step said:
Can you provide sources for your 'facts'?

you can google record attendance "any event name" and compare mens only vs womens only events. its laughable in comparison.. you can find the info off google for attendance for a match mens vs womens. after this weekdn you can find that cbs will release viewer numbers for the mens and womens final.. mens will easily double womens in tv viewer.. more tv viewers means more advertising money from commercials and sponsors.

its simple math, lets not even mention that in slams they only play 60% as many sets as the men, so in that fact alone they deserve 40% less pay for slams.

deltox · Mar 25, 2009

jms007 said:
Is that really the case? On one hand I hear ATP brings in more money than WTA, on the other hand I hear WTA makes more money of sponsors and has higher TV ratings. Does anyone have actual numbers?

do what i did, find the womens only events and mens only events with the same prize purses.. compare tv number, compare attendance, compare ticket sales. you will see for yourself. its way to many links to make a logical thread that you can understand the train of thought.. but everything you need is searchable from google.com

gj011 · Mar 25, 2009

I posted a thread about this during IW.

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=249647

Total price money is the same for men and women it is just distributed differently so women winner gets more money than men, but say men's quarterfinallist get more money than women quarterfinallist.

Julieta · Mar 25, 2009

It is much more expensive for a girl to be on the circuit than a guy.

deltox · Mar 25, 2009

Julieta said:
It is much more expensive for a girl to be on the circuit than a guy.

please explain how so? besides the extra clothing, luggage and makeup.. o and the extra seat on the plane for serenas extra large booty.

Julieta · Mar 25, 2009

deltox said:
please explain how so? besides the extra clothing, luggage and makeup.. o and the extra seat on the plane for serenas extra large booty.

Women have to spend more on things like personal safety and security and hitting partners than men.

Leublu tennis · Mar 25, 2009

drakulie said:
In Indian Wells Equal Purse Does Not Mean Equal Pay

The prize money at Indian Wells was $4.5 million for both men and women. The prize money for performance was not equal, however.

The women’s champion won $700,000, while the top man won $605,000. The women’s finalist won $350,000, and the men’s won $295,500. Semi-Finalists were paid almost equally; women received $150,000 and the men received $148,100

http://www.tennisnews.com/exclusive.php?pID=27758

What are everyone's thoughts on this????

Just ridiculous. The great American PC. Women must be equal. Right? Wherether they are or not. WTA is a comedy and its hurting the ATP by drawing so much money away from prizes that should go to ATP.

S H O W S T O P P E R ! · Mar 25, 2009

Sephiroth_FFVII said:
To be honest...high school tennis is more entertaining / competitive than the WTA right now.

True that, my schools' JV team went 14-0 and won their conference. Go Lady Huskies!

But anyway, this is ********. The people dividing the cash are being blind to the level of tennis played between the genders.

split-step · Mar 25, 2009

Feña14 said:
Yes it is.

The womens Champion provided a lesser service/quality that the male winner. Why should she get payed more for it?

Tennis players are not payed based on quality. Or by number of hours played.
Your analogy is flawed.

deltox · Mar 25, 2009

split-step said:
Tennis players are not payed based on quality.

why not? every other sports professional members are paid by their output year by year.

deltox · Mar 25, 2009

Julieta said:
Women have to spend more on things like personal safety and security and hitting partners than men.

personal safety??? secrurity? are you kidding , please tell me yes. the mob isnt after some womens tennis player.. geesh.

Leublu tennis · Mar 25, 2009

split-step said:
Tennis players are not payed based on quality. Or by number of hours played.

Thats exactly right. And they should be. Let WTA put on tournaments and see what kind of draw/sponsorship they get. My point is that they should stand on their own and not act as cheer leader entertainment for the ATP. Its too expensive. And local talent is available for that.

split-step · Mar 25, 2009

deltox said:
you can google record attendance "any event name" and compare mens only vs womens only events. its laughable in comparison..

Link?

I doubt you did any googling or research.

I on the other hand did. I used the Roger's Cup as the model tournament because the men and women both play it, but at different times (weeks apart).

I googled a bunch of searches for 2008 rogers cup and this is the only link I found with a comparison and it is from a press conference

"Q. How much less money are you making with the women's tournament, in terms of percentage?
EUGENE LAPIERRE: What do you mean?

Q. You're making 80% revenues with your woman's tournament than the men's.
EUGENE LAPIERRE: How much? I don't know. I don't know. Attendance is similar. It's mostly in the corporate revenues it's less.

Q. But what's the difference? That's my question.
EUGENE LAPIERRE: Well, the difference, we do just about the same profit with each event, with the men and the women. We pay less prize money, but we make about the same. I don't know. I'd have to check the numbers. But we do less in corporate sales. "

http://www.asapsports.com/show_interview.php?id=51201

Assuming the journalist's figures are accurate, I wouldn't call a 20% difference in revenue laughable.

If anyone has any concrete numbers, please show me. I am very interested in this.

split-step · Mar 25, 2009

deltox said:
why not? every other sports professional members are paid by their output year by year.

Stop being obtuse.

Do you want to pay Karlovic by the # of aces he hits a year??

Woman Champion paid more than Men's at Indian Wells.

Talk Tennis Guru

Banned

Hall of Fame

Legend

Rookie

Professional

Hall of Fame

Banned

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Professional

Professional

Professional

Banned

Professional

Banned

New User

Bionic Poster

G.O.A.T.

Rookie

Professional

Professional

Hall of Fame

G.O.A.T.

Professional

Hall of Fame

Banned

Professional

Professional

Professional

Professional

Legend

Banned

Talk Tennis Guru

Bionic Poster

G.O.A.T.

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Banned

Julieta

Guest

Hall of Fame

Julieta

Guest

Legend

Hall of Fame

Professional

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Legend

Professional

Professional

Similar threads