Do women really generate equal revenue compared to men in terms of broadcasting and ticket sales?

smalahove

Hall of Fame
Equality ≠ equity ≠ fairness

These are not the same thing, and I see so many sophomore arguments, or even lack of arguments at all in this debate.

To me, the fundamentals lie in the principle of fairness, which imo take precedence over equality, esp since it can be argued that equality rests on the principle of fairness.

So when it comes to earnings and prize money, the two critical questions are:

How is the money generated?
How is it distributed?

To me it seems tennis should be more concerned with the distribution of (prize) money to ensure a sustainable competition.
 

smalahove

Hall of Fame
What's the RA on the driver?! :oops:
I bet It’s pretty stiff tbh. This guy ripped a 423 yard drive a few days ago. His carry is in the 350 range.

Whilst this is perhaps not too impressive for some of you, compared to the numbers Tiger et al put up a few years ago, I can tell you that seeing this up close is like comparing Murray’s second serve to Isner’s bombs.
 

TheGhostOfAgassi

Talk Tennis Guru
Because you don't want equality for everyone, but only for someone! It is hypocrisy to demand equal pay for women's tennis, but not for doubles players or wheelchair players. It, what you want is actually false equality.

As I wrote in message # 192, the only fair solution for the whole of tennis is to determine the amount of rewards according to the size of interest, viewership, profit. If women's tennis doesn't equal men's tennis in these parameters, they don't deserve the same rewards.
By your logic only the famous players that attract viewers should be paid enough.

But even the top 3 are totally depended on the Tour as a whole. It wouldn’t be a tour if it wasn’t challengers and all of those “no names”.

They are all in the SAME boat. And it’s sinking if we don’t take care of each other.
 

smalahove

Hall of Fame
I was just mostly kidding.
I got that :) but it was a valid argument until 10 years ago or so, about the time McIlroy for ripped despite having a great irons and driving game. But he realized the gains leveraging his athletic potential.
 

Enceladus

Hall of Fame
Enceladus, I urge you to have a look at this thread from beginning to end. A lot of the comments you have made are addressed with earlier answers.

By saying that the gains womens tennis have made are owing to behind-the-scenes pressure and political correctness without acknowledging the fight that was made, or the markets where women's matches are bigger drawcards / money makers, you are indicating a lack of knowledge about the full situation.

You're also being pretty disengenuous suggesting that women players have the same rewards as there are still significant inequalities in tennis.
Who in this thread pointed in front of me the double standard, that for women's tennis requires the same rewards, while that is not the case for doubles and wheelchair players? :rolleyes: I brought into this topic doubles players and wheelchair players into this to point out the hypocrisy of equal pays.
Equality of rewards is at grandslams and joint tournaments, I know that. And the goal is to achieve complete equality, therefore are proposals to merge ATP and WTA into one organization. I assure you that I have a very good overview of the situation of equal pays in tennis, I just have a different opinion on this topic, which obviously bothers you. You and other equal pay advocates are convinced that you have a truth and are attacking those who question that truth. The example of Roger Moore, the former director of IW, is warning.
If women's tennis achieved the same interest and viewership as men's tennis, I would not be against equal pays. My problem is that equal pays is dictated artificially, with the help of political correctness and media pressure. You call it the fight for the right thing, for me it's pressure.
 

Enceladus

Hall of Fame
By your logic only the famous players that attract viewers should be paid enough.

But even the top 3 are totally depended on the Tour as a whole. It wouldn’t be a tour if it wasn’t challengers and all of those “no names”.

They are all in the SAME boat. And it’s sinking if we don’t take care of each other.
I don't know that men and women play on the same circuit and played against each other. :D There is no mixed singles (except exhibitions), so there are no male players and female players on the same boat, in it you are wrong.
I don't agree with you that the greater interest and viewership of men's tennis compared to women's play is only because of Big 3. According to TTW, this may seem like it, but people are watching other players as well. And men's tennis was more popular than women's tennis even before the Big 3 era.
 

TheGhostOfAgassi

Talk Tennis Guru
I don't know that men and women play on the same circuit and played against each other. :D There is no mixed singles (except exhibitions), so there are no male players and female players on the same boat, in it you are wrong.
I don't agree with you that the greater interest and viewership of men's tennis compared to women's play is only because of Big 3. According to TTW, this may seem like it, but people are watching other players as well. And men's tennis was more popular than women's tennis even before the Big 3 era.
Are Bennetau and the Ymer brothers someone who brings in more viewers than Osaka? She is getting tons of endorsement deals and filthy rich already. Isn’t prize money she got that rich from. Must be a reason how she can generate that many deals.
 

Subway Tennis

Hall of Fame
Who in this thread pointed in front of me the double standard, that for women's tennis requires the same rewards, while that is not the case for doubles and wheelchair players? :rolleyes: I brought into this topic doubles players and wheelchair players into this to point out the hypocrisy of equal pays.
Equality of rewards is at grandslams and joint tournaments, I know that. And the goal is to achieve complete equality, therefore are proposals to merge ATP and WTA into one organization. I assure you that I have a very good overview of the situation of equal pays in tennis, I just have a different opinion on this topic, which obviously bothers you. You and other equal pay advocates are convinced that you have a truth and are attacking those who question that truth. The example of Roger Moore, the former director of IW, is warning.
If women's tennis achieved the same interest and viewership as men's tennis, I would not be against equal pays. My problem is that equal pays is dictated artificially, with the help of political correctness and media pressure. You call it the fight for the right thing, for me it's pressure.
The person you are thinking of is Raymond Moore, not Roger Moore. Raymond Moore is definitely not an example anyone on either side of this polemic would bring up to aid their cause. Disparaging half of the athletes in your event is a pretty stupid way to conduct a tennis tournament. Moore would be the first person to tell you that he did the wrong thing and copped exactly what he deserved.

This is not a personal attack, but the comments you've made so far don't indicate a position of being informed enough on this issue to discuss it with any credibility. The comments don't indicate awareness of the economic realities involved in running the biggest combined tennis tournaments, and you haven't listed any of the known reasons why the biggest events recognised quite a while ago that the men's and women's singles draws are worthwhile valuing equally. Instead, you have repeated that equal prize money at majors is just a double-standard and P.C. bullying.

You're fixated on a conspiracy theory and a definition of "equality" that has led to an extreme and regressive viewpoint on this. In taking this stance you're ignoring several market factors and the relevant risk management principles that underpin equal prize money.

If you want to get a great background on how much work has gone into building the juggernaut that is now known as the WTA and more background on women in sports in general, I can recommend two great books: "We have come a long way: The story of women's tennis" and "Nike is a goddess: the history of women in sports".

If you don't like women's tennis, don't watch it. If you only want to watch men's tennis that's fine. A lot of us like watching tennis (men's and women's) and the idea of someone impinging the quality of women's tennis by trying to make out that it being valued equally to the men's game has to be some form of conspiracy theory is pretty offensive, man
 
Last edited:

Fiero425

Hall of Fame
I know what you mean. There is something about women tennis that is actually interesting. I always like the way Radswanka play because she plays like a lady, and I kind of like that aesthetic and exchanges of rallies. Good tennis is not just about strength.
Radwanska's probably my last female favorite! Loved how she played! I was so thrilled for her when down and out in the WTA Final several years ago! She just had one win in the RR, but somehow held on to win the whole tournament over Kvitova! I was hoping Navratilova could do something with her, but that partnership failed quite quickly! She's just not athletic enough, "pushing" the ball for the most part even though I can watch her and Hingis play chess on court all day long! I haven't enjoyed watching women's tennis since Henin was on top! :sneaky:
 

Enceladus

Hall of Fame
Are Bennetau and the Ymer brothers someone who brings in more viewers than Osaka? She is getting tons of endorsement deals and filthy rich already. Isn’t prize money she got that rich from. Must be a reason how she can generate that many deals.
Why do you compare Osaka to Benneteau, why don't you compare her to her compatriot Nishikori, who managed to reach the Grand Slam final? I'll do it for you:
  • Nishikori earned $ 37.3 million, of which $ 33 million off the court
  • Osaka earned $ 24.3 million, of which $ 20.5 million off the court


Despite not achieving a Grand Slam title, Nishikori generates a bigger deal than Osaka, a two-time Grand Slam champion. And now imagine how much Nishikori would have earned on sponsorship contracts if he had won the GS title...
 

NADALalot

Hall of Fame
Incorrect. Explained on several occasions by various studies ... the workload is similar because male and female human physiology is different.

If the workloads were different, then men and women could both successfully compete against each other in Best of 3 matches. How do you think that would work out?
Men and women don't compete against each other because women can't run as fast, and lack power.
But where is the proof that women can't survive best-of-5-sets?
If they trained for it, it would be very doable.
Graf and Hingis never trained for best-of-5-sets, but they played a 5-setter.
And Hingis was definitely not known for being a fitness freak....

 
Last edited:

Federev

Hall of Fame
Men and women don't compete against each other because women can't run as fast, and lack power.
But where is the proof that women can't survive best-of-5-sets?
I’ve wondered ....
Would not 5 sets for women mean that you might end up demanding more time and investment for something that is just not as exciting?

Would 5 sets actually make it harder for the women’s game to attract viewers?

If the quality of play is lower, doesn’t it make it a harder sell?
 

SonnyT

Hall of Fame
No, you need 2 fingers the numbers of sports where women generate more revenues than men: figure skating and gymnastics.
 

Enceladus

Hall of Fame
The person you are thinking of is Raymond Moore, not Roger Moore. Raymond Moore is definitely not an example anyone on either side of this polemic would bring up to aid their cause. Disparaging half of the athletes in your event is a pretty stupid way to conduct a tennis tournament. Moore would be the first person to tell you that he did the wrong thing and copped exactly what he deserved.

This is not a personal attack, but the comments you've made so far don't indicate a position of being informed enough on this issue to discuss it with any credibility. The comments don't indicate awareness of the economic realities involved in running the biggest combined tennis tournaments, and you haven't listed any of the known reasons why the biggest events recognised quite a while ago that the men's and women's singles draws are worthwhile valuing equally. Instead, you have repeated that equal prize money at majors is just a double-standard and P.C. bullying.

You're fixated on a conspiracy theory and a definition of "equality" that has led to an extreme and regressive viewpoint on this. In taking this stance you're ignoring several market factors and the relevant risk management principles that underpin equal prize money.

If you want to get a great background on how much work has gone into building the juggernaut that is now known as the WTA and more background on women in sports in general, I can recommend two great books: "We have come a long way: The story of women's tennis" and "Nike is a goddess: the history of women in sports".

If you don't like women's tennis, don't watch it. If you only want to watch men's tennis that's fine. A lot of us like watching tennis (men's and women's) and the idea of someone impinging the quality of women's tennis by trying to make out that it being valued equally to the men's game has to be some form of conspiracy theory is pretty offensive, man
After expressing his opinion, Moore was exposed to such a media lynch that he no longer dares to present his original opinion again. On the contrary, I am sure that he has the same opinion on equal pays in tennis as before, but he doesn't want to experience the attacks on his address again.

In the past, joint tournaments have awarded different prize money, so your remark about economic reality is out. The problem is not in the economics of tennis tournaments, but in the social pressure on tournament organizers (which you and other supporters of false equality refuse to see), nowadays tennis organizers cannot afford to award different financial rewards because they would face strong pressure from the media and players, which would damaged the reputation of the tournament (and profit, of course). Therefore, in the interest of PR, they award the same prize money and have peace of mind. Go to any organizer of joint tournament and he will confirm, that on average there is more interest in men's matches and they make more profit, but due to PC it is not possible to talk about it in public.

Your last paragraph is also out, I like women's tennis, but I'm against false equality.
 

Subway Tennis

Hall of Fame
After expressing his opinion, Moore was exposed to such a media lynch that he no longer dares to present his original opinion again. On the contrary, I am sure that he has the same opinion on equal pays in tennis as before, but he doesn't want to experience the attacks on his address again.

In the past, joint tournaments have awarded different prize money, so your remark about economic reality is out. The problem is not in the economics of tennis tournaments, but in the social pressure on tournament organizers (which you and other supporters of false equality refuse to see), nowadays tennis organizers cannot afford to award different financial rewards because they would face strong pressure from the media and players, which would damaged the reputation of the tournament (and profit, of course). Therefore, in the interest of PR, they award the same prize money and have peace of mind. Go to any organizer of joint tournament and he will confirm, that on average there is more interest in men's matches and they make more profit, but due to PC it is not possible to talk about it in public.

Your last paragraph is also out, I like women's tennis, but I'm against false equality.
I understand you may want to play devil's advocate here, but your remarks are coming from a position of ignorance of the immense commercial value of women's tennis and why the big combined events are setup the way they are.

If you like women's tennis, picking a battle that involves arguing for the athletes to be paid less prize money at majors is an unusual approach to take. But I will take you at your word that you like women's tennis.

I can't stop you from thinking the way you do, but I would urge you to learn more about the topic before commenting.
 

Subway Tennis

Hall of Fame
baisc human right to equal pay for not equal work? That reeks of injustice and unfairness. The first argument against the same pay in slams is women compete in best of 3. Men literally are doing more work (winning 3 sets). The second argument is women’s matches don’t sell as many tickets and don’t sell at as high of a price as the men. The is factual information. Equal pay exists because of political correctness and feminist organizations pushing for it. Men should have stood up for themselves and their ATP should have advocated for fair pay.
You can't track ticket sales at majors and divide it by gender. There's no way to account for the hoardes of people who buy ground passes, multisessoon tickets etc etc. Your data there is flawed.

And there is no market value for tennis matches based on their length. That would be a particularly idiotic way of determining value, especially in the current climate where the decision makers who market tennis are trying to figure out ways to shorten the game to increase it's commercial appeal.
 

Fedinkum

Legend
Radwanska's probably my last female favorite! Loved how she played! I was so thrilled for her when down and out in the WTA Final several years ago! She just had one win in the RR, but somehow held on to win the whole tournament over Kvitova! I was hoping Navratilova could do something with her, but that partnership failed quite quickly! She's just not athletic enough, "pushing" the ball for the most part even though I can watch her and Hingis play chess on court all day long! I haven't enjoyed watching women's tennis since Henin was on top! :sneaky:
Yes, Henin, Hingis, and Kvitová are all excellent WTA players that play the type of tennis that I enjoy watching. For the obvious reason, you won’t find them in the ATP tour.
 
Last edited:

wangs78

Hall of Fame
Didnt realize this thread had gotten so much attention. I’m all for equal prize money. Have the men and women play together in a single unified league and let the best players win the prize, man or woman, I don’t care.
 

citybert

Hall of Fame
this is a very common argument I hear regarding equal pay but i somehow feel like this can't possibly be true. I never watch WTA
Dont these things ebb and flow? At one point womens tennis in the 90s seem more popular. Altho they didnt have the type of data they did back then just how it seemed.
 

Karma Tennis

Hall of Fame
Have the men and women play together in a single unified league and let the best players win the prize, man or woman, I don’t care.
Actually think that is a pretty good idea. The Hopman Cup tried to combine the Men and Women at least on some level even though it was really an Exho.

Don't know what the women would think about it. Perhaps the players of each gender who finished in the Top 4 could earn some sort of Bonus.
 

Subway Tennis

Hall of Fame
Dont these things ebb and flow? At one point womens tennis in the 90s seem more popular. Altho they didnt have the type of data they did back then just how it seemed.
Absolutely, popularity changes by era, and also markets. And within years, sometimes the women's draw in a major produces the best matches, sometimes it's the men's. Ideally both!
 

ledwix

Hall of Fame
It's admirable to lie about men and women being equal in absolutely every way if it's a good PR message that makes tournaments look hip and trendy.
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
You are suffering from a severe delusion if you think anyone suggests something as stupid as this proposition.

It's admirable to lie about men and women being equal in absolutely every way if it's a good PR message that makes tournaments look hip and trendy.
 

Raul_SJ

G.O.A.T.
Have the men and women play together in a single unified league and let the best players win the prize, man or woman, I don’t care.
Given that the #1000 ranked ATP player can easily dispatch the #1 ranked WTA player,
how is this proposal even workable?! The prizes would all be collected by the men.
 

Thriller

Semi-Pro
Founded by Billie Jean King in 1973 on the principle of equal opportunity for women in sports, the WTA is the global leader in women’s professional sport with more than 1,650 players representing 84 nations competing for a record $180 million in prize money. In 2019, the WTA was watched by a record breaking global audience of 700 million. The 2020 WTA Tour includes 55 events and four Grand Slams, spanning across six continents and 29 countries and regions. The season culminates with the Shiseido WTA Finals Shenzhen, offering a $14 million total prize purse and honoring the season’s top singles and doubles players.

The ATP has announced prize money levels for the 2020 ATP Tour season as well as the release of its 2021 ATP Tour calendar.
The 2020 season will see player compensation on the ATP Tour hit US$ 158.7 million, an increase of 13% on 2019*.

So the WTA is the wealthier tour and if anything the women should be paid more at Grand Slams to reflect this.
 
Top