DRII
G.O.A.T.
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...
equal pay at majors, the debate is over
- Thread starter richied
- Start date
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...
TERRASTAR18
Hall of Fame
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
Hall of Fame
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
G.O.A.T.
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
G.O.A.T.
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
Professional
We all know you love watching only men play. Really love it.
sportsfan1
Legend
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
Semi-Pro
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
Legend
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.
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.
woodrow1029
Hall of Fame
This was one match per year. By the way, ATP and WTA have both eliminated the possibility of 5 set matches in their rulebooks. It is only ITF that allows them now.
Mustard
Bionic Poster
Yes. I believe the ATP introduced the ruling that all their matches would be best of 3 tiebreak sets, at the start of 2007. But the 4 majors are ITF events, so I think they should both be playing best of 5 sets in the majors. I mean, these are the biggest prizes in tennis, and should be harder to win than other tournaments.
Hood_Man
G.O.A.T.
I think it's unfair on the women that they only play best of 3. It's less historic when they win a major in straight sets than it is for the men when they do it, the tension and excitement of a 3rd set deciding set rarely matches that of a 5th set, and if a man is a set and a break down he still has the rest of that set or even the next one to just get into the match a bit more, whereas in best of 3 its all but over at that point.
For the effort these players put in, they deserve to be more than just a warmup act for the men when a match can be over in an hour in straight sets, instead of several hours when a 2-0 lead has been turned around into a 5 set comeback.
For the effort these players put in, they deserve to be more than just a warmup act for the men when a match can be over in an hour in straight sets, instead of several hours when a 2-0 lead has been turned around into a 5 set comeback.
Moose Malloy
G.O.A.T.
Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if best of 5 for the men at majors is dropped in the future. It seems like the players are getting more powerful(they were responsible for best of 5 being dropped in masters, for carpet being dropped from the tour. if players start whining about how tough best of 5 is on the body, they will be heard)
And tv networks hold a lot of power, they aren't crazy about best of 5 for the most part. The majors are overflowing with cash, they know that dropping best of 5 wouldn't have one bit of negative effect on their success. And they wouldn't have to worry about matches getting suspended due to darkness as much with all best of 3 matches.
And as far as this tired, tired topic(you realize women have been getting equal prize money at the USO since 1973? did some of you just start watching tennis?) something that a lot of you fail to comprehend is that what the women get has absolutely no bearing on what the men get! its not like if you cut the womens prize money at a major in half they are going to give the difference to the men, they'll probably use it to build more toilets. or give all the suits a bonus. so what exactly is the problem here?
and for all of you that are so certain that women draw crickets at majors, why is it packed at womens semifinals & finals day at all the majors? did all those fools that sold out that session like a year in advance not read their ticket & think that men were playing that day?
One of the most important figures of the tennis boom was Chris Evert. She was such a big draw in her first USO that they scheduled all her matches on Center Court(a rarity at the time, even top mens players didn't get that sort of treatment)
She helped make that tournament so big that they realized they needed to build a new stadium at a new site.
And the Goolagong-Evert SF at Wimbledon in '72 was by far the most hyped up match of the tournament, more than any mens matches.
I could go on & on, but womens tennis has been an incredibly popular sport for such a long time(I knew many men who only watched the Williams sisters, heck many sports journalists cared a lot more about them than Sampras, some of you must live in a cave if you don't realize that there are many womens players who are just as famous as Fed, Nadal, etc. This isn't like WNBA/NBA, its been proven for over 30 years that womens tennis is a big deal. and when you combine the men & women you get super events like slams. or Miami & Indian Wells. again look at the early Open Era, stadiums were packed for men & women, the men certainly weren't carrying them)
Heck look at Madrid, Rome, Cincinnati. why do you think they all wanted to become dual gender events? because they are trying to help the women out? please. this is how it works. more matches at an an event = more sessions = more $. history has proven time & time again that men + women + hell, even doubles = a **** load of money.
just because you only care about the men doesn't mean men only is the best business model(again more matches = more $$)
A mens only slam would draw a lot less fans, because there would be a lot less sessions, matches. Heck there would be probably have to be some days with absolutely no singles play at all(if you want to ensure no players play back to back days) Does that sound like a good thing for the tournament? have the mens semis on on one day & what the next day? mens doubles? yeah that's a great idea.
And tv networks hold a lot of power, they aren't crazy about best of 5 for the most part. The majors are overflowing with cash, they know that dropping best of 5 wouldn't have one bit of negative effect on their success. And they wouldn't have to worry about matches getting suspended due to darkness as much with all best of 3 matches.
And as far as this tired, tired topic(you realize women have been getting equal prize money at the USO since 1973? did some of you just start watching tennis?) something that a lot of you fail to comprehend is that what the women get has absolutely no bearing on what the men get! its not like if you cut the womens prize money at a major in half they are going to give the difference to the men, they'll probably use it to build more toilets. or give all the suits a bonus. so what exactly is the problem here?
and for all of you that are so certain that women draw crickets at majors, why is it packed at womens semifinals & finals day at all the majors? did all those fools that sold out that session like a year in advance not read their ticket & think that men were playing that day?
One of the most important figures of the tennis boom was Chris Evert. She was such a big draw in her first USO that they scheduled all her matches on Center Court(a rarity at the time, even top mens players didn't get that sort of treatment)
She helped make that tournament so big that they realized they needed to build a new stadium at a new site.
And the Goolagong-Evert SF at Wimbledon in '72 was by far the most hyped up match of the tournament, more than any mens matches.
I could go on & on, but womens tennis has been an incredibly popular sport for such a long time(I knew many men who only watched the Williams sisters, heck many sports journalists cared a lot more about them than Sampras, some of you must live in a cave if you don't realize that there are many womens players who are just as famous as Fed, Nadal, etc. This isn't like WNBA/NBA, its been proven for over 30 years that womens tennis is a big deal. and when you combine the men & women you get super events like slams. or Miami & Indian Wells. again look at the early Open Era, stadiums were packed for men & women, the men certainly weren't carrying them)
Heck look at Madrid, Rome, Cincinnati. why do you think they all wanted to become dual gender events? because they are trying to help the women out? please. this is how it works. more matches at an an event = more sessions = more $. history has proven time & time again that men + women + hell, even doubles = a **** load of money.
just because you only care about the men doesn't mean men only is the best business model(again more matches = more $$)
A mens only slam would draw a lot less fans, because there would be a lot less sessions, matches. Heck there would be probably have to be some days with absolutely no singles play at all(if you want to ensure no players play back to back days) Does that sound like a good thing for the tournament? have the mens semis on on one day & what the next day? mens doubles? yeah that's a great idea.
Last edited:
jackson vile
G.O.A.T.
Actually you are on to something but for the wrong reasons. The ATP may reduce the sets due to time constraints if the matches keep lasting too long.
rosewall4ever
Semi-Pro
has it been proven that women cant physically handle a 5 set match? even though its been done in the past... though i dont know if i would care to watch it. women can do marathons so why not? i think the real INEQUITy is not allowing them to do it...yet they dont complain about it.go figure. fix that and the money issue will be sorted. after all the issue is really about the mullllllllllllllllllllllllllllllaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa hhhhhhhhh hhhhhhhhh.haha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahha.
rosewall4ever
Semi-Pro
Time/value is the point here. Being all EQUAL the men should be complaining.In general, can we really say that we are getting more entertainment value with a three hour match than a five hour match?-gender aside. Its like being shortchanged to a three course meal when you've paid for five.....
Amen! Preach it, brother.
Mustard
Bionic Poster
Can't agree with that as a tennis fan, sorry. These are the biggest tournaments in the sport, and are supposed to be very hard to win. Best of 3 sets in non-major matches is perfectly fine.
mellowyellow
Legend
user92626
G.O.A.T.
Just this alone is worth the argument FOR equal prize money. I'll try to add another. Organizers are walking on thin ice if they argue against equal money when their own pays and the monies in this business are hardly based on "value" contribution. In other words you may have tournaments and organizers that make huge profits but the tennis and performance are all crap. Do fans get their ticket cost reduce when that happen?
If we base payment on value contribution, we'll need a system that goes like: spectators pay $100 for a ticket, athletes adhere to a performance measure to get a % the ticket (less viewers = less prize), organizers and everyone else draw a % upon completing their jobs. Their earning/profit is capped. In case if athletes underperform, money goes back to the spectators. No?
Um no, because for the majority of players, winning the tennis match is about putting food on the table first, and then thrilling the crowd second.
user92626
G.O.A.T.
Noo.. if you 're the kind of players that play for food, you don't have what it takes to be in front of a slam audience.
Frankly, I don't think people come to watch that kind of players anyway.
How much money do you think David Goffin made last year from tennis? Because you are not an elite does not mean you aren't trying to get to that level. That requires play.
DeShaun
Banned
It is curious, the level of WTA tennis compared to that of the ATP, that any woman could win a purse of millions of dollars only a year or so after birthing a child--is this supposed to be considered as some form of elite athleticism? No, at least I would not think so. Do some WTA players consolidate tv audiences? Well, I hear that they do, anyway. As for equal pay being for equal tennis work or athleticism, never have woman been strong as men is this regard.
Flash O'Groove
Hall of Fame
Excellent.
Paul Murphy
Hall of Fame
Well put. Hear hear.
user92626
G.O.A.T.
Thanks, Flash.
It's absurb to compare men and women. They are clearly two distinct groups, each with their own difficulties.
Stop arguing that women don't perform as hard as men. Unless women are in cohort with each other, arranging and fixing match results, no one is gonna let a million something of prize money on the table for an easy grasp. It is still a competition. And competing to get to the top is always cutthroat difficult.
Also, going by performance is pretty flimsy . If you really think about it, watching a sport match for performance is kinda primitive and operating on the low level of the senses. High performance is a dime a dozen. Want big serve, long matches? Watch Isner. Want stability, big FH? Catch Fed and Nadal. It's very one dimensional. That's why it's not fun to watch a Nadal/Berdych final where Nadal outperformances Berdych. And lately not very fun to watch any Fed's match because it's too predictable even though the guy still performs extremely stably.
A great match is one that is filled with drama and players radiating determination and struggling to overcome difficulties. This is high level operating of human senses. Inspiration is what probably what people are looking for. High performance takes the back seat. That's why, when it clicks, Verdasco attempting to overcome Nadal in a 5 setter is 10x more entertaining.
It's absurb to compare men and women. They are clearly two distinct groups, each with their own difficulties.
Stop arguing that women don't perform as hard as men. Unless women are in cohort with each other, arranging and fixing match results, no one is gonna let a million something of prize money on the table for an easy grasp. It is still a competition. And competing to get to the top is always cutthroat difficult.
Also, going by performance is pretty flimsy . If you really think about it, watching a sport match for performance is kinda primitive and operating on the low level of the senses. High performance is a dime a dozen. Want big serve, long matches? Watch Isner. Want stability, big FH? Catch Fed and Nadal. It's very one dimensional. That's why it's not fun to watch a Nadal/Berdych final where Nadal outperformances Berdych. And lately not very fun to watch any Fed's match because it's too predictable even though the guy still performs extremely stably.
A great match is one that is filled with drama and players radiating determination and struggling to overcome difficulties. This is high level operating of human senses. Inspiration is what probably what people are looking for. High performance takes the back seat. That's why, when it clicks, Verdasco attempting to overcome Nadal in a 5 setter is 10x more entertaining.
I've been reading with interest a number of the replies and for me it comes down to this....
If it's about Men & Women being equal in life then of course they certainly deserve equal prize money.
But if it's just about tennis and the value Women's tennis is worth compared to Men's tennis then they probably don't deserve more than 25% of what the Men make.
It's this old argument but the number 1 woman in the world at any time throughout the last 40 years would lose 6-0 6-0 to a man ranked 750 in the world. Fact!!
If it's about Men & Women being equal in life then of course they certainly deserve equal prize money.
But if it's just about tennis and the value Women's tennis is worth compared to Men's tennis then they probably don't deserve more than 25% of what the Men make.
It's this old argument but the number 1 woman in the world at any time throughout the last 40 years would lose 6-0 6-0 to a man ranked 750 in the world. Fact!!
TERRASTAR18
Hall of Fame
kim clijsters was/is one of the best female players to play...the rest of what you wrote is drivel...
I'm totally torn on this. On the one hand, I do think equal pay should mean equal work. On the other, I do not want women's tennis to be best of 5. That would eat up too much time. Best of 3 is fine. Is there another sport that requires the women play less time than Men? Women's cycling maybe? Women play 90 min soccer matches and do the marathon just fine.
I think most of us here that are into tennis do find it easy to believe that the men's game is losing money to the women's unfairly, because we generally follow the Men (like any other sport, the Men are playing at a higher level and we appreciate it more).
But, there must be a reason that the organizers have done this. They are looking bigger picture. They are looking at sponsors, they are looking at political implications.
As a "neutral" who has no dog in this fight, I'm not that bothered either way.
However, if I was an ATP player (lower down the rankings), I'd probably be pissed. Look at what Rosal did the other night. He's ranked 100 and provided more entertainment in those 5 sets than the women will all tournament.
I think most of us here that are into tennis do find it easy to believe that the men's game is losing money to the women's unfairly, because we generally follow the Men (like any other sport, the Men are playing at a higher level and we appreciate it more).
But, there must be a reason that the organizers have done this. They are looking bigger picture. They are looking at sponsors, they are looking at political implications.
As a "neutral" who has no dog in this fight, I'm not that bothered either way.
However, if I was an ATP player (lower down the rankings), I'd probably be pissed. Look at what Rosal did the other night. He's ranked 100 and provided more entertainment in those 5 sets than the women will all tournament.
I don't really care about money issues, although the mens challenger tour should pay better.
I'm mostly here to guess Last 10 slam winners
FO12 Sharapova
AO12 Azarenka
USO11 Stosur
W11 Kvitova
FO11 Na Li
AO11 Clijsters?
USO10 Clijsters?
W10 Serena?
FO10 Schiavone
AO10 Serena
Am I close?
I'm mostly here to guess Last 10 slam winners
FO12 Sharapova
AO12 Azarenka
USO11 Stosur
W11 Kvitova
FO11 Na Li
AO11 Clijsters?
USO10 Clijsters?
W10 Serena?
FO10 Schiavone
AO10 Serena
Am I close?
I think the biggest claim to equal pay is that what we see on tv is only a 10th of the work they do and in theory the top players all spend similar amounts of time with conditioning & training.
If you only take their on court time into consideration then maybe you could argue it either way but they money comes from tickets and sponsorship, they must be getting money in or they wouldn't be able to pay the prize money?
At wimbledon this week on our court we had Ferrer, Roddick (seperate matches) Errani / Keothovong and Azarenka (i think she's the one with the odd sounding noise after each shot?). Couldn't watch more than 3 games, so much noise." points in and the crowd were mimicking her. Went off to watch some mens doubles.
If you only take their on court time into consideration then maybe you could argue it either way but they money comes from tickets and sponsorship, they must be getting money in or they wouldn't be able to pay the prize money?
At wimbledon this week on our court we had Ferrer, Roddick (seperate matches) Errani / Keothovong and Azarenka (i think she's the one with the odd sounding noise after each shot?). Couldn't watch more than 3 games, so much noise." points in and the crowd were mimicking her. Went off to watch some mens doubles.
BullDogTennis
Hall of Fame
I think if they played 5 sets the debate really would be over as I'd have no complaint.
Not that I'm that bothered now, it's not my money.
id rather them be paid equal playing best of 3 sets than have to endure watching best of 5 :???::???:
TERRASTAR18
Hall of Fame
good job. now guess the runner ups.
Bobby Jr
G.O.A.T.
Interesting comment. I was staying near a club about 18 months ago over a summer holiday which served as a practice venue for a WTA event which was followed the next week by an ATP event. The club's hard courts were used by the pros from about 7am till 4pm daily.
In the few days before the WTA event and going right through until the men's week I watched a lot of the practice sessions for everyone from Sharapova, Kuznetsova, Gorges, Lisicki, Almagro, Ferrer, Verdesco, Isner etc - some high quality players. The one thing that absolutely stood out was how different the effort that went into the training.
Basically all* of the WTA players looked like they were on holiday time, mucking around, having a laugh, talking to each other or their coaches for much of their time-slot on court. Some even had coffees with them - someone from the club was even being sent out on coffee runs to a nearby cafe.
In the following week men were a complete contrast. They were there ages early, running in the car park, warming up then getting on the court and hitting non-stop the entire time - doing set-piece hitting routines and point scenarios non-stop for their hour. Ferrer even put targets on the court and was serving at them. Most of them were doing what some might consider basic things over and over, but with absolute concentration. It's a good lesson to many juniors who get bored of doing them that the top guys still know the benefits of basic, solid training. Their intensity level was, across the board, at 9 or 10 out of 10. The women were averaging 5 out of 10 for the most part.
*The only obvious exception was Kuznetsov who trained like a Navy Seal. It was quite amazing to see how much effort she put in. No wonder she looks like she does.
So, when people tell me they train as hard as the men, take it with a grain of salt. The vast majority don't. They think they train hard.
Last edited:
bluetrain4
G.O.A.T.
If the debate is over, the women won. They have equal pay at the majors. there's been no announcement that any major intends to change that.
While there have always been plenty of people who don't think there should be equal pay, no one really thought equal pay would be overturned. But, now there's some real dissent. Still don't know if the issue is actually on the table, but if there is a debate, it's actually just starting.
While there have always been plenty of people who don't think there should be equal pay, no one really thought equal pay would be overturned. But, now there's some real dissent. Still don't know if the issue is actually on the table, but if there is a debate, it's actually just starting.
We're not talking about shift workers at McDonald's. This is not about Andy Murray complaining about his minimum wage pay while manning the deep fryer (though I'd hope he'd have the decency to wear a hair net if he did).
Tennis like all sports is an entertainment commodity, and as such is subject to all of its vagaries and absurdities as far as compensation goes. And in such a capricious marketplace, you take what you can get. Few people question the wisdom of paying Adam Sandler $25 million to act like a fool for two onscreen hours, yet this question of grand slam pay is an ongoing controversy.
With that in mind, let's take a look at the arguments ...
Men should get paid more because their matches are longer: Not necessarily. Federer had Fognini sent packing in the same time it took Caroline Wozniacki to complete a set. If Gilles Simon is worried about being on court longer, he should stop being such a pusher and get the job done more quickly. Should Nadal get paid more because he manages to draw out a match with his leisurely serving habits? As we've seen with officials disregarding time rules, there's no punch clock in this sport. There is also a lot of hard work off the court (promotion, training, travel) regardless of one's genitalia.
Best of five vs. best of three: If it came down to losing money or playing an extra set of tennis, I'm sure the majority of women would go the best-of-five route. Sharapova would probably vote for it now, regardless, because it would make her pretty much unbeatable. It's like telling a female employee we're going to pay you less because you work a six-hour day vs. a man's eight-hour day, but we're not giving you the option to work eight hours. On the ATP and WTA tours, it's all best of three, but the men's side pays better in general. It's just at joint events where equitable pay is standard. And if we're paying for entertainment value and not simply hours on court, a tight and exciting two-set match set full of winners is more satisfying than a drawn-out five-set errorfest full of dull rallies (or dull serve-fests full of aces for that matter).
Men's tennis is a bigger draw: Yes, but that's because of the Top 3 mainly. But athletes don't have a long shelf life, and fans are fickle. Not so many years ago, the Williams sisters and the women's game seemed more popular with the average fan. Imagine once Fed retires in five years (Nole, Rafa and the Andys will have already left) and we have a Top 10 filled with 6'6 serving machines who play endless five-setters because neither player can break serve. Who's paying good money to watch Gilles Simon except family members, dear friends and the three French tennis fans who prefer counterpunching? If he's playing against Fed or Rafa, 95 percent of people are there for Fedal. Should they get 95 percent more money?
In the end, the world has a way of balancing things out for those who are really driving the sport and getting people to buy tickets. That's why Fed, Nole, Rafa, Maria and the Williams sisters are so well-paid for endorsements and appearance fees. They're not hurting.
As far as the rest of the field? Well, they all deserve a chance to make a decent living, even Gilles Simon. That's why I'm going to send him an ad I saw for a pizza deliveryman and thought he could pick up a few extra bucks with a night gig. With his speed, he will no doubt be well-rewarded in tips.
Tennis like all sports is an entertainment commodity, and as such is subject to all of its vagaries and absurdities as far as compensation goes. And in such a capricious marketplace, you take what you can get. Few people question the wisdom of paying Adam Sandler $25 million to act like a fool for two onscreen hours, yet this question of grand slam pay is an ongoing controversy.
With that in mind, let's take a look at the arguments ...
Men should get paid more because their matches are longer: Not necessarily. Federer had Fognini sent packing in the same time it took Caroline Wozniacki to complete a set. If Gilles Simon is worried about being on court longer, he should stop being such a pusher and get the job done more quickly. Should Nadal get paid more because he manages to draw out a match with his leisurely serving habits? As we've seen with officials disregarding time rules, there's no punch clock in this sport. There is also a lot of hard work off the court (promotion, training, travel) regardless of one's genitalia.
Best of five vs. best of three: If it came down to losing money or playing an extra set of tennis, I'm sure the majority of women would go the best-of-five route. Sharapova would probably vote for it now, regardless, because it would make her pretty much unbeatable. It's like telling a female employee we're going to pay you less because you work a six-hour day vs. a man's eight-hour day, but we're not giving you the option to work eight hours. On the ATP and WTA tours, it's all best of three, but the men's side pays better in general. It's just at joint events where equitable pay is standard. And if we're paying for entertainment value and not simply hours on court, a tight and exciting two-set match set full of winners is more satisfying than a drawn-out five-set errorfest full of dull rallies (or dull serve-fests full of aces for that matter).
Men's tennis is a bigger draw: Yes, but that's because of the Top 3 mainly. But athletes don't have a long shelf life, and fans are fickle. Not so many years ago, the Williams sisters and the women's game seemed more popular with the average fan. Imagine once Fed retires in five years (Nole, Rafa and the Andys will have already left) and we have a Top 10 filled with 6'6 serving machines who play endless five-setters because neither player can break serve. Who's paying good money to watch Gilles Simon except family members, dear friends and the three French tennis fans who prefer counterpunching? If he's playing against Fed or Rafa, 95 percent of people are there for Fedal. Should they get 95 percent more money?
In the end, the world has a way of balancing things out for those who are really driving the sport and getting people to buy tickets. That's why Fed, Nole, Rafa, Maria and the Williams sisters are so well-paid for endorsements and appearance fees. They're not hurting.
As far as the rest of the field? Well, they all deserve a chance to make a decent living, even Gilles Simon. That's why I'm going to send him an ad I saw for a pizza deliveryman and thought he could pick up a few extra bucks with a night gig. With his speed, he will no doubt be well-rewarded in tips.
Last edited:
I love quizzes, but this will be too much
FO12: Errani
AO12: Sharapova?
USO11: Serena
W11: Sharapova
FO11: Schiavone
AO11: Na Li
USO10:??
W10:?? No idea, should be somewhere in my head
FO10: Stosur
AO10:Safina?
Is that maybe Vera Zvonareva for both question marks? I think she did a double in losing finals (and she might have lost the doubles final at the same time at Wimbledon, as well) ... all just more fuel for a mental breakdown.
If it wasn't Vera at that Open, I'd guess Wozniacki, because I think Clijsters beat both of them at the U.S. Open.
TERRASTAR18
Hall of Fame
I think you are onto something
I love quizzes, but this will be too much
great job both of you... and it was vera
Swissv2
Hall of Fame
yeah, maybe about 2% of the population.
Loose Cannon
Rookie
Never one to champion the female cause...........anyone that thinks women should get equal pay is sick in the head. There is no basis for it at all.
And yet the ATP has nearly double the amount of assets that the WTA does. Which can only mean that the ATP historically has outperformed the WTA on a consistent year in and year out basis. Please. The money is in men's tennis, women's tennis is significant, and they should get good pay (relative to something like the WNBA vs NBA where it's a complete laughing stock versus Goliath), but considering that the ATP has historically outperformed the WTA, you can't tell me that the WTA should get anywhere near equal pay.
SLD76
G.O.A.T.
whats the big deal, the prize money is only equal at majors.
secondly, the reason the prize money was equalled in the first place was because back in the early 2000's and late 90's, the WTA was by far the bigger tennis draw.
sampras was old, hewitt, not necc a fan fave, was number one followed by inconsistent safin and roddick( again, not necc a fan fave), agassi was getting older, and u had the old guard guys like henman, woodbridge, norman, moya etc getting older too. The ATP was in transition
meanwhile the WTA had the strongest field seen in a long time with the WS, clijsters, henin, mauresmo, pierce, hingis, davenport, capriati. The top ten was STACKED and there were great matches being played week in week out. And its that golden era which drove the majors to offer equal money to begin with.
And as someone else said, even if they paid the women less they wouldnt necc pay the men more.
And the bottom line is, if you arent directly paying anybody, why do you even care?
secondly, the reason the prize money was equalled in the first place was because back in the early 2000's and late 90's, the WTA was by far the bigger tennis draw.
sampras was old, hewitt, not necc a fan fave, was number one followed by inconsistent safin and roddick( again, not necc a fan fave), agassi was getting older, and u had the old guard guys like henman, woodbridge, norman, moya etc getting older too. The ATP was in transition
meanwhile the WTA had the strongest field seen in a long time with the WS, clijsters, henin, mauresmo, pierce, hingis, davenport, capriati. The top ten was STACKED and there were great matches being played week in week out. And its that golden era which drove the majors to offer equal money to begin with.
And as someone else said, even if they paid the women less they wouldnt necc pay the men more.
And the bottom line is, if you arent directly paying anybody, why do you even care?
SoCalJay
Semi-Pro
Am I the only one imagining the original poster having this look on his face:
Also, count me as one person who cares about women's tennis nearly as much as the men's game. Why? Sure, the level might not be as high but I find it entertaining to actually see a variety of people in the slam finals on a regular basis.
Also, count me as one person who cares about women's tennis nearly as much as the men's game. Why? Sure, the level might not be as high but I find it entertaining to actually see a variety of people in the slam finals on a regular basis.
Similar threads
- Poll
