€10 difference between male and female Rome champion's prize money

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
There are joint tournaments because the organisers want them, but they are joint ones between two different bodies paying out two separate scales of prize money.

There is no gender issue here other than the ten euro one, but there is an inequality issue between highest and lowest paid and the women's event is the problem.

I bet more people watched Djokovic - Koepfer than Halep - Putintseva. But these cherry picked examples can't be what business of organizing the tournament is based on. And it can't be based on gender politics either. ATP nd WTA tour are not one and don't have same representatives. IMO, WTA should be thankful for these tournaments that have both tours' masters and slams at the same time. If separated, WTA would be at a loss or using your logic, maybe it would profit, so why not fight for separation then?

As for Paire, he should get kid's pay for his deeds - spanking.
 

Aussie Darcy

Bionic Poster
I bet more people watched Djokovic - Koepfer than Halep - Putintseva. But these cherry picked examples can't be what business of organizing the tournament is based on. And it can't be based on gender politics either. ATP nd WTA tour are not one and don't have same representatives. IMO, WTA should be thankful for these tournaments that have both tours masters and slams at the same time. If separated owuld be at a loss or using your logic, maybe it would profit, so why fight for separation then?

As for Paire, he should get kid's pay for his deeds - spanking.
Ohhhh so now cherry picked examples are the problem but people just blatantly saying all women should be paid less is fine? Maybe that's the issue, that you're not looking at the actual situations. You want to punish Osaka or Halep or Serena and pay them less than Koepfer? Think everyone and their dog knows who gets more viewership mate. You want to talk viewer numbers, sponsorship, audiences. I already told you which US Open final was watched more. Women, by quite a bit.

It's almost as if, at the end of the day, we just pay equally. Some benefit more than others whether male or female.

As someone who works in sporting events, it makes zero sense to split the tournaments into separate weeks thus doubling up the costs and salaries of casual employees, asking more time from volunteers, usage of catering and their staff, lighting, vehicles, security, hotel accomodation and so, so much more. You want to be cute? Try understanding events and why it makes sense having combined tournaments.
 

nachiket nolefam

Hall of Fame
Wta early rounds players need to get paid more. This 10 euro difference will increase then. I hope wta fights for equality among its own players first.
 

Raul_SJ

G.O.A.T.
They are two separate events under one umbrella. It does not run on the basis of equal prize money, but the ten euro difference seems like some sort of petty misogyny:
There you go again.
Calm down. It is just a $10 innocent rounding error.
The Tournament obviously wants the Winners to be paid the same. There is no discrepancy with the Mens vs Womens runner up, which means there is no statement being made.
 
Last edited:

Born_to_slice

Hall of Fame
Ohhhh so now cherry picked examples are the problem but people just blatantly saying all women should be paid less is fine? Maybe that's the issue, that you're not looking at the actual situations. You want to punish Osaka or Halep or Serena and pay them less than Koepfer? Think everyone and their dog knows who gets more viewership mate. You want to talk viewer numbers, sponsorship, audiences. I already told you which US Open final was watched more. Women, by quite a bit.

It's almost as if, at the end of the day, we just pay equally. Some benefit more than others whether male or female.

As someone who works in sporting events, it makes zero sense to split the tournaments into separate weeks thus doubling up the costs and salaries of casual employees, asking more time from volunteers, usage of catering and their staff, lighting, vehicles, security, hotel accomodation and so, so much more. You want to be cute? Try understanding events and why it makes sense having combined tournaments.
"I" want to punish female players and pay them less? WTF are you talking about? :D

Fact is, no one here knows all the nuances of how the tournaments are organized and details of negotiations organizers have with ATP and WTA tour. Or how are they selling TV rights. What we know, is that some tournaments are willing to pay king's ransom for some players to show up. It's clearly all about business, not gender politics.

I would personally enjoy separating of the tours because I don't want to see stuff like male no.1 booted off the central court for a 15 yo wta kid that plays some nobody. But I've been told to shut my mouth about it because that's business and all the sjw's cheered. No problem following profit model there, huh?

Obviously we have separated masters tournaments. How are solo WTA events doing there? (I honestly don't know)
 

tennis_pro

Bionic Poster
You think more people were watching Koepfer this tournament than those watching Halep ? Or you think more people followed De Minaur's QF run at the USO than Serena's SF run at the USO?

You want to act like the men's tour subsidizes the women's tour, let's talk about the low ranked male players who nobody gives a **** about but get this epic prize money.

As I said:
Benoit Paire gets 21,000 euros for his tank job in the 1R winning 3 games while 2x slam champ Kuznetsova got 19,000 euros for her 3R run which included her 3 set wins against Pera and then Kontaveit before her loss to Svitolina...
Dude, there is only so many times Paire can tank a match until his ranking starts to plummet and we won't see him in the main draw anymore.

And watching a dude mentally collapse is still more interesting than a decent WTA match.
 

jon70

Semi-Pro
Deep down, you honestly think this 10 euro gap (of prize money for the champ of over £200,000) is just an accounting issue?
I honestly don't know. Why does the 3R lady loser's cheque end in 355?
Ohhhh so now cherry picked examples are the problem but people just blatantly saying all women should be paid less is fine? Maybe that's the issue, that you're not looking at the actual situations. You want to punish Osaka or Halep or Serena and pay them less than Koepfer? Think everyone and their dog knows who gets more viewership mate. You want to talk viewer numbers, sponsorship, audiences. I already told you which US Open final was watched more. Women, by quite a bit.

It's almost as if, at the end of the day, we just pay equally. Some benefit more than others whether male or female.

As someone who works in sporting events, it makes zero sense to split the tournaments into separate weeks thus doubling up the costs and salaries of casual employees, asking more time from volunteers, usage of catering and their staff, lighting, vehicles, security, hotel accomodation and so, so much more. You want to be cute? Try understanding events and why it makes sense having combined tournaments.
Who's saying all women should be paid less? Tennis players are entertainers. At one point Julia Roberts got paid as much as Brad Pitt because they both drew a crowd. If men's tennis is still more profitable that's just the way it is. Born_to_slice makes a point - if the ladies went their own way, do you think their tournaments would get more TV ratings?
 

Aussie Darcy

Bionic Poster
I honestly don't know. Why does the 3R lady loser's cheque end in 355?


Who's saying all women should be paid less? Tennis players are entertainers. At one point Julia Roberts got paid as much as Brad Pitt because they both drew a crowd. If men's tennis is still more profitable that's just the way it is. Born_to_slice makes a point - if the ladies went their own way, do you think their tournaments would get more TV ratings?
Depends on the tournament. Some women's tournaments would outview the mens and vice versa. Instead they help eachother out being combined for when certain tournaments of either gender lack star power.

E.G. 2014 USO final. Nishikori v Cilic vs Serena v Wozniacki. Easy to imagine what was more worthwhile. And yes, i'm sure there's been times the men benefitted the women but that's the point. They help eachother out. Seperating them entirely would benefit neither.
 

Aussie Darcy

Bionic Poster
"I" want to punish female players and pay them less? WTF are you talking about? :D

Fact is, no one here knows all the nuances of how the tournaments are organized and details of negotiations organizers have with ATP and WTA tour. Or how are they selling TV rights. What we know, is that some tournaments are willing to pay king's ransom for some players to show up. It's clearly all about business, not gender politics.

I would personally enjoy separating of the tours because I don't want to see stuff like male no.1 booted off the central court for a 15 yo wta kid that plays some nobody. But I've been told to shut my mouth about it because that's business and all the sjw's cheered. No problem following profit model there, huh?

Obviously we have separated masters tournaments. How are solo WTA events doing there? (I honestly don't know)
I mean we've heard from tournament directors of separate tournaments like Auckland saying that when they had certain star female players like Li Na the women's tournaments did better viewer wise than the men and i'm sure there's many times the men benefitted the women. I'm not disagreeing on that. As said above, 2014 USO finals for example. Serena v Wozniacki or Cilic v Nishikori. Not hard to imagine which one better viewed hey?

It's almost like when the men are bad, the women pick up the slack and when the men are poor, the women pick it up. Just like the early 2000's when the men's tour was in shambles and the women were good. Obviously things shifted for a long time with the big 3 (Serena was still there of course) but seems we are headed back that way.
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
There seems some sort of controversy about your avatar.

There you go again.
Calm down. It is just a $10 innocent rounding error.
The Tournament obviously wants the Winners to be paid the same. There is no discrepancy with the Mens vs Womens runner up, which means there is no statement being made.
 

Born_to_slice

Hall of Fame
I mean we've heard from tournament directors of separate tournaments like Auckland saying that when they had certain star female players like Li Na the women's tournaments did better viewer wise than the men and i'm sure there's many times the men benefitted the women. I'm not disagreeing on that. As said above, 2014 USO finals for example. Serena v Wozniacki or Cilic v Nishikori. Not hard to imagine which one better viewed hey?

It's almost like when the men are bad, the women pick up the slack and when the men are poor, the women pick it up. Just like the early 2000's when the men's tour was in shambles and the women were good. Obviously things shifted for a long time with the big 3 (Serena was still there of course) but seems we are headed back that way.
When you take example like 2014 USO, that's ultra cherry picking. Big 3 have won 56 slams together. There's nothing like it now or before, in any of the tours.

I don't think that each tour picking up for the other is a sound business model but if it suits tournament organizers, I'm fine with it.
 

Aussie Darcy

Bionic Poster
When you take example like 2014 USO, that's ultra cherry picking. Big 3 have won 56 slams together. There's nothing like it now or before, in any of the tours.

I don't think that each tour picking up for the other is a sound business model but if it suits tournament organizers, I'm fine with it.
Awesome so we agree there's no need to cherry pick any slams then and the focus should be on the fact that many women at this Italian Open like Azarenka in the QF earned around HALF of what Koepfer earned which is very unfair, correct?
 

Born_to_slice

Hall of Fame
Awesome so we agree there's no need to cherry pick any slams then and the focus should be on the fact that many women at this Italian Open like Azarenka in the QF earned around HALF of what Koepfer earned which is very unfair, correct?
You just cherry picked Azarenka and compared her to Koepfer. If tournaments payed according to popularity of individual players as they are progressing through draw, I'm sure they would be happy to pay Azarenka more and Koepfer less but that's not how these tournament function. I can only guess that disparity is based on overall profitability of ATP and WTA draws in say, last several years or something, deals that tournament negotiates with respective tour, not on sexism.
 

Aussie Darcy

Bionic Poster
You just cherry picked Azarenka and compared her to Koepfer. If tournaments payed according to popularity of individual players as they are progressing through draw, I'm sure they would be happy to pay Azarenka more and Koepfer less but that's not how these tournament function. I can only guess that disparity is based on overall profitability of ATP and WTA draws in say, last several years or something, deals that tournament negotiates with respective tour, not on sexism.
Oh awesome so you admit that the higher paid women fund the lower paid men and the higher paid men fund the lower paid women?

Glad we came to a sound conclusion there :)

So keep going right?
 

jm1980

G.O.A.T.
I have an idea. Why don't we just pay all players, man or woman, with hourly rate? It will be fair because if players only spend 10 minutes on court they will get little money and if they spend 11 hours 5 minutes like Isner and Mahut in R1 Wimbledon, they will get so much more money. Tournaments could also give bonus payment if the game is more entertaining by measuring the amount of the applause or cheers and by counting the amount of spectators or TV ratings.
This is how you ensure players stall and pick their butts or whatever to get paid more. Also, men tend to play shorter games than women because they can to end points quickly. This scheme would essentially ensure women got paid more on average.
 
Last edited:

jm1980

G.O.A.T.
Ohhhh so now cherry picked examples are the problem but people just blatantly saying all women should be paid less is fine? Maybe that's the issue, that you're not looking at the actual situations. You want to punish Osaka or Halep or Serena and pay them less than Koepfer? Think everyone and their dog knows who gets more viewership mate. You want to talk viewer numbers, sponsorship, audiences. I already told you which US Open final was watched more. Women, by quite a bit.

It's almost as if, at the end of the day, we just pay equally. Some benefit more than others whether male or female.

As someone who works in sporting events, it makes zero sense to split the tournaments into separate weeks thus doubling up the costs and salaries of casual employees, asking more time from volunteers, usage of catering and their staff, lighting, vehicles, security, hotel accomodation and so, so much more. You want to be cute? Try understanding events and why it makes sense having combined tournaments.
The only fair way to hand out equal prize money is to combine the tours and let the women play against the men. Problem solved, no?

But even the fiercest advocates for equal prize money in the WTA know exactly what would happen in such a scenario
 
I have an idea. Why don't we just pay all players, man or woman, with hourly rate? It will be fair because if players only spend 10 minutes on court they will get little money and if they spend 11 hours 5 minutes like Isner and Mahut in R1 Wimbledon, they will get so much more money. Tournaments could also give bonus payment if the game is more entertaining by measuring the amount of the applause or cheers and by counting the amount of spectators or TV ratings.
You will have 1R peeps conspiring with each other to make each match as long as possible
 

FatHead250

Semi-Pro
yeah and the money in the early rounds is twice as less. such a ****ign joke. first round money dont even cover expenses. so much for being a top64 female player in the world
 

Aussie Darcy

Bionic Poster
The only fair way to hand out equal prize money is to combine the tours and let the women play against the men. Problem solved, no?

But even the fiercest advocates for equal prize money in the WTA know exactly what would happen in such a scenario
This makes zero sense to anyone in the sport because nobody would want to tune in and watch then demolition matches of Djokovic v Jakupovic. You would be ruining the sport completely. People flock in the thousands (and for tv viewers in the millions) to watch Serena or Osaka and more. The tours being seperate works, it’s just sad people like you who think women are subpar and should be paid less.
 

jm1980

G.O.A.T.
This makes zero sense to anyone in the sport because nobody would want to tune in and watch then demolition matches of Djokovic v Jakupovic. You would be ruining the sport completely. People flock in the thousands (and for tv viewers in the millions) to watch Serena or Osaka and more. The tours being seperate works, it’s just sad people like you who think women are subpar and should be paid less.
The male equivalent of Jakupovic would crush Serena or Osaka too. The top levels of the sport would be entirely male, which is why we have separate tours

But then why do some act like they are the same tour entitled to the same amount of compensation?
 
Last edited:

Aussie Darcy

Bionic Poster
The male equivalent of Jakupovic would crush Serena or Osaka too. The top levels of the sport would be entirely male, which is why we have separate tours

But then why do some act like they are the same tour entitled to the same amount of compensation?
I'm not acting like they're the same tour but as I said earlier, I believe they benefit eachother. Having completely seperate events (as in slams held in different weeks) or merging the tours as you say is stupid.

You're saying merge the tours in which case Serena wouldn't be a factor. There goes millions of viewers of the sport who exclusively watch it for her. Thousands do the same here in Australia for Barty since we have barely any good men who actually care (Tomic and Kyrgios being a national joke). So merging the tours is stupid, you're essentially asking for the women to be removed from the sport completely because yes, they can't beat the men. I never said they could.

As for having them in separate weeks, financially it makes zero sense for the tournaments to double up the costs when it can be held in 2 weeks as opposed to 4.

Why are they entitled to same amount of compensation? Because at the slams for example, on a day when Serena is playing on the main court and Delbonis is playing Sousa out on court 17 they all get paid the same. In the same way the big 3 help benefit the lower ranked women. They benefit eachother being the point, no?
 

Arak

Semi-Pro
I’m actually surprised that no one from the WTA came out and protested against the women having to play BO3 while men can play BO5. I find this is the real discrimination, as if the women are not athletic enough to play 5 sets. I can’t think of other sports doing the same. Women soccer is still 90 minutes, women marathon is not shorter than men’s. What’s the difference between a slam and other tournaments for women? I find that slams really look down at women and do not treat them fairly and equally.
 

ledwix

Hall of Fame
It's not an example of sexism. The second round men's participant makes almost exactly half as much as the quarterfinalist. However, it is off by a sum of 10 once again. Why 37,490 instead of 37,500? Then it would be exactly half of 75,000.

Are they aiming to shame second round participants as well, relative to quarterfinalists? That makes no sense. It's a rounding/accounting/algorithm trick, not sexism.

What they did at the final round of play is give equal prize money, because the closer to the final round you get, the more equal the entertainment value becomes, since the story line of a prestigious title being on the line, and the whole effect of celebrity fascination, begins to play a bigger role relative to the level of play, where men simply dominate. In addition, they are of course trying to be politically correct, without being so politically correct as to exercise unintelligent business strategy across the board. So pay disparities make sense in earlier rounds.
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
Masters's events are not best of five, so you are barking up the wrong tree. Both sexes can play best of five, but the slams have a tradition; and also the tide has turned against BO5 in general.

I’m actually surprised that no one from the WTA came out and protested against the women having to play BO3 while men can play BO5. I find this is the real discrimination, as if the women are not athletic enough to play 5 sets. I can’t think of other sports doing the same. Women soccer is still 90 minutes, women marathon is not shorter than men’s. What’s the difference between a slam and other tournaments for women? I find that slams really look down at women and do not treat them fairly and equally.
 

blablavla

Legend
That’s the question I’m asking. What is the difference between slams and masters? None. I’m not barking up the wrong tree.
you'll get used to Bart.
he / she doesn't miss one single opportunity to engage in an argument, and while Bart doesn't mind losing arguments, cause the pleasure of being involved in an argument apparently is bigger, Bart doesn't like to admit when he / she is wrong.
 

taster

New User
It should be about what the market dictates right? - if not you can make a case for principle of equality, but what does equality mean exactly?
Taken to its logical conclusion, or in other words to have equality implemented in professional tennis, you would pay all players the same amount -that's equality right? . So men and women and all professional players would get the same, but why stop at the ATP WTA? real equality would mean wheelchair tennis players should be played the same, why shouldn't they unless we don't think they're equal, in this none defined, hard to understand sense of equality. And so it goes on, and on. The logic of equality is just that - people are treated the same, even though their abilities, enthusiasms and capacities are clearly not the same. Tennis, like all sports is almost by definition a game that celebrates inequality, i'm as able to play like Djokovic as i am able to fly, will never get anywhere near - i'm too old, with no discernable ability whatsoever, that's just reality.
This may shock the causal reader, and please take a sharp intake of breath before going any further....in some ways, men and women are different.
 
Top