Do we need Equal prize money after seeing both the finals at Wimbledon ?

tennisaddict

Bionic Poster
We have discussed this topic before, but in light of the stark contrasts we saw in the Wimbledon finals will there be any movement towards going away from equal prize money ?

WTA final : Kvitova beats Bouchard for 3 games in 55 minutes

ATP Final : Novak beats Fed in 5 sets in 3 hours 57 minutes.

We need a woman like Billie Jean , but with diametrically opposite views , who says this cannot go any longer.

Perhaps Amelie Mauresmo , now that she coaches Andy Murray ?
 

TERRASTAR18

Hall of Fame
We have discussed this topic before, but in light of the stark contrasts we saw in the Wimbledon finals will there be any movement towards going away from equal prize money ?

WTA final : Kvitova beats Bouchard for 3 games in 55 minutes

ATP Final : Novak beats Fed in 5 sets in 3 hours 57 minutes.

We need a woman like Billie Jean , but with diametrically opposite views , who says this cannot go any longer.

Perhaps Amelie Mauresmo , now that she coaches Andy Murray ?
it works both ways though... if fed didn't play he would still get his runner up check so your post is irrelevant....not to be mean but your argument works both ways.
 

Down_the_line

G.O.A.T.
No we don't.

I doubt the male players themselves even give a crap that they played longer. They love the game and they love winning. They're not concerned about the ladies working less and making the same.

As usual, it's only the fans watching their TV's or computer screens that care about this petty stuff.
 

ollinger

G.O.A.T.
And let's also pay boxers less when they knock a guy out in the first round instead of going the distance. Get over the pay thing, already!! I suggest we pay the men less as they are under less pressure, being able to lose the first two sets and still not be eliminated. The women have to mobilize their games from the start. There are arguments ad infinitum both ways here, so you might as well consider it "stare decisis."
 

TERRASTAR18

Hall of Fame
No we don't.

I doubt the male players themselves even give a crap that they played longer. They love the game and they love winning. They're not concerned about the ladies working less and making the same.

As usual, it's only the fans watching their TV's or computer screens that care about this petty stuff.

i agree, the only thing is they work just as hard.
 

Down_the_line

G.O.A.T.
And let's also pay boxers less when they knock a guy out in the first round instead of going the distance. Get over the pay thing, already!! I suggest we pay the men less as they are under less pressure, being able to lose the first two sets and still not be eliminated. The women have to mobilize their games from the start. There are arguments ad infinitum both ways here, so you might as well consider it "stare decisis."

Although besides the point, this is actually a really good point. Never thought of it that way.

But yes, the pay debate is stupid. I'm pretty sure most players, men and women, are perfectly fine with the way things are.
 

tennisaddict

Bionic Poster
No we don't.

I doubt the male players themselves even give a crap that they played longer. They love the game and they love winning. They're not concerned about the ladies working less and making the same.

As usual, it's only the fans watching their TV's or computer screens that care about this petty stuff.

Except for the top 5, you can be rest assured , every male player is mighty angry.

Just that they dont want to be seen as an enemy - Simon, Tipsarevic have been vocal and if there are like minds and courage, then we can expect some fightback.

Once Sharapova and Williams's exit, there may be better chances.

I have seen tweets from WTA players at the top that men deserve more money after watching the mens matches at different times.
 

Down_the_line

G.O.A.T.
Except for the top 5, you can be rest assured , every male player is mighty angry.

Just that they dont want to be seen as an enemy - Simon, Tipsarevic have been vocal and if there are like minds and courage, then we can expect some fightback.

Once Sharapova and Williams's exit, there may be better chances.

I have seen tweets from WTA players at the top that men deserve more money after watching the mens matches at different times.

Okay, well then there are a few examples of players on both sides that aren't satisfied with the arrangement. Won't be enough to change it though.

I can also guarantee you that if prize money on both sides simply continues to raise, nobody is going to be complaining anymore.
 

TERRASTAR18

Hall of Fame
Except for the top 5, you can be rest assured , every male player is mighty angry.

Just that they dont want to be seen as an enemy - Simon, Tipsarevic have been vocal and if there are like minds and courage, then we can expect some fightback.

Once Sharapova and Williams's exit, there may be better chances.

I have seen tweets from WTA players at the top that men deserve more money after watching the mens matches at different times.
their opinions are irrelevant......
 

SpicyCurry1990

Hall of Fame
Considering that:

1)Peak level play at the WTA level (2nd week slams) is about equal to that of a Challengers event

2)The quantity of play is also far lower

3)The draws they bring in terms of box office and TV is far less than the top tier of men.

I would certainly say there never should have been equal prize money.
 

newpball

Legend
We have discussed this topic before, but in light of the stark contrasts we saw in the Wimbledon finals will there be any movement towards going away from equal prize money ?

WTA final : Kvitova beats Bouchard for 3 games in 55 minutes

ATP Final : Novak beats Fed in 5 sets in 3 hours 57 minutes.

We need a woman like Billie Jean , but with diametrically opposite views , who says this cannot go any longer.

Perhaps Amelie Mauresmo , now that she coaches Andy Murray ?
The players should all punch in and out for their matches and get payed by the minute. :twisted:

Corbis-U1299121INP.jpg


:grin:
 

Down_the_line

G.O.A.T.
Considering that:

1)Peak level play at the WTA level (2nd week slams) is about equal to that of a Challengers event

2)The quantity of play is also far lower

3)The draws they bring in terms of box office and TV is far less than the top tier of men.

I would certainly say there never should have been equal prize money.

The bold is completely subjective. Asinine statement.

As for quality of play in general, the women shouldn't be penalized because they're currently in an era where the competition is not as strong. It's just the way it is.

For your third point, do you have statistics to back this up? If it's true, it's your only credible argument, albeit a small one.
 

eelhc

Hall of Fame
I've posted this elsewhere but this thread is more on topic...

It should be a meritocracy and prize money should be based on gate receipts, TV contracts (based on ratings), sponsorship, etc... I don't care how many sets they play. They earn whatever people are willing to pay to watch them play. I can play a thousand sets of tennis and no one will pay to watch me play.

Too bad the Grand Slams for Men's and Ladies are not held on different weeks. It should then be easy to calculate and obvious what prize $$$ each deserve.

The USGA held both the Men's and Ladies Open Championships at Pinehurst 2 this year 2 weeks apart. The purse for the Men, $9M. For the Ladies, $4M. Fair and equitable IMO.
 

geca

Semi-Pro
it's not about the length of the matches.

it's about the quality of the products.

it's hard to argue for these co-ed events. but ATP-alone events draw far more than WTA-alone events.

equal prize money is just another piece of PC crap.
 

Brian11785

Hall of Fame
People who work out in the fields work a lot more hours than Federer/Djokovic and get paid a tiny fraction. We aren't paid based on how hard we work.

Truth is, women's tennis was considered by many to be a better product than men's tennis for several years before Federer/Nadal and before they slowed the courts down (lowering the number of unwatchable men's serve fests and, honestly, upping the unforced error counts in WTA matches.) More variety, better characters, better rivalries. Higher U.S. television ratings in some cases.

The women's game is emerging from a couple of years in the crapper, but things are looking up with the deepening field of young players emerging. I will not argue with those that say, at this specific point in time, the ATP delivers a better product. But that isn't permanent.

Give me that Bouchard/Halep semi or Venus/Kvitova (the best match of the tournament, men or women, IMO) over the vast majority of the men's matches from this tournament.
 
Last edited:

tennisaddict

Bionic Poster
I've posted this elsewhere but this thread is more on topic...

It should be a meritocracy and prize money should be based on gate receipts, TV contracts (based on ratings), sponsorship, etc... I don't care how many sets they play. They earn whatever people are willing to pay to watch them play. I can play a thousand sets of tennis and no one will pay to watch me play.

Too bad the Grand Slams for Men's and Ladies are not held on different weeks. It should then be easy to calculate and obvious what prize $$$ each deserve.

The USGA held both the Men's and Ladies Open Championships at Pinehurst 2 this year 2 weeks apart. The purse for the Men, $9M. For the Ladies, $4M. Fair and equitable IMO.

Exactly. Let the economy and market determine what is fair pay.

WTA should not be a blood sucker .

I would say , do a trial run for 2-3 year period holding the majors in different weeks and see what sponsorship / ticket sales it sees.

If it is proved that it is equal, then we can once and for all shut down this argument.
 

HunterST

Hall of Fame
I understand both positions. The truth is, the women just aren't playing at as high of a level. The idea that they should get equal money seems, in some ways, like a hypercorrection of the way women were discriminated against in the past.

On the other hand, what really matters is who is bringing in viewers and money. I believe the women's events are, at least in the US, watched just as much as the men's. If that is true, it would be insane to say the women should not get equal money.

What it comes down to is that equal prize money is just PR. The events would lose a lot of money and get a lot of negative publicity if they openly declared that women were going to get less money.
 

heftylefty

Hall of Fame
What is with the whining about equal pay for women at Wimbledon?

Is Wimbledon going broke paying the same amount to men and women? No. And it's the same for all Slam. Women lobbied for equal pay and the Slams said Okay. We don't deduct pay from men in Slam if there is a blowout; so why whine when it happens on the women's side?
 

SpicyCurry1990

Hall of Fame
The bold is completely subjective. Asinine statement.

As for quality of play in general, the women shouldn't be penalized because they're currently in an era where the competition is not as strong. It's just the way it is.

For your third point, do you have statistics to back this up? If it's true, it's your only credible argument, albeit a small one.

1) Its not completely subjective nor is it asinine. We have verifiable evidence of the Williams sisters losing to a man set to fall to 350th in the world after AO 98, by scores of 6-1 and 6-2 at a time they were on their rise into the world's top 20 women and Venus played in the 2nd week of a women's slam (reaching the 98 AO QF) and Serena only didn't because she drew Venus earlier. Both would go on to play in many 2nd weeks of slams later that year and into the future.

Challengers events typically field players ranked between 50th - 500th, with the majority of players being in the 150-250 range. If a guy ranked on the lower side of the challengers continuum was dominating women ranked on the lower side of 2nd week slam qualification, I think its fair to estimate that an average Challengers draw would be the same level of play as the average second week women's slam (The slam champion and the challengers champion would play a close match and early losers of both would play a close match).

2) Read properly, I didn't say the quality of play was low, I said the QUANTITY of play was low. They play less sets of tennis regardless of how long a match goes. The shortest a man's match can go in slams is 3 sets and the longest a women's match can go is 3 sets.

But in terms of quality since you brought it up, it has nothing to do with the level of competition of the era, regardless of how stacked a women's era was, it would still be head and shoulders below the men's era. Even the greatest women of all time in their prime could not even qualify for the men's main draw of a slam and if you think otherwise, you just don't know the sport.

3) You can search the stats for yourself but I will give you just a couple pertinent to the topic.

This year's Men's Wimbledon Final had a peak audience of 9.8 million people in the UK and then women's had a peak audience of 3.3 million in the UK.

But you say because the match was close?

In that case last year's Men's Final (a straight set blow out) drew an audience of 17 million in the UK and women's Final had a peak audience of around the same as this year. Of course Murray winning had a lot to do with the UK peak.

But in the USA for example approx 2 million people watched both the Djoker/Murray and Djoker/Fed finals. In fact slightly more watched last year, while around 1 million watched both the 2013 and 2014 women's finals.
 

HunterST

Hall of Fame
1) Its not completely subjective nor is it asinine. We have verifiable evidence of the Williams sisters losing to a man set to fall to 350th in the world after AO 98, by scores of 6-1 and 6-2 at a time they were on their rise into the world's top 20 women and Venus played in the 2nd week of a women's slam (reaching the 98 AO QF) and Serena only didn't because she drew Venus earlier. Both would go on to play in many 2nd weeks of slams later that year and into the future.

Challengers events typically field players ranked between 50th - 500th, with the majority of players being in the 150-250 range. If a guy ranked on the lower side of the challengers continuum was dominating women ranked on the lower side of 2nd week slam qualification, I think its fair to estimate that an average Challengers draw would be the same level of play as the average second week women's slam (The slam champion and the challengers champion would play a close match and early losers of both would play a close match).

2) Read properly, I didn't say the quality of play was low, I said the QUANTITY of play was low. They play less sets of tennis regardless of how long a match goes. The shortest a man's match can go in slams is 3 sets and the longest a women's match can go is 3 sets.

But in terms of quality since you brought it up, it has nothing to do with the level of competition of the era, regardless of how stacked a women's era was, it would still be head and shoulders below the men's era. Even the greatest women of all time in their prime could not even qualify for the men's main draw of a slam and if you think otherwise, you just don't know the sport.

3) You can search the stats for yourself but I will give you just a couple pertinent to the topic.

This year's Men's Wimbledon Final had a peak audience of 9.8 million people in the UK and then women's had a peak audience of 3.3 million in the UK.

But you say because the match was close?

In that case last year's Men's Final (a straight set blow out) drew an audience of 17 million in the UK and women's Final had a peak audience of around the same as this year. Of course Murray winning had a lot to do with the UK peak.

But in the USA for example approx 2 million people watched both the Djoker/Murray and Djoker/Fed finals. In fact slightly more watched last year, while around 1 million watched both the 2013 and 2014 women's finals.

Uhh, no. These women are fantastic athletes, but they are limited by physical factors.

The top women are more like 6.0 men. They would have close matches with D1 men and guys playing prize money open events.
 

gambitt

Banned
Exactly. Let the economy and market determine what is fair pay.

WTA should not be a blood sucker .

I would say , do a trial run for 2-3 year period holding the majors in different weeks and see what sponsorship / ticket sales it sees.

If it is proved that it is equal, then we can once and for all shut down this argument.

They would never do it but this is the fairest way to find out.

Can you imagine a joint World Cup event in Brazil right now with the female players demanding the same amount of prize money simply because "they train just as hard as the men"?

No other sport would put up with this reverse sexism; only tennis. (it's amazing I have to use "reverse" to get my point across)

Money talks. Any other argument is meaningless.
 

pennc94

Professional
What is with the whining about equal pay for women at Wimbledon?

Is Wimbledon going broke paying the same amount to men and women? No. And it's the same for all Slam. Women lobbied for equal pay and the Slams said Okay. We don't deduct pay from men in Slam if there is a blowout; so why whine when it happens on the women's side?

I agree it's pointless to whine about it since this is the way it will be.

However, set aside political correctness, prize money should reflect the business side of the game. If tournament X has a pool of prize money and it agrees to pay male and female champions equally, then one of the two gets short changed if he/she is the economic engine of the tournament.
 

gambitt

Banned
What is with the whining about equal pay for women at Wimbledon?

Is Wimbledon going broke paying the same amount to men and women? No. And it's the same for all Slam. Women lobbied for equal pay and the Slams said Okay. We don't deduct pay from men in Slam if there is a blowout; so why whine when it happens on the women's side?

But you end up with guys like Dodig who at one time had to sleep in his car because he couldn't afford a hotel room, despite the fact that he could double bagel Sharapova or Serena in under 30 minutes.
 

Pa1

New User
Market should always determine the prize money.If Men generate more revenue,they should get more and that'll only be fair.There's nothing sexist about it.
 

gambitt

Banned
Number of sets is irrelevant. Mens doubles is often best 3 but do they get the same prize money as the women? The Bryan brothers should demand to be paid the same as Sharapova.
 

Pa1

New User
Number of sets is irrelevant. Mens doubles is often best 3 but do they get the same prize money as the women? The Bryan brothers should demand to be paid the same as Sharapova.

Exactly!

BO 5 argument is BS.Women playing BO 5 will make it even tough for ATP fans to enjoy Tennis due to the endless waiting.Revenue generated by Mens matches and Womens matches should be the criteria to determine the prize money.
 

heftylefty

Hall of Fame
But you end up with guys like Dodig who at one time had to sleep in his car because he couldn't afford a hotel room, despite the fact that he could double bagel Sharapova or Serena in under 30 minutes.

But Dodig wouldn't play either woman unless he got a sex change. So, I fail to see your point.

Slams are under no obligation to pay equal. They do because it's good for their brand and their business.
 

heftylefty

Hall of Fame
I agree it's pointless to whine about it since this is the way it will be.

However, set aside political correctness, prize money should reflect the business side of the game. If tournament X has a pool of prize money and it agrees to pay male and female champions equally, then one of the two gets short changed if he/she is the economic engine of the tournament.

When why not pay the winner and loser on the men side the same money, since you can't have a winner without a loser? Bother players are the economic engine tournament.
 

pennc94

Professional
When why not pay the winner and loser on the men side the same money, since you can't have a winner without a loser? Bother players are the economic engine tournament.

I always thought it makes sense to reward those who succeed more than those who do not.
 

jones101

Hall of Fame
Sharapova/Halep FO final had more Eurosport viewers than the Nadal/Djokovic final.

The women's final was just as long and better quality too.

Just sayin...
 
Last edited:

heftylefty

Hall of Fame
So women should get paid much more than men who can beat them simply because they have female reproductive organs?

It's apples and oranges.

It's not different than the fact that Maria and Serena generate tonnes of money off court. Should Dodig get paid the same endorsement dollars?
 

heftylefty

Hall of Fame
I always thought it makes sense to reward those who succeed more than those who do not.

But you orignally commented about the "economic engine"; and I am stating the fact you can't have a winner without a loser so why not pay both the same?

Women don't compete against men.

Also, who is up for watching a "break-fest" for 5 sets having women play best of 5 like men? Sometimes quantity doesn't equal quality.
 
Last edited:

pennc94

Professional
It's apples and oranges.

It's not different than the fact that Maria and Serena generate tonnes of money off court. Should Dodig get paid the same endorsement dollars?

You've just provided the justification for unequal prize money.
 

gambitt

Banned
Maria generates off court because she's marketable (personally I fail to see how). Now we're getting Bouchard rammed down our throats. They are put on centre court, loads of media coverage so of course sponsors want to slap their products on them.

This is all irrelevant to prize money. Why should a lower skilled player (Sharapova) get paid more prize money than a higher skilled player (Dodig). Just to recap, your reasons so far are:

1. She has female reproductive organs
2. She generates "tonnes of money off court"
3. ?

Maybe I should ask my boss for a big raise, you know, since I have a business on the side selling stuff on auction sites...
 

pennc94

Professional
But you orignally commented about the "economic engine"; and I am stating the fact you can't have a winner without a loser so why not pay both the same?

Women don't compete against men.

Also, who is up for watch a "break-fest" for 5 sets having women play best of 5 like men? Sometimes quantity doesn't equal quality.

If men's tennis is the greater economic engine, then you could also justify the male runner up getting greater prize money than both female finalists. Reverse would be true if women's tennis was the greater economic engine.

I agree - its not about quantity of tennis.
 

Peters

Professional
The thing is, it's the principle; regardless of the perceived quality & consistency in women's tennis at the moment, the concept of equal pay is a sound one.

It's just a shame that the modern women's game, by its very nature, allows for more instances of shortened, uncompetitive games due to the issues of bad match-ups, big hitters having a great day, the practical difficulties of smaller players finding a way to turn the tide, etc.

But, there is a possibility of a decent, competitive women's final that could go down to the wire. It happens occasionally - and when it does, people don't generally complain about the number of sets that were played, or whether they should have been paid less.

It's this wider spectrum of potential non-competitiveness, quality (or 'spectacle') in the women's game that sometimes throws up an unfortunate comparison to the (usually) well-fought men's finals.

But....they're fighting for slam titles that are just as important and prestigious within the women's game as they are in the men's game - regardless of whether many rate the men's game much higher. They have to be offered the same prize.
 

FedLIKEnot

Professional
We have discussed this topic before, but in light of the stark contrasts we saw in the Wimbledon finals will there be any movement towards going away from equal prize money ?

WTA final : Kvitova beats Bouchard for 3 games in 55 minutes

ATP Final : Novak beats Fed in 5 sets in 3 hours 57 minutes.

We need a woman like Billie Jean , but with diametrically opposite views , who says this cannot go any longer.

Perhaps Amelie Mauresmo , now that she coaches Andy Murray ?

Yes equal prize money is fair and warranted. Regardless of the outcome, center court still sold out it was still being watched on tv. Now of course the ratings were not as high but that is due to names. If Serena in good health had played Sharapova or something of the like its a great watch, conversely if Dimitrov had advanced to play Roanic (sp?) that would have had a negative impact on ratings would you ask those two to take less money?

Its sexist and narrom minded to think that two equal parties doing the same job don't warrant the same pay. Out of curiosity do you have a daughter cause I wonder how far down that path your thoughts go to want a women to say "no we don't need to be treated with equality or fairness"...
 

Brian11785

Hall of Fame
Pretty hilarious reading the misogynist peanut gallery misguidedly wax poetic about the "free market."

Did the US government force the US Open to start paying women equal prize money?

What it comes down to is that a certain contingent does not watch women's tennis (that's fine) and can't wrap their heads around the fact that others do...and in some cases, prefer it.

Look at the ratings of the US Open finals last year.
 
Last edited:

Brian11785

Hall of Fame
Yes equal prize money is fair and warranted. Regardless of the outcome, center court still sold out it was still being watched on tv. Now of course the ratings were not as high but that is due to names. If Serena in good health had played Sharapova or something of the like its a great watch, conversely if Dimitrov had advanced to play Roanic (sp?) that would have had a negative impact on ratings would you ask those two to take less money?

Its sexist and narrom minded to think that two equal parties doing the same job don't warrant the same pay. Out of curiosity do you have a daughter cause I wonder how far down that path your thoughts go to want a women to say "no we don't need to be treated with equality or fairness"...

Fantastic point.
 
Top