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

Vanhool

Hall of Fame
It's prize money that is won for playing a ****ing game! Prize money that none of you big babies will ever win! Why do women get equal? They raised a stink and got it based on moral grounds (and apparently somebody forgot to take a poll at TTW to define morality). Why is it good business? Sponsors probably figure women do an awful lot of shopping and make a lot of spending decisions and it is good PR. It's not about viewership, ticket sales barely cover cost of running the tournament, it's about selling stuff. Just watch the tennis and enjoy it and let the players worry about their own money. God and this is like the 50th time we've had this thread.
 

tennisaddict

Bionic Poster
It's prize money that is won for playing a ****ing game! Prize money that none of you big babies will ever win! Why do women get equal? They raised a stink and got it based on moral grounds (and apparently somebody forgot to take a poll at TTW to define morality). Why is it good business? Sponsors probably figure women do an awful lot of shopping and make a lot of spending decisions and it is good PR. It's not about viewership, ticket sales barely cover cost of running the tournament, it's about selling stuff. Just watch the tennis and enjoy it and let the players worry about their own money. God and this is like the 50th time we've had this thread.

Equal pay for lesser entertainment / lesser revenue is moral ?

By this logic , women should get the same as men in all sports. Why do you think this doesnt happen ?

Because there was no blood sucker like Billie Jean before.
 

Vanhool

Hall of Fame
Equal pay for lesser entertainment / lesser revenue is moral ?

By this logic , women should get the same as men in all sports. Why do you think this doesnt happen ?

Because there was no blood sucker like Billie Jean before.

She is not a bloodsucker.

I did stipulate that they neglected to poll TTW regarding what is moral. Pages have been devoted here equating equal pay at slams to pedophilia, so I think this is obviously where they should have sought guidance.

I should have said symbolic not moral. They are trying to send a symbolic message that they value women equally even though they are of course inferior and cootie ridden.
 

heftylefty

Hall of Fame
Why should we boycott GSs where men play and we enjoy watching them play?

We even enjoy watching some women play and Venus-Kvitova and Maria-Halep FO final matches were great.

Reality is people like you can not come up with any valid reason why women should be paid the same in GS for less work of lower quality and for bringing less revenue.

I would even ignore less work argument, if you could prove they bring the same or more revenue.

Then they clearly deserve the same pay.

Professional Tennis is ENTERTAINMENT. And while you may not be entertained by the product on the court, it's still entertainment.

People like me have pointed out the reasons for pay equality, and people like Former PM Tony Blair have also. For people like you that have some strange ax to grind is beyond me.
 
Last edited:

tennisaddict

Bionic Poster
She is not a bloodsucker.

I did stipulate that they neglected to poll TTW regarding what is moral. Pages have been devoted here equating equal pay at slams to pedophilia, so I think this is obviously where they should have sought guidance.

I should have said symbolic not moral. They are trying to send a symbolic message that they value women equally even though they are of course inferior and cootie ridden.

I guess my local club DJ needs to fight to get equal pay as Madonna or Miley Cyrus because he also puts up a show.
 

andrewski

Semi-Pro
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.

I am sorry for referring to you as a businesswoman. I probably red too much into your comments about women doing the same or more work as men getting paid less.
I assume you actually experienced this yourself at managerial level, no hidden agenda from me.

Our basic disagreement is about whether women tennis players do the same work.

I disagree. We are not talking about amateur days, tennis is business, so it should worked like one.

Lets disregard argument about less work of lesser quality and just accept that tennis is entertainment industry and women get paid on this basis.

Fact is WTA prize money was $53mln in 2012, whereas ATP was $80mln.

Unless you have evidence that in GSs women can generate more revenue than in WTA tournaments, then clearly they generate less revenue than man.

So, why should men not claim the bigger share of the pool reserved for prize money?

I never said anything you quoted in your reply re "where in the prize money contract etc." and I do not see what relevance it has to my argument.

My argument should be very easy to grasp if someone had an open mind.

Tennis is business and participants should be paid on the basis of contribution to the business regardless of gender.

At the moment men players subsidise female players at GSs.

Because men bring more revenue and the prize money pot only exists because revenue comes in, men share should be greater.

Just because women are discriminated on pay in other jobs, we should not accept reverse discrimination in tennis.

I am not saying that anything will ever change, but it does not mean it is right.
 
Last edited:

Vanhool

Hall of Fame
I guess my local club DJ needs to fight to get equal pay as Madonna or Miley Cyrus because he also puts up a show.

He is free to negotiate whatever kind of deal he can make. If he does get equal pay, he better watch his back. I bet the Miley message boards are a lot rougher than TTW.
 

wings56

Hall of Fame
It's funny how people make their own justifications as to why men or women, should get paid more/less than the opposite gender, when the real reason for most, if not all of you, is that YOU PREFER one over the other. Simple as that. It's not about trying to convince yourselves with subjective reasoning, when deep down, everyone knows its whether they like women's tennis, or don't, or in the case of some of the males, trying to play the "I'm sensitive to women's rights" <wink><wink> (c'mon fellas, you know what I'm talking about... lol)

At the end of the day, the only true solution to the debate of equal pay, is for men and women to play in the same draw, against each other. Since they won't, here's a little tidbit to chew on (which may come as a shocker), in everyday jobs, there are women that get paid more than men, and there are men that get paid more than women, for the same jobs - and it's not because they are men, or women. SHOCKER, yeah I know right?!?!

Bolded text is the only true solution. The reality is that whether it's the WTA or your coworker, each person or group has lobbied/bargained for their current pay. If the market is willing to pay them based on that, whether it is due to social pressure or whatever else, that is what's fair. It will take a group who share a different opinion of what is fair to bring their current beliefs to the powers that be to initiate change and a new 'fair' will be established.

The market is going to bear whatever is thrown at it, and there will always be groups of people who feel that whatever is currently in place is wrong. Until those groups of people become loud and strong enough, no change will take place. Majority rules regardless of how right or wrong they may be.
 

ttbrowne

Hall of Fame
I've said it before: Women at slams need to be playing 8 game sets. Instead of 6, do 8. It's only fair to lengthen the matches in a major for them. Yes, It might be a little boring but it could be quite better to see which women pros are in top shape.
 

JonC

Banned
She is not a bloodsucker.

I did stipulate that they neglected to poll TTW regarding what is moral. Pages have been devoted here equating equal pay at slams to pedophilia, so I think this is obviously where they should have sought guidance.

I should have said symbolic not moral. They are trying to send a symbolic message that they value women equally even though they are of course inferior and cootie ridden.

You avoided the question - should women be paid the same as men in ALL sports?
 

JonC

Banned
Tennis players are athletes, not entertainers. The revenue from the 'entertainment' side of the job is garnered from sponsorships et al.

And the WTA brings in less money than the ATP - the same pattern holds at the combined tournaments. Where is your argument? It's self-refutuing.
 

JonC

Banned
He is free to negotiate whatever kind of deal he can make. If he does get equal pay, he better watch his back. I bet the Miley message boards are a lot rougher than TTW.

It's ok with you then if men collectively decide to pay women half of their current salaries? They negotiated after all. Of course not, you would start crying about the "unfairness"of it all. Yet, you are unable (more like unwilling) to see the unfairness in paying a female entertainer the same as a male entertainer who brings in more revenue. You've bought into the agenda and like wallowing in the feigned righteousness of it all.
 

spirit95

Professional
And the WTA brings in less money than the ATP - the same pattern holds at the combined tournaments. Where is your argument? It's self-refutuing.

I'm saying that the ITF should pay men and women the same money for getting to the same stages of majors, because they have achieved the same thing. I'm not talking about the WTA or the ATP.
 

heftylefty

Hall of Fame
Wow, there are some charter members of He-Man Women Haters Club here. Are guys be ticked off that women have the right to vote?
 

tennisaddict

Bionic Poster
I'm saying that the ITF should pay men and women the same money for getting to the same stages of majors, because they have achieved the same thing. I'm not talking about the WTA or the ATP.

By reaching the same round, They did not achieve the same thing.

I think one of the other person gave a more reasonable argument - whole thing is not based on what value the women provided.

It is a symbolic gesture to say that man and woman are the same , acknowledging that a male athlete is a different species than the female.
 

Thriller

Hall of Fame
I posted this elsewhere but it still applies to this thread:

Why do the women tennis players get the same prize money as the men at the slams.?

Because the WTA has the commercial clout to get it. Put it another way, the slams would have lost far more in revenue from the women boycotting the tournaments than they lost by agreeing to equalise the prize money. If mens doubles or wheelchair players had the same commercial power as the WTA they would have equal prize money too.

Can you imagine if a man and a woman worked for the same company but the woman had to work 3 times as long, sell much more product, and be much better at the job to get the same pay. Surely we would all say this was wrong.

Neither the men nor the women are PAID anything at the slams. They compete for prizes for winning rounds. It would be absurd of John Isner to think that he was somehow being treated unfairly for getting the same first round prize for winning 70 – 68 in the fifth set as another man got for winning with a walkover. The prize is for the win not for the amount of time, effort, sets etc so equal pay legislation/theory is irrelevant here.

The men's game is more popular and brings in the most money and it's not even close. The women's game is riding on the men's.

No it isn’t. You are aware that apart from the slams, the WTA has its own totally independent tour and that it is very successful?

From the WTA site:
The WTA is the global leader in women's professional sport with more than 2,500 players representing 92 nations competing for more than $100 million in prize money at the WTA's 54 events and four Grand Slams in 33 countries. Over 5.4 million people attended women's tennis events in 2012 with hundreds of millions more watching on television and digital channels around the world.

http://www.wtatennis.com/scontent/article/2951989/title/about-the-wta#sthash.LpcZlVOt.dpuf

Did you know that at the joint event in Miami 2013, the women’s champion got a bigger prize than the man?

ATP Winner: Andy Murray $719,160
WTA Winner: Serena Williams $724,000


Obviously the WTA must be doing very well if it can afford to reward its winners with a larger cheque than the ATP.

Now if you are a top woman and on your own tour you can get prize money more or less the same as the top men all year around, why would you come to a Slam and agree to play for less?

Popularity? You do know that 116 million people in China alone watched Li Na become French Open champion? Find me a men’s match that has received anything close to those ratings.

You might not care but the slams surely do care about the sales of TV rights and corporate sponsors do care about being able to gain access to emerging markets in Asia and the Middle East where women’s tennis is much more popular than men’s. This makes the WTA a powerful player in the international sports sector.

You might not like or respect women’s tennis but around the world there are plenty of people who do and more than enough of them to make the WTA tour very strong and successful and give it the corporate clout to get what it wants in business.

Deal with it.
 

HunterST

Hall of Fame
Thriller had good points, but saying "women get equal prize money because they have strong bargaining power" is a far cry from the moral arguments that are typically cited.

If you want to say people who don't agree with equal prize money do not understand collective bargaining and PR, that seems fair, but it's not accurate to say they're sexist, immoral, etc.

By the way, if the WTA is paying out prize money separate from the ATP, I'm all for the women getting as much money as they can. I don't care if it's double what the men get.
 

Vanhool

Hall of Fame
Delete post. I don't want to get banned and won't have time to change m mind for a few hours so I'd better can it now.
 
Last edited:

Midaso240

Legend
Wasn't there one year,was it '88 or '89 when Steffi Graf won the most prize money,men or women? And this was before equal prize money...
 

edk1512

New User
Comparison is being done because WTA is sucking blood out of ITF.



One data point. Excellent. FYI , the financial commitment of both tournaments are the same.



Well, Players like Milos Raonic have to exist for Andy Murray to play on the tour. If Sharapova vanishes tomorrow, it does not impact Andy Murray or ATP. (may be just Dmitrov).

Anyone can come up with some silly comments to support his/her argument like Dodig one.

Your statement "I guess the Year-End etc.", is just silly. You have no evidence for this statement.

However fact is that WTA prize money for 2012 is $53mln, whereas ATP prize money is $80mln and there is no information indicating that sponsors and TV broadcast rights for WTA are more than ATP.

There is no logical reason why women players would generate the same revenue man do in GS if they can not do it outside GS, but I am happy to admit I am wrong if someone provides evidence to the contrary.

So facts as we know them are:

1) women players play shorter matches in GS and spend less time on court and on TV screens.
2) women players generate less revenue than men players do.

Only someone who never had to make budget decisions in business would conclude on this evidence that women players deserve the same pay.

But then women pay in GS has nothing to do with finance and common sense, but everything to do with PC circus of "rights".

Situation at GS is gender bias in reverse.

btw to make it clear: It is a FACT that in many jobs and professions women are discriminated against and paid less for the same or more work than men.

However in tennis situation is reversed.


OK. I stand corrected. Both Year End Championships offer the same prize money
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_WTA_Tour#October
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_ATP_World_Tour#November

But if anything this adds support to the equal prize money argument not against it.

Also comparing the whole tours prize money is still a silly argument because
1. The WTA tour is one month less than the ATP tour
2. The tournaments categories are different. Less tournaments on the WTA tour enforce all eligible players to participate than the 9 masters on the ATP tour, hence it must have different total prize money.

And the 3 set/5 set argument is ridiculous. Not all jobs offer money based on work hours. Some jobs are commission-based. They offer you based on what revenue you get. And as mentioned, both Year end championships, the only two equivalent non-slam tournaments on both tours, offer equal prize money.
 

wings56

Hall of Fame
It would be quite interesting to see what would happen if the ATP and WTA were eliminated and a single co-ed tour was formed... Who would make the money... How high could a woman become ranked?

We certainly wouldn't be having this argument.
 

Vanhool

Hall of Fame
It's ok with you then if men collectively decide to pay women half of their current salaries? They negotiated after all. Of course not, you would start crying about the "unfairness"of it all. Yet, you are unable (more like unwilling) to see the unfairness in paying a female entertainer the same as a male entertainer who brings in more revenue. You've bought into the agenda and like wallowing in the feigned righteousness of it all.
You are being very presumptive and aggressive in your assessments of my personality and I don't appreciate it. I don't know you at all (other than the things I've seen you post in this thread) and you certainly don't know me. Also, I haven't said or done any of the things you accuse me of; you have lumped me into your monolithic liberal enemy/monster, which I find annoying as well.

If anything, you are the one "crying about the injustice of it all" page after page, along with some other strange stuff that creates an interesting psychological profile. Your post initially made me very angry and I felt like it earned me the right to make some rude comments about you, but I deleted them. I decided I have no desire to engage in a conversation with you at all because you come off as hostile and attention seeking, and I am just getting aggravated. I come here to have fun, not to fight in troll wars, so I guess I'd better back out of this thread before I raise my blood pressure and say something I shouldn't.
 
Last edited:

luvly

Professional
this whole thread is just funny and sad...this is one of the few instances in which women make equal money to men not more just equal. you do realize that in most cases women make less money than men even when they have equal experience and education for the same position.
 

Brian11785

Hall of Fame
It would be quite interesting to see what would happen if the ATP and WTA were eliminated and a single co-ed tour was formed... Who would make the money... How high could a woman become ranked?

We certainly wouldn't be having this argument.

I suppose that we should also eliminate weight classes in boxing, right?
 

JonC

Banned
So far there has not been one logical argument made for women being paid the same as men. They are only paid the same in combined tournaments and paid less when looking at WTA vs ATP tournaments - why is that? Why didn't Venus and Billy Jean petition the WTA to rasie their prize money to equal men's?
 

JonC

Banned
She is not a bloodsucker.

They are trying to send a symbolic message that they value women equally even though they are of course inferior and cootie ridden.

So you are admitting that this is all a PC symbolic gesture. They pay women the same even though they bring in less revenue simply to go along with the idea that women are exactly the same as men. That's what your opponents have been saying all along. We don't agree with paying someone more purely as a gesture of PC compliance - that's not moral or fair. You can't single out women and leave wheelchair bound players in the dust. You can't pick and choose your personal victim group while ignoring others - actually, that's exactly what's happened. Fair?
 

tennisaddict

Bionic Poster
Is 'gender card' the fancy phrase for 'I don't really have a rational argument to come back with so I will just issue an ad hominem attack on you for being pro-equality'?

Most of your long post was verbiage, not facts. This was the gist of your post.

(1) WTA has commercial clout and they negotiated based on that.
(2) In Joint tournaments they offer same prize money
(3) Asian Markets support WTA more

- How do you know it is commercial clout and not a cry for gender equality ?

- why have they not been able to offer more tournaments (not the mickey mouse WTA 125 tournaments that start and stop) in more places ?

- Do you have the financials of WTA to prove it is doing well ? How do you know it is popular in emerging markets ? If so, why did a 6 year title sponsor, Sony Ericsson, drop out in 2013 ?


I am willing to go with a perspective that an other poster offered. The whole thing is "symbolic" and not representational of effort / talent / value.

But you claim otherwise, without offering proof. One Li Na finals being watched in China does not cut it. Both you and me know that when Li Na loses in the 3 R like she did last two majors, no one in China turns on the tube.
 

Vanhool

Hall of Fame
So you are admitting that this is all a PC symbolic gesture. They pay women the same even though they bring in less revenue simply to go along with the idea that women are exactly the same as men. That's what your opponents have been saying all along. We don't agree with paying someone more purely as a gesture of PC compliance - that's not moral or fair. You can't single out women and leave wheelchair bound players in the dust. You can't pick and choose your personal victim group while ignoring others - actually, that's exactly what's happened. Fair?

Ugh. I promised my wife I would stop arguing on the internet, but since you addressed me like an actual person...

I'm not "admitting" anything. That implies some kind of guilt. I do think it's a symbolic gesture and I don't characterize it as PC (I believe conservatives have coopted this term as a lazy way of lashing out every time they don't agree with something, and as a way to play the victim card when they get called out for saying something mean).

I can understand why you think this is immoral and unfair. I don't think it's immoral. This is prize money, not pay, and they have not deducted anything from the men's prize money. Both men and women have increased their prize money. One could argue that the money the women are getting could be distributed amongst the men, but in my experience that's not how business works. When they downsize or automate, they never distribute the extra money amongst the remaining employees. Never.

Is it unfair? I can see your case for that. My whole life, my conservative parents were constantly telling me that life is unfair. And they were right. It is. There are many injustices in the world, and of them all this is probably on the very bottom of my list (edit: it's not even on my list at all, but I understand why it's on someone else's). The only players I've heard publicly complain were Tipsy and Simon, not exactly big box office draws. Again, nothing has been taken from them, it's just been added to the ladies, so while it may be "unfair", it just comes off kind of petty to me to get worked up about it.

Honestly, if they gave wheelchair players and doubles players equal prize money I wouldn't give a crap. Why should I? You seem to be the one obsessed with defending (male) "victims".

As I stated before, I think the symbolic gesture of equal pay is more about sponsors creating a positive image with women (and men who are supportive of women) because of their purchasing power. It makes good business sense to them, or they wouldn't do it. And I think it's nice. I understand the arguments against it, but not the hostility.
 
Last edited:

wings56

Hall of Fame
I suppose that we should also eliminate weight classes in boxing, right?

Interesting point. Some things to be considered in the comparison.

I have no idea what women's boxing brings in prize money compared to men's but I would imagine it is dramatically less. The whole reason that women don't compete against men in boxing is because it wouldn't be fair, even following those weight classes.
The same reason the tours are separate is because the women cannot compete at the level of the men. This being said, the argument is that it is not fair that an inferior competitor gets paid the same as a far superior competitor.

Weight classes in boxing is very interesting. I don't know if different weight classes provide different payouts, but I think this most closely aligns with the 'legends' and 'senior' type tours in tennis.

Obviously the people with the greatest skillset (ATP) will bring the highest crowds and paychecks as compared to those on the 'legends' tour or anything of that nature.

How could one argue that a 55 year old McEnroe beating 42 year old Pete Sampras in a 2 out of 3 set (tiebreak in the 3rd) match weild an equal paycheck to the recent 5 set victory of Djokovic over Federer.

I don't think it is sexist in any capacity to expect more compensation for a higher level whether its ATP vs WTA or ATP vs Legends.

On the subject of weight classes... how many more people do you think would care to watch the finals of 5.0 nationals compared to 3.5 nationals?
 

JonC

Banned
Ugh. I promised my wife I would stop arguing on the internet, but since you addressed me like an actual person...

I'm not "admitting" anything. That implies some kind of guilt. I do think it's a symbolic gesture and I don't characterize it as PC (I believe conservatives have coopted this term as a lazy way of lashing out every time they don't agree with something, and as a way to play the victim card when they get called out for saying something mean).

I can understand why you think this is immoral and unfair. I don't think it's immoral. This is prize money, not pay, and they have not deducted anything from the men's prize money. Both men and women have increased their prize money. One could argue that the money the women are getting could be distributed amongst the men, but in my experience that's not how business works. When they downsize or automate, they never distribute the extra money amongst the remaining employees. Never.

Is it unfair? I can see your case for that. My whole life, my conservative parents were constantly telling me that life is unfair. And they were right. It is. There are many injustices in the world, and of them all this is probably on the very bottom of my list. The only players I've heard publicly complain were Tipsy and Simon, not exactly big box office draws. Again, nothing has been taken from them, it's just been added to the ladies, so while it may be unfair, it just comes off kind of petty to me to get worked up about it.

Honestly, if they gave wheelchair players and doubles players equal prize money I wouldn't give a crap. Why should I? You seem to be the one obsessed with defending (male) victims.

As I stated before, I think the symbolic gesture of equal pay is more about sponsors creating a positive image with women (and men who are supportive of women) because of their purchasing power. It makes good business sense to them, or they wouldn't do it. And I think it's nice. I understand the arguments against it, but not the hostility.

Prize money not pay? Not following you there - how do you think players out of the top 20 (or close) make money? You admit that the women are subsidized, you're ok with that because---it's just not something you feel like worrying about. It makes business since only in the light of understanding the power of political correctness and the power of "victim" groups. Women players are obviously NOT victims - they were paid according to the revenue they brought in which. Ironically, this is how they are still paid in WTA-only tournaments which pay them about half of an equivalent men's tournament. But I get it- you just don't feel like worrying about, much easier to join the PC crowd, rationalize it, and just get along.
 

Vanhool

Hall of Fame
Interesting point. Some things to be considered in the comparison.

I have no idea what women's boxing brings in prize money compared to men's but I would imagine it is dramatically less. The whole reason that women don't compete against men in boxing is because it wouldn't be fair, even following those weight classes.
The same reason the tours are separate is because the women cannot compete at the level of the men. This being said, the argument is that it is not fair that an inferior competitor gets paid the same as a far superior competitor.

Weight classes in boxing is very interesting. I don't know if different weight classes provide different payouts, but I think this most closely aligns with the 'legends' and 'senior' type tours in tennis.

Obviously the people with the greatest skillset (ATP) will bring the highest crowds and paychecks as compared to those on the 'legends' tour or anything of that nature.

How could one argue that a 55 year old McEnroe beating 42 year old Pete Sampras in a 2 out of 3 set (tiebreak in the 3rd) match weild an equal paycheck to the recent 5 set victory of Djokovic over Federer.

I don't think it is sexist in any capacity to expect more compensation for a higher level whether its ATP vs WTA or ATP vs Legends.

On the subject of weight classes... how many more people do you think would care to watch the finals of 5.0 nationals compared to 3.5 nationals?

Rhonda Rousey is one of the most popular UFC fighters. She headlined a pay per view and was the co main on the last one - and she only fought for 16 seconds. Which I watched over and over and over :) I know they had a male flyweight as their main fight on a recent pay per view and the box office wasn't as good as some of the other events. Dana White (head of UFC) said the little guys don't usually do as well and that he thought it was kind of a shame because they put on a good show. He didn't mention giving them pay cuts. Not saying any of this as part of a larger argument either way, just some info I have on the subject.
 

JonC

Banned
Rhonda Rousey is one of the most popular UFC fighters. She headlined a pay per view and was the co main on the last one - and she only fought for 16 seconds. Which I watched over and over and over :) I know they had a male flyweight as their main fight on a recent pay per view and the box office wasn't as good as some of the other events. Dana White (head of UFC) said the little guys don't usually do as well and that he thought it was kind of a shame because they put on a good show. He didn't mention giving them pay cuts. Not saying any of this as part of a larger argument either way, just some info I have on the subject.

Do the women or men fighters bring in more revenue? -that is the only question that needs to be answered.
 
Are the same people who are so adamant about equal prize money for men and women also as adamant about an equal number of Division 1 tennis scholarships for men and women? Why not?
 

Vanhool

Hall of Fame
Prize money not pay? Not following you there - how do you think players out of the top 20 (or close) make money? You admit that the women are subsidized, you're ok with that because---it's just not something you feel like worrying about. It makes business since only in the light of understanding the power of political correctness and the power of "victim" groups. Women players are obviously NOT victims - they were paid according to the revenue they brought in which. Ironically, this is how they are still paid in WTA-only tournaments which pay them about half of an equivalent men's tournament. But I get it- you just don't feel like worrying about, much easier to join the PC crowd, rationalize it, and just get along.

You are the one that keeps playing the victim card. Why can't you see that? These men are not being victimized. They are winning money for playing a fun game and they work hard to win that money (as do women and even *gasp* wheelchair people). Not only do I not worry about the equal pay, I like it. If I felt the "unfairness" was actually harming someone, I'd probably feel differently. If you want to label it PC, that's your prerogative, but I think that's just being lazy. I also think a lot of people just use this subject as a way to vent their anger at all kinds of things that are supposedly PC. You did so for several pages.
 

Vanhool

Hall of Fame
Further, how do you think they were able to raise the women's prize money while not lowering men's?

The power of google:
2006 women's prize money= $1.15 million, men's = $1.2 million
2007, first year equal prize money, both got $1.4 million.
This year both got something like $3 million.

I just don't feel sorry for the men and I don't resent the women. I do envy them, though :)
 

heftylefty

Hall of Fame
You are the one that keeps playing the victim card. Why can't you see that? These men are not being victimized. They are winning money for playing a fun game and they work hard to win that money (as do women and even *gasp* wheelchair people). Not only do I not worry about the equal pay, I like it. If I felt the "unfairness" was actually harming someone, I'd probably feel differently. If you want to label it PC, that's your prerogative, but I think that's just being lazy. I also think a lot of people just use this subject as a way to vent their anger at all kinds of things that are supposedly PC. You did so for several pages.

I think that is at the core of the issue. People using the term PC is just another way for them to say "I have my feet planted firmly in the Past; and how dare "the others" have a voice or take a stand".

Venus Williams Op-Ed to (London) The Times & The Sunday Times June 26, 2006

The time has come for it to do the right thing: pay men and women equal prize money

HAVE YOU ever been let down by someone that you had long admired, respected and looked up to? Little in life is more disappointing, particularly when that person does something that goes against the very heart of what you believe is right and fair.

When I was a little girl, and Serena and I played matches together, we often pretended that we were in the final of a famous tournament. More often than not we imagined we were playing on the Centre Court at Wimbledon. Those two young sisters from Compton, California, were “Wimbledon champions” many times, years before our dreams of playing there became reality.

There is nothing like playing at Wimbledon; you can feel the footprints of the legends of the game — men and women — that have graced those courts. There isn’t a player who doesn’t dream of holding aloft the Wimbledon trophy. I have been fortunate to do so three times, including last year. That win was the highlight of my career to date, the culmination of so many years of work and determination, and at a time when most people didn’t consider me to be a contender.

So the decision of the All England Lawn Tennis Club yet again to treat women as lesser players than men — undeserving of the same amount of prize money — has a particular sting.

I’m disappointed not for myself but for all of my fellow women players who have struggled so hard to get here and who, just like the men, give their all on the courts of SW19. I’m disappointed for the great legends of the game, such as Billie Jean King, Martina Navratilova and Chris Evert, who have never stopped fighting for equality. And disappointed that the home of tennis is sending a message to women across the world that we are inferior.

With power and status comes responsibility. Well, Wimbledon has power and status. The time has come for it to do the right thing by paying men and women the same sums of prize money. The total prize pot for the men’s events is £5,197,440; for the women it is £4,446,490. The winner of the ladies’ singles receives £30,000 less than the men’s winner; the runner-up £15,000 less, and so on down to the first-round losers.

How can it be that Wimbledon finds itself on the wrong side of history? How can the words Wimbledon and inequality be allowed to coexist? I’ve spent my life overcoming challenges and those who said certain things couldn’t be achieved for this or that reason. My parents taught me that dreams can come true if you put in the effort. Maybe that’s why I feel so strongly that Wimbledon’s stance devalues the principle of meritocracy and diminishes the years of hard work that women on the tour have put into becoming professional tennis players.

I believe that athletes — especially female athletes in the world’s leading sport for women — should serve as role models. The message I like to convey to women and girls across the globe is that there is no glass ceiling. My fear is that Wimbledon is loudly and clearly sending the opposite message: 128 men and 128 women compete in the singles main draw at Wimbledon; the All England Club is saying that the accomplishments of the 128 women are worth less than those of the 128 men. It diminishes the stature and credibility of such a great event in the eyes of all women.

The funny thing is that Wimbledon treats men and women the same in so many other respects; winners receive the same trophy and honorary membership. And as you enter Centre Court, the two photographs of last year’s men’s and women’s champions are hung side by side, proudly and equally.

So why does Wimbledon choose to place a lesser value on my championship trophy than that of the 2005 men’s winner Roger Federer? The All England Club is familiar with my views on the subject; at Wimbledon last year, the day before the final, I presented my views to it and its French Open counterparts. Both clearly gave their response: they are firmly in the inequality for women camp.

Wimbledon has argued that women’s tennis is worth less for a variety of reasons; it says, for example, that because men play a best of five sets game they work harder for their prize money.

This argument just doesn’t make sense; first of all, women players would be happy to play five sets matches in grand slam tournaments. Tim Phillips, the chairman of the All England Club, knows this and even acknowledged that women players are physically capable of this.

Secondly, tennis is unique in the world of professional sports. No other sport has men and women competing for a grand slam championship on the same stage, at the same time. So in the eyes of the general public the men’s and women’s games have the same value.

Third, athletes are also entertainers; we enjoy huge and equal celebrity and are paid for the value we deliver to broadcasters and spectators, not the amount of time we spend on the stage. And, for the record, the ladies’ final at Wimbledon in 2005 lasted 45 minutes longer than the men’s. No extra charge.

Let’s not forget that the US Open, for 33 years, and the Australian Open already award equal prize money. No male player has complained — why would they?

Wimbledon has justified treating women as second class because we do more for the tournament. The argument goes that the top women — who are more likely also to play doubles matches than their male peers — earn more than the top men if you count singles, doubles and mixed doubles prize money. So the more we support the tournament, the more unequally we should be treated! But doubles and mixed doubles are separate events from the singles competition. Is Wimbledon suggesting that, if the top women withdrew from the doubles events, that then we would deserve equal prize money in singles? And how then does the All England Club explain why the pot of women’s doubles prize money is nearly £130,000 smaller than the men’s doubles prize money?

Equality is too important a principle to give up on for the sake of less than 2 per cent of the profit that the All England Club will make at this year’s tournament. Profit that men and women will contribute to equally through sold-out sessions, TV ratings or attraction to sponsors. Of course, one can never distinguish the exact value brought by each sex in a combined men’s and women’s championship, so any attempt to place a lesser value on the women’s contribution is an exercise in pure subjectivity.

Let’s put it another way, the difference between men and women’s prize money in 2005 was £456,000 — less than was spent on ice cream and strawberries in the first week. So the refusal of the All England Club, which declared a profit of £25 million from last year’s tournament, to pay equal prize money can’t be about cash. It can only be trying to make a social and political point, one that is out of step with modern society.

I intend to keep doing everything I can until Billie Jean’s original dream of equality is made real. It’s a shame that the name of the greatest tournament in tennis, an event that should be a positive symbol for the sport, is tarnished.
 
Last edited:

andrewski

Semi-Pro
Professional Tennis is ENTERTAINMENT. And while you may not be entertained by the product on the court, it's still entertainment.

People like me have pointed out the reasons for pay equality, and people like Former PM Tony Blair have also. For people like you that have some strange ax to grind is beyond me.

What I am entertained by is irrelevant to this argument.

I never said that tennis is not entertainment.

You are avoiding answering my question.

In all this thread, I did not see a single business reason for pay equality in tennis GSs between man and woman.

Please let me know what are the business reasons you and Tony Blair gave for equal pay in tennis?

I am NOT arguing against equal pay for women for the same work and I know that women are discriminated against in the workplace.

With this being true, I do not see why poor top 100 player should subsidize rich top 10 female player in GS.
 

heftylefty

Hall of Fame
What I am entertained by is irrelevant to this argument.

I never said that tennis is not entertainment.

You are avoiding answering my question.

In all this thread, I did not see a single business reason for pay equality in tennis GSs between man and woman.

Please let me know what are the business reasons you and Tony Blair gave for equal pay in tennis?

I am NOT arguing against equal pay for women for the same work and I know that women are discriminated against in the workplace.


With this being true, I do not see why poor top 100 player should subsidize rich top 10 female player in GS.

I have stated this once, but what the hell, I'll state it again: Wimbledon agreed to equal pay because it's good for their brand. I am sorry that is concept offends you.

If you are concerned about the the top 100 player not making enough money, that's an issue to the ATP Tour underfunding Futures and Challenagers.
 
Last edited:

Brian11785

Hall of Fame
Please let me know what are the business reasons you and Tony Blair gave for equal pay in tennis?

Business and political reasons are often inseparable. You do something politically objectionable, it hurts your brand. If you do something the overwhelming majority of people see as a positive, it helps your brand. If that isn't a business decision, what is?
 
Top