Cobaine
Semi-Pro
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.
This. So much this.
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.
These are academics from prestigious institutions, some belong to the APA. It's not the FRINGE.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/10948796/Paedophilia-is-natural-and-normal-for-males.html
tennis players are entertainers. they do not get paid for playing tennis but for entertaining people with their craft.
entertainers do not get paid by hours or quality of work, they get paid by how many spectators they can attract.
Now you are flip-flopping though, as this was not your argument a minute ago.
If it's about the value they provide (I am supposing you mean the revenue they generate), then shouldn't it be the same way with individual players? If Fed and Rafa go out in the semis, should they still be awarded more money than Berdych if he makes the final of a tournament?
I am saying that we as a society are more protective of children than we were 50 years ago.
It's Fringe...And how or why you are so off topic...really?
It's Fringe...And how or why you are so off topic...really?
Who is we? You are entitled to your opinion, but don't be using "we" as if what you're saying is unanimous Gospel. :twisted:
Do Masters tournaments not produce "real" champions? Are women's Grand Slam winners not "real' champions? I would say that I want "real" tennis players to win tournaments. Ones with the best tennis skills. Not the ones with the best fitness/endurance that win five setters on today's slow courts.
Also, if you hate Serve-bots, you should LOVE the WTA! Not many of those there!
This is often not true for athletes. Yes, attracting spectators is necessary to get money for prizes, but who attracts the most spectators is often not what decides how prize money in competition is distributed.
LOL, they ARE doing the same job! They're both playing tennis. Where in the prize money contract does it stipulate, "in order to receive prize money, winner of match must play in front of a sold out crowd with an average ticket price of $xyz"? You keep harping on a non factor.You are a bit drastic with your comments i.e. WTA tour exists and would exist even if GS split man and women events.
I agree with you of course, that they could not then pay the same money, unless they paid out much greater percentage of revenue in prize money than man GSs.
Lady you replied to, while being businesswoman does not help women tennis and women in business cause by NOT coming up with any logical, constructive, business driven argument as to why women players are paid the same as men in GSs.
Then, lets not be to harsh on her, there is no logical etc. argument available, so all these PC boys and girls can do is to come up with feely, touchy "we are all equal, doing the same job(not)" argument.
Now you are flip-flopping though, as this was not your argument a minute ago.
If it's about the value they provide (I am supposing you mean the revenue they generate), then shouldn't it be the same way with individual players? If Fed and Rafa go out in the semis, should they still be awarded more money than Berdych if he makes the final of a tournament?
LOL, they ARE doing the same job! They're both playing tennis. Where in the prize money contract does it stipulate, "in order to receive prize money, winner of match must play in front of a sold out crowd with an average ticket price of $xyz"? You keep harping on a non factor.
And why do you keep referring to me as businesswoman? Is that because I worked in an office? OK, IT guy.
You think the APA is fringe? DO you know what the APA is?
LOL, they ARE doing the same job! They're both playing tennis. Where in the prize money contract does it stipulate, "in order to receive prize money, winner of match must play in front of a sold out crowd with an average ticket price of $xyz"? You keep harping on a non factor.
And why do you keep referring to me as businesswoman? Is that because I worked in an office? OK, IT guy.
No flip flop. When other things being equal (both groups of lower ranked players not drawing any crowds by themselves ), the skill and talent that the ATP player brings in deserves more credit.
At the same time, it is one thing to ask Fedal, Djokovic, Murray to subsidize ATP. But making them patronize the WTA tour at the majors is where things are going wrong.
Yes, I do. The key word in your statement was "some". Not all, not many, not majority. Some. Like some people dispute the roundness of the Earth. It's Fringe. Just like marriage a male marrying an underage girl.
Again, let's try and stay on topic.
Kvitova spends as much time training and has beaten as many world-class opponents to win as Djokovic. The fact that tennis is the most gender-equal pro sport in the world is something we should be proud of.
Homosexuality was normalized by a small group of homosexual members of the APA - you should read about it sometime. NPR did a whole show on it - NPR should be cool with you. All you need is a loud minority and a silent and guilt-ridden public who has been brainwashed into feeling guilty for every conceivable victim group - like women athletes for instance.
Kvitova spends as much time training and has beaten as many world-class opponents to win as Djokovic. The fact that tennis is the most gender-equal pro sport in the world is something we should be proud of.
Its official...You need a hobby. Hey, you should check out Hobby Lobby.
Kvitova spends as much time training and has beaten as many world-class opponents to win as Djokovic. The fact that tennis is the most gender-equal pro sport in the world is something we should be proud of.
How do you feel about the prize money in the WTA tournaments being lower for the same level male tournaments? Seems like a possible injustice to fight against.
Why not ask ATP to subsidize them , since they play the same sport ? Oh wait, they are doing that already by advocating joint tournaments for even non majors.
How many times do we have to repeat that this is entertainment business and pay should be a derivative of value provided to the viewers. Value here means entertainment times number of viewers.
But this is not how it works at all in terms of prize money!
That would, as already mentioned, lead to absurd conclusions. Fed and Rafa would then have to be paid more prize money then less popular players, even if said players performed better at a tournament. But this is not how prize money at tennis tournaments works! This should not be hard to grasp.
At a grand slam players are paid for how many rounds they advance in a knockout tournament consisting of the best players of their own gender, not by their popularity (that is a case for endorsements and sponsorships).
And your claim that market value ought to determine prize money at grand slams, is at best a claim that needs moral justification, seeing as this is undeniably a moral argument.
Here's an idea: How about once players get to,say,the $50 million mark in prize money,they stop paying them prize money. I'm sure anyone who has earned that much will be getting enough in endorsements to keep them going.Fed and Nadal need not be paid more. If Berdych and Dmitrov win a few majors, then there will be enough viewers for them as well.
Going one step further, it is reasonable that Fedal subsidizes ATP field because they need players to play against. But there is no reason for Fedal to subsidize Schmeidlova and Panova.
How do you feel about the prize money in the WTA tournaments being lower for the same level male tournaments? Seems like a possible injustice to fight against.
How many times do we have to repeat that this is entertainment business and pay should be a derivative of value provided to the viewers. Value here means entertainment times number of viewers.
And yet you keep replying and yet you'll be one of those who shrugs his shoulders when the push to lower the age of consent for male homosexuals hits the news.
Does the OP understand what equal prize money is actually about????
LOL, they ARE doing the same job! They're both playing tennis. Where in the prize money contract does it stipulate, "in order to receive prize money, winner of match must play in front of a sold out crowd with an average ticket price of $xyz"? You keep harping on a non factor.
Kvitova spends as much time training and has beaten as many world-class opponents to win as Djokovic. The fact that tennis is the most gender-equal pro sport in the world is something we should be proud of.
How is one supposed to measure the amount of struggle needed to reach the top of ATP contra WTA? And how is one supposed to arrive at a fair amount of prize money according to the amount of struggle?
And seeing as you here signal that it is the amount of struggle that should dictate what one is paid: do you think all the men struggled equally to reach the positions they have reached? Are not some more advantaged than others in terms of talent/physical abilities, in terms of economic background and other backgrounds? Should this also be accounted for through differences in pay within the sexes?
If it's equality based on equal opportunity given to both sexes then that opportunity seized via merit. I would agree absolutely. If the equality is forced and artificial, then it's nothing to be proud of.
Giving ATP and WTA players equal opportunity to earn whatever they deserve should be the goal.
But I do know that at the tournament I've been to the majority of spectators are either women or women with children.
And there seemed to be an awful lot of women spectators at Wimbledon.
There should be equal prize money as it's a fraction of the revenue and needed to keep both tournaments high quality. But doubles and mix need to be dropped or heavily reduced, they're not relevant and a lower form of completion living off subsides with no development purpose.
Some of the very silly reasons are discussed here:
1. Men play 5 sets while women play only 3 sets.
But according to TW Men's tennis and Women's tennis are two different sports. Why are you comparing the two "different" sports? Should Tennis players be paid more than Football players because they play annually more hours?
2. Men generate more revenue than Women.
I guess the Year-end championship for women offers more prize money than the Men's WTF. Revenue doesn't come just form tickets sold.
3. Ivan Dodig is more skilled than Maria Sharapova and thus he should be paid more than her.
Well, Andy Murray is more skilled than Milos Raonic and the latter got paid more in this last Wimbledon. You don't get paid for skill, popularity or fame, you get paid for results.
Some of the very silly reasons are discussed here:
1. Men play 5 sets while women play only 3 sets.
But according to TW Men's tennis and Women's tennis are two different sports. Why are you comparing the two "different" sports? Should Tennis players be paid more than Football players because they play annually more hours?
2. Men generate more revenue than Women.
I guess the Year-end championship for women offers more prize money than the Men's WTF. Revenue doesn't come just form tickets sold.
3. Ivan Dodig is more skilled than Maria Sharapova and thus he should be paid more than her.
Well, Andy Murray is more skilled than Milos Raonic and the latter got paid more in this last Wimbledon. You don't get paid for skill, popularity or fame, you get paid for results.
If pay equality has become such an affront to some players and fans, time to man up and boycott the Slams. It's time that the rubber meet the road. If you unwilling to take a stand, PTFD.