ESPN first take debate over Serena/Sharapova Endorsement $$

Man of steel

Hall of Fame
she is a waaaaaaaaaay better looking than rihanna
Lol you need to get your vision checked out mate. Pova isn't anywhere near rihanna in terms of looks. She's not even hotter than kournikova for flip sake. When kournikova was on the scene she was talked about by everyone and not just tennis fans. Pova isn't. Get a grip of yourself. Most everyone in the world would choose rihanna in a heartbeat over pova
 

AngieB

Banned
Off topic detected.

Your resentment will never come to an end because Maria will always be ahead of Serena in endorsement earning.
That will look great on that one shelf Maria will enjoy at Newport, while #Serena will have an entire exhibit devoted to her historic career. Honestly, there isn't a lot of difference in lifestyle after you hit $10 million, but Maria's underwhelming tennis career will largely be forgotten about 10 years after she retires. Everyone will always remember Serena. #Dust

#PTL #JC4Ever

Angie
 

Mr.Lob

Legend
That will look great on that one shelf Maria will enjoy at Newport, while #Serena will have an entire exhibit devoted to her historic career. Honestly, there isn't a lot of difference in lifestyle after you hit $10 million, but Maria's underwhelming tennis career will largely be forgotten about 10 years after she retires. Everyone will always remember Serena. #Dust

#PTL #JC4Ever

Angie
Welcome back grannyb! Where you been? The nice folks at "Tennis Forum" kick you out already? ;)

No CYGS... no "historic career". That title still belongs to Steffi Graf.

And to topic, Serena will be "remembered" for a lot of things, which is one reason Sugarpova earns more in endorsements.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PDJ

britam25

Hall of Fame
Your response shows your complete lack of reading comprehension and critical thinking skills.

Woods, was heavily out performed by his peers in 2014 (he was not even ranked in top 30 at year end) yet he still made more money than everyone else on tour. Over 98% of that being endorsement money.
A clear, factual, and provable fact that a minority can make much much much more endorsement money than Caucasian counterparts in and individual sport primarily and historically played by Caucasians.

Sharapova while being outplayed by Serena is the #2 tennis player in the world.

You have been clearly and definitively proven wrong on this specific point.
Your argument is weak and not based on facts.
Please find something to refute my fact besides speculation, conjecture, and opinion.
It's easy to refute it, you obviously don't know how to read: I said that Woods earns a ton from endorsement, unjustly so currently, since, like Pova, he is nowhere near the top player(and, in his case, there are dozens of better players) and has ab unsavory character. So, in that regard, they are similar. But, as I also said, at least Woods was once the world's best player for a significant period of time, so at least advertisers can make the argument that they're paying him for what he once WAS, as opposed to who he is now. Even people who don't follow golf might know his name. None of this true of Pova, she has NEVER been the best player for a significant period of time, was slaughtered in her prime by a contemporary(not true of woods), earns considerably less on the court than said contemporary(not true of Woods), and, of course, is female, where sex appeal(or, should I say, sex appeal judged by a white, male dominated advertising world) comes into play. So, your comparison is a stupid one on many levels, and you're clearly incapable of understanding that. Pity. And, btw, you lied, yet again, Pova is NOT the # 2 player in the world, either de facto nor de jure.

And, last but not least, it's comical how you've suddenly dummied up re: your hilariously incorrect claim that Mayweather earns a lot from endorsements. What's the matter, cat got your tongue?:):p:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:

PDJ

G.O.A.T.
Welcome back grannyb! Where you been? The nice folks at "Tennis Forum" kick you out already? ;)

No CYGS... no "historic career". That title still belongs to Steffi Graf.

And to topic, Serena will be "remembered" for a lot of things, which is one reason Sugarpova earns more in endorsements.
Do you mean German/European Steffi Graf? ;)
 

britam25

Hall of Fame
LOL you don't get it do you? I don't take this seriously like you do,it achieves nothing writing some novel on here which 99% of people won't even read anyway. I mainly go into Odds & Ends,which is free of trolls such as yourself thankfully. Occasionally I will click on new posts and see what is going on,but it doesn't really bother me whether I see a thread such as this or not...
What YOU don't get is that not many are fooled by your claims of not taking it "seriously," as if that's an excuse for being a welch(to yourself, no less) on a promise, even if it were true, which it is not. Anybody who makes even a cursory examination of your posts in the General Discussion or Results can quickly see that you're an angry, frustrated, lying racist. And, where's that "evidence" of Serena's wrong doing, Columbo? Oh, yeah, it'll ALL come out after she quits, right?
 

MichaelNadal

Bionic Poster
What YOU don't get is that not many are fooled by your claims of not taking it "seriously," as if that's an excuse for being a welch(to yourself, no less) on a promise, even if it were true, which it is not. Anybody who makes even a cursory examination of your posts in the General Discussion or Results can quickly see that you're an angry, frustrated, lying racist. And, where's that "evidence" of Serena's wrong doing, Columbo? Oh, yeah, it'll ALL come out after she quits, right?
Someone needs a bong hit :p
 

cknobman

Legend
It's easy to refute it, you obviously don't know how to read: I said that Woods earns a ton from endorsement, unjustly so currently, since, like Pova, he is nowhere near the top player(and, in his case, there are dozens of better players) and has ab unsavory character. So, in that regard, they are similar. But, as I also said, at least Woods was once the world's best player for a significant period of time, so at least advertisers can make the argument that they're paying him for what he once WAS, as opposed to who he is now. Even people who don't follow golf might know his name. None of this true of Pova, she has NEVER been the best player for a significant period of time, was slaughtered in her prime by a contemporary(not true of woods), earns considerably less on the court than said contemporary(not true of Woods), and, of course, is female, where sex appeal(or, should I say, sex appeal judged by a white, male dominated advertising world) comes into play. So, your comparison is a stupid one on many levels, and you're clearly incapable of understanding that. Pity. And, btw, you lied, yet again, Pova is NOT the # 2 player in the world, either de facto nor de jure.

And, last but not least, it's comical how you've suddenly dummied up re: your hilariously incorrect claim that Mayweather earns a lot from endorsements. What's the matter, cat got your tongue?:):p:rolleyes:
Wow you are really stuck on the Mayweather thing aren't you? Is it because you have no argument? Yeah Mayweather does not make most of his money from endorsements so lets remove him from the discussion.

As for Maria, correct she is #3 right now not #2.

Again regardless of your OPINION on Woods there is nothing you can say to disprove the proven fact that he is an example of minorities making more than Caucasian counterparts in single player sports primarily and historically played by Caucasians. Furthermore he still makes more in endorsements than anyone on tour despite being severely outplayed by many of his peers.

You speak as if Maria has done nothing to deserve the endorsements she has. While she is no all time great like Serena, Maria has been the #1 player in the world, won 5 Grand Slam titles, the Career Grand slam, 1 WTA year end championship (she beat Serena to get it), Olympic Silver Medal, and the list goes on.

Maria also has won the following:
  • WTA Player of the Year
  • ESPY Best Female Tennis Player (4 times)
  • ESPY Best International Female Athlete
  • WTA Fan Favorite Singles Player
  • WTA Humanitarian of the Year
  • WTA Most Fashionable Player (On Court and Off Court)
The argument is not that Serena is the greater player than Maria (it obvious Serena is greater) but rather why some think it is unfair Maria makes more in endorsements.
Some (including yourself) have insinuated its racially driven.
I have provided facts to disprove it.

My point (and many others) is that the discrepancy comes from many factors.

You have done nothing to prove that the other factors play no role in the discrepancy and further more have done ZERO to PROVE it is PRIMARILY because of race.
Remember those that make the accusations bear the burden of proof. ;)
 
Last edited:

THUNDERVOLLEY

G.O.A.T.
LOL you don't get it do you? I don't take this seriously like you do,it achieves nothing writing some novel on here which 99% of people won't even read anyway. I mainly go into Odds & Ends,which is free of trolls such as yourself thankfully. Occasionally I will click on new posts and see what is going on,but it doesn't really bother me whether I see a thread such as this or not...
The guilty always reveal too much. It is unavoidable. In stating you spend most of your time elsewhere--but when you do go to other forums, the majority of your posting history is insults, false accusations and vile attacks against Serena Williams, then you just eliminated any other reason to be here.

britam25's assessment of you:

No, what I ask myself is, what kind of person says they aren't going to post again, then lies like scum and infects the forum with their bile-and what kind of person constantly makes racially tinged attacks(while stupidly, and constantly stating that the supposed coming punishment of a player they despise(who constantly butchers and out performs another player they slurp over)without a shred of proof.
...is right on target.
 

THUNDERVOLLEY

G.O.A.T.
My point (and many others) is that the discrepancy comes from many factors.

You have done nothing to prove that the other factors play no role in the discrepancy and further more have done ZERO to PROVE it is PRIMARILY because of race.
Remember those that make the accusations bear the burden of proof. ;)
You have not provided anything to prove race is not a factor. Why not answer the following which flushes your "many factors" theory:

Maria Sharapova's history of cursing out audiences, cheating on-court with her father, trash talking opponents, belittling press members, and screaming is also fact. This is not hidden national security files, but public record material. Further, just as the reasons two people, both female, both professionals of the same sport, both with unsavory behavior with the same kind and/or number of elements used to make image/character judgements get two very different business responses is also fact.

The heart of this issue is why?

Again, you cannot have two cases of people, both female, both professionals of the same sport, both with unsavory behavior with the same kind and/or number of elements used to make image/character judgements objectively lead to two different results.
 
C

Chadillac

Guest
Honestly, there isn't a lot of difference in lifestyle after you hit $10 million
Then why are people are complaining about sharapova making more money than serena in this 6 page thread? Did you forget what the topic was?
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
What was Russia thinking choosing some random person as the first female to host the country flag at Olympics ?

http://www.**************.org/Editor/Img/Maria-Sharapova-Flag-bearer-at-Olympics-img5019_668.jpg

Sharapova was also chosen to carry the Olympic torch during the Opening Ceremony in 2014.

 

cknobman

Legend
You have not provided anything to prove race is not a factor. Why not answer the following which flushes your "many factors" theory:

Maria Sharapova's history of cursing out audiences, cheating on-court with her father, trash talking opponents, belittling press members, and screaming is also fact. This is not hidden national security files, but public record material. Further, just as the reasons two people, both female, both professionals of the same sport, both with unsavory behavior with the same kind and/or number of elements used to make image/character judgements get two very different business responses is also fact.

The heart of this issue is why?

Again, you cannot have two cases of people, both female, both professionals of the same sport, both with unsavory behavior with the same kind and/or number of elements used to make image/character judgements objectively lead to two different results.
I'm sorry TV but none of what you are listing here has anything to do with race nor does it do anything to prove race is a factor.

I do not need to prove race is not a factor.
The people who are blaming race (which I am putting you in this group, correct me if wrong) bear the burden of proving race is a factor.

I've already given you evidence that Maria Sharapova has a larger fan base than Serena. Companies are always more inclined to go where people/fans go as it leads to more money.
I've already given evidence of Tiger Woods who is a minority who has very poor behavior (adultery, prostitution, etc..) and still earns more in endorsements than his peers who far outperform him and have great behavior.

I will provide more evidence of race not being a factor.

Look at Li Na, a female tennis player who was good for about a few years and earned $5 million more in endorsements than Serena when she was active, not because she was “white and blond” but because she was Chinese and American companies fall all over themselves to get their foot in the door in that untapped market.
From: http://ftw.usatoday.com/2015/09/serena-williams-addresses-why-maria-sharapova-earns-10-million-more-in-endorsements

Also take note of this point:
There are so many extenuating circumstances that dictate why one athlete makes more in endorsements: a willingness to shill, worldwide appeal, better agents, being multi-lingual, playing a sport that is marketable. I mean, look at the NFL, in which stars barely make any money off the field. They play the most popular sport in America yet Rory McIlroy earns 10 time more in endorsements? He can barely throw a ball!
 

RanchDressing

Hall of Fame
I'm sorry TV but none of what you are listing here has anything to do with race nor does it do anything to prove race is a factor.

I do not need to prove race is not a factor.
The people who are blaming race (which I am putting you in this group, correct me if wrong) bear the burden of proving race is a factor.

I've already given you evidence that Maria Sharapova has a larger fan base than Serena. Companies are always more inclined to go where people/fans go as it leads to more money.
I've already given evidence of Tiger Woods who is a minority who has very poor behavior (adultery, prostitution, etc..) and still earns more in endorsements than his peers who far outperform him and have great behavior.

I will provide more evidence of race not being a factor.


From: http://ftw.usatoday.com/2015/09/serena-williams-addresses-why-maria-sharapova-earns-10-million-more-in-endorsements

Also take note of this point:
First off I don't give a ********************* about either of these over paid, over rated "athletes". If any tennis player dominated during a "weak era" it's either one of these players. WTA players regularly choke matches away, all while using poor form on forehands and serves. They even use balls that are faster to speed up the lack of pace. But I digress.

He made a point that all things were held equal. They both had similar on court antics, they both had large fan bases. Yet, they have different "outcomes". The point he was trying to make is the biggest difference between the two on paper was race (besides h2h). If anything, you'd imagine the h2h/slam count for serena would negate any differences otherwise. Yet sharapova is more marketable. Based on conventional implicit racism, due to a lack of obvious differences between the two, the lack of marketability of Serena has to do with her race. And I think that point has some substantiation. Implicit racism is very live and well in our culture, and only grows into explicit racism outside the country. I too have to agree that if she wasn't an African American, and rather a Caucasian American, she'd probably become more marketable. And maria is the stereotypical "attractive" white blonde russian woman. Where as serena is a popular figure in black culture, has been seen dating big names in rap culture, and embodies a lot of empowerment for African american culture in the united states.

It's hard to not see the racial steriotypes at play when you consider racial stereotyping and implicit biases (which are testable and have been tested to exist not just in the US).

If you don't get it, that's fine. But chances are race has a lot to play with marketability etc.
 

cknobman

Legend
@RanchDressing So you either did not read my entire post or intentionally sub-quoted me.

How do you explain Li Na making $5 million more in endorsements than Serena when she was active? Li Na was merely a flash in the pan compared to Serena.

Why do you say race has a lot to play with marketability?
 

RanchDressing

Hall of Fame
@RanchDressing So you either did not read my entire post or intentionally sub-quoted me.

How do you explain Li Na making $5 million more in endorsements than Serena when she was active? Li Na was merely a flash in the pan compared to Serena.

Why do you say race has a lot to play with marketability?
Obviously because she's like the only chinese player to win a major since chang, and china is oh only the BIGGEST economy in the world? How the hell does that not make sense? Chinese people aren't racist against Chinese people.

Because IMPLICIT RACISM is real in america, EXPLICIT RACISM is real elsewhere, alongside IMPLICIT RACISM. Racism is prejudice against a race. If people are prejudice against a race, corporations won't want to put as much into marketing.

How does that NOT make sense?
 
Last edited:

cknobman

Legend
If people are prejudice against a race, corporations won't want to put as much into marketing.

How does that NOT make sense?
Oh its making sense now.

You are implying that anyone who does not like Serena more than Maria is a racist.
Since "people" like Maria more and Maria is white, not black, they are racist.
"People" don't like what you like so that makes them racist.
 

ChanceEncounter

Hall of Fame
Obviously because she's like the only chinese player to win a major since chang, and china is oh only the BIGGEST economy in the world? How the hell does that not make sense?

Because IMPLICIT RACISM is real in america, EXPLICIT RACISM is real elsewhere, alongside IMPLICIT RACISM. Racism is prejudice against a race. If people are prejudice against a race, corporations won't want to put as much into marketing.

How does that NOT make sense?
I'm struggling to find a point in your diatribe.

Is success the only factor for marketability and popularity? Do you have to like an athlete because they win? And if you don't, it makes you racist?
 

RanchDressing

Hall of Fame
Oh its making sense now.

You are implying that anyone who does not like Serena more than Maria is a racist.
Since "people" like Maria more and Maria is white, not black, they are racist.
"People" don't like what you like so that makes them racist.
I said NOTHING about MY opinions. Racism is measurable by social psychologists through experiments that test implicit racism. Go look it up. Also, go learn some more English because you're struggling to comprehend simple ideas.

I'm struggling to find a point in your diatribe.

Is success the only factor for marketability and popularity? Do you have to like an athlete because they win? And if you don't, it makes you racist?
Success? What are you talking about success? I'm clearly talking about endorsement deals, and how racism effects what corporations interpret being worth putt their dollar behind. Not about liking or not liking a player.

I don't like any player on the WTA. It boggles my mind that tennis players on the WTA get paid as much as they do for such low quality mental and physical performance, while lower tier ATP tour guys are killing themselves over a fraction of the earnings, yet can thoroughly out play them.

I'm done in this thread. Yet another TT thread where people strawman points. I was only trying to clairfy a point being made by another poster because it seems quite obvious. Either some people are to stupid to understand what was being said, or choose not to understand. This topic is meaningless to me so I won't waste any more time on it.
 

ChanceEncounter

Hall of Fame
Success? What are you talking about success? I'm clearly talking about endorsement deals, and how racism effects what corporations interpret being worth putt their dollar behind. Not about liking or not liking a player.
Your argument is silly and isn't founded in any facts. If you want to wank towards theoretical slights, then I'm sure you can find other people in some corner of the internet who are willing to indulge you.

The fact of the matter is, success does not mean the same person has to be marketable. Do you believe that the most successful player has to be the most well liked or marketable? This is an honest question that you've chosen to ignore.

But yeah, do the usual "I'm done!" routine after trying to stick your foot in the door to get the last word.
 

RanchDressing

Hall of Fame
Your argument is silly and isn't founded in any facts. If you want to wank towards theoretical slights, then I'm sure you can find other people in some corner of the internet who are willing to indulge you.
As someone going to school for psychology and having a background in social psychology, this is kind of a rediculous statement. I suggest you start here and do your own research about implicit racism in the united states and elsewhere, especially towards african americans and other minority groups.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicit-association_test then https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aversive_racism
The fact of the matter is, success does not mean the same person has to be marketable. Do you believe that the most successful player has to be the most well liked or marketable? This is an honest question that you've chosen to ignore.
I think that this question parallels the main point, which is what I find hilarious and also incredibly 'dumb' of you. Serena is vastly more successful on court. Maria is vastly more marketable. The question is WHY? And one very compelling and interesting answer, especially when we considered how deep rooted racism is globaly, in america and in marketing often times, is the racial differences between these two players.

But because you're a bit slow I'll spell it out for you. Success does not mean a player is more marketable, but common sense, and similar comparisons would say that it should make a player more marketable. Especially when the difference in on court success, in a sport, is as drastic as it is between sharapova and serena. Who's the most marketable tennis player in the world? Roger Federer. Who has the most titles and most success in the Men's open era? Roger Federer. Wouldn't you think it would be STRANGE if suddenly stan wawrinka was the most marketable player on the planet, after only winning 2 majors compared to roger's 17? I'm still willing to bet though you'll find some way to straw man argument this too.


I'll even go on to directly quote from my first post what you exactly paralleled in your "question" that I "avoided"
If anything, you'd imagine the h2h/slam count for serena would negate any differences otherwise. Yet sharapova is more marketable. Based on conventional implicit racism, due to a lack of obvious differences between the two, the lack of marketability of Serena has to do with her race. And I think that point has some substantiation.
Is it really that hard to understand this idea? The other member and I are posting an opinion. This isn't fact. But it's an idea. It's POSSIBLE. Do you UNDERSTAND that this is an IDEA? My goodness.

But yeah, do the usual "I'm done!" routine after trying to stick your foot in the door to get the last word.
Ok sure. I'm not going to get anything out of this discussion and clearly others can't understand my ideas. Regardless who is "right" or who is "wrong" it's a complete waste of my time. I hope you learn something about implicit associations and consequently implicit racism.
 
Last edited:

ChanceEncounter

Hall of Fame
I think that this question parallels the main point, which is what I find hilarious and also incredibly 'dumb' of you. Serena is vastly more successful on court. Maria is vastly more marketable. The question is WHY? And one very compelling and interesting answer, especially when we considered how deep rooted racism is globaly, in america and in marketing often times, is the racial differences between these two players.

But because you're a bit slow I'll spell it out for you. Success does not mean a player is more marketable, but common sense, and similar comparisons would say that it should make a player more marketable. Especially when the difference in on court success, in a sport, is as drastic as it is between sharapova and serena. Who's the most marketable tennis player in the world? Roger Federer. Who has the most titles and most success in the Men's open era? Roger Federer. Wouldn't you think it would be STRANGE if suddenly stan wawrinka was the most marketable player on the planet, after only winning 2 majors compared to roger's 17? I'm still willing to bet though you'll find some way to straw man argument this too.
If Stan Wawrinka "suddenly" became the most marketable player in the world, I would find it strange, because it would be a very sudden change. That said, the comparison is apples to oranges, because Sharapova did not "suddenly" get more popular than Serena. She's been more popular.

This distinction between most successful and highest paid is not hard to grasp. Djokovic is currently the best player in the world. He's not the highest endorsed.

Peyton Manning has the best endorsements in the NFL. He's not the most successful (Tom Brady is).

Cristiano Ronaldo is the best endorsed footballer. He's not the best/most successful (Leo Messi is).

Sure, there are instances of implied racism. No one argued otherwise. Your assertion, however, is akin to saying "Because there's racism, this situation must be because of racism." Which is a logical fallacy no matter how you slice it. There's been plenty of examples of very successful and marketable black athletes. Michael Jordan, Tiger Woods, Floyd Mayweather. These are 3 of the richest athletes of all time. They're marketable because, even beyond their athletic ability, they have the image that marketers want.

Now, you could make the argument that there's a sexist component here, where the value of a female athlete is more closely tied to their sex appeal than their on court performance. That would have some traction. But the argument that Serena must be a victim of racism because she has less endorsements than Sharapova and Li Na? You'll need to bring in actual evidence.
 

AngieB

Banned
Welcome back grannyb! Where you been?
Busier than normal this year because we went to Flushing Meadow. We have a new yoga instructor and the women's auxiliary of my church is organizing a fundraiser for the missionary fund.
The nice folks at "Tennis Forum" kick you out already? ;)
#No.

They enjoy discussing women's tennis over #THERE and the forum moderators actually enjoy women's tennis.
No CYGS... no "historic career". That title still belongs to Steffi Graf.
No CYGS this year. Serena already has the historic career. Her future remains very, very bright. I hope Maria recovers from that horrible leg injury. The media makes it sound like she's had some type of secret surgery. That's what the street is saying, anyway.
And to topic, Serena will be "remembered" for a lot of things, which is one reason Sugarpova earns more in endorsements.
Painfully-speaking, while #Maria was selling her lady parts to Sports Illustrated as a teenager, #Serena used her athleticism and intelligence to make tennis history. Both women extremely rich, #Maria can always look back fondly on those five great moments she had in tennis. #Dust

#PTL #JC4Ever

Angie
 

RanchDressing

Hall of Fame
Sure, there are instances of implied racism. No one argued otherwise. Your assertion, however, is akin to saying "Because there's racism, this situation must be because of racism." Which is a logical fallacy no matter how you slice it. There's been plenty of examples of very successful and marketable black athletes. Michael Jordan, Tiger Woods, Floyd Mayweather. These are 3 of the richest athletes of all time. They're marketable because, even beyond their athletic ability, they have the image that marketers want.

Now, you could make the argument that there's a sexist component here, where the value of a female athlete is more closely tied to their sex appeal than their on court performance. That would have some traction. But the argument that Serena must be a victim of racism because she has less endorsements than Sharapova and Li Na? You'll need to bring in actual evidence.
He made a point that all things were held equal. They both had similar on court antics, they both had large fan bases. Yet, they have different "outcomes". The point he was trying to make is the biggest difference between the two on paper was race (besides h2h). If anything, you'd imagine the h2h/slam count for serena would negate any differences otherwise. Yet sharapova is more marketable. Based on conventional implicit racism, due to a lack of obvious differences between the two, the lack of marketability of Serena has to do with her race. And I think that point has some substantiation. Implicit racism is very live and well in our culture, and only grows into explicit racism outside the country. I too have to agree that if she wasn't an African American, and rather a Caucasian American, she'd probably become more marketable. And maria is the stereotypical "attractive" white blonde russian woman. Where as serena is a popular figure in black culture, has been seen dating big names in rap culture, and embodies a lot of empowerment for African american culture in the united states.
Sex appeal is another interesting point to be made. But even there you have a huge amount of our culture sexually objectifying serena, more than sharapova. How many times have I heard some kind of reference to serena's ass compared to literally zero of sharapova?

Again I'm not arguing. It's an Idea another member put forth, and it has substance and intellectual value. I don't want to argue.
 

ChanceEncounter

Hall of Fame
Sex appeal is another interesting point to be made. But even there you have a huge amount of our culture sexually objectifying serena, more than sharapova. How many times have I heard some kind of reference to serena's ass compared to literally zero of sharapova?
Probably because sex appeal is more than having a great ass.
 
C

Chadillac

Guest
#Not the same thing as winning dozens of grand slam titles. #Dust

No, but it shows her popularity in the sports community world wide, not just the tennis community.

You dont play a tournament and win the right to carry the torch, you are appointed
 
  • Like
Reactions: PDJ

Mr.Lob

Legend
Busier than normal this year because we went to Flushing Meadow. We have a new yoga instructor and the women's auxiliary of my church ...
Is this your new yoga instructor?

]


There's a lot of people here who enjoy women's tennis. I certainly enjoy it as much as the men's. What's not to enjoy with sweet Sugarpova (5 time slam winner, Wimbledon title win over Serena, Olympic medalist, billionaire candy entrepreneur, facebook champ, humanitarian of the decade, future hall of famer) on the tour? :)
 

britam25

Hall of Fame
You have not provided anything to prove race is not a factor. Why not answer the following which flushes your "many factors" theory:

Maria Sharapova's history of cursing out audiences, cheating on-court with her father, trash talking opponents, belittling press members, and screaming is also fact. This is not hidden national security files, but public record material. Further, just as the reasons two people, both female, both professionals of the same sport, both with unsavory behavior with the same kind and/or number of elements used to make image/character judgements get two very different business responses is also fact.

The heart of this issue is why?

Again, you cannot have two cases of people, both female, both professionals of the same sport, both with unsavory behavior with the same kind and/or number of elements used to make image/character judgements objectively lead to two different results.
I was going to respond to his drivel, but, no need. Outstanding post.
 

pinky42

Rookie
Sharapova makes more than Serena in endorsements because of her poster girly looks. This may be indirectly related to race (as in, what is deemed as most attractive is influenced by a caucasian-centric culture) but it is not intrinsically related to race.
Some insight in this train wreck of a thread. It is naive to say that race plays absolutely no role just as it is naive to say that race is the sole factor in explaining the difference in endorsements.
 

cknobman

Legend
Interesting read. It could provide some insight on why Serena is less marketable.
Source: http://ftw.usatoday.com/2015/09/serena-williams-sore-loser-grand-slam-us-open-roberta-vinci
Serena Williams is the worst kind of loser — the one who wants to bask in the adulation of an adoring media when she wins, then acts put out when she has to answer to the same press after she loses. Look up to Serena for her athleticism, for her power, for her courage, for her tenacity and for being the greatest female athlete of a generation. But don’t look up to her sportsmanship. It’s her weakest link. Everyone has them.

Serena is 44-3 at the U.S. Open since 2008, a mark which includes four dominant title wins. But those three losses are all memorable in their own way: In the 2009 semifinal, Serena was down 4-6, 4-5, 15-30 against Kim Clijsters when she was called for a foot fault on a second serve. Set into a rage, Serena menacingly stared down the linejudge who made the call and said “I’m going to take this ball and shove it down your [expletive] throat” among other sentiments.

After a brief discussion with the chair, Serena was assessed a point penalty (she had already had one violation in the match) and that point gave the match to Clijsters.

Fast forward two years to Serena’s next U.S. Open (injury caused her to miss the 2010 event). She was down a set and a break (notice a pattern?) to Sam Stosur in the final when she appeared to save a break point at 0-2, 30-40 in the second set. But chair umpire Eva Asderaki called Serena for hindrance — she had yelled “come on” when Stosur still had a realistic chance to make a return. (The hindrance call was correct. The foot fault was — debatable.)

Some of the best quotes from her multiple tirades to the chair:

• “Are you the one who screwed me over last time?” (She wasn’t.)

• “If you ever see me walking down the hall, look the other way because you’re out of control, you’re out of control. You’re a hater and you’re just unattractive inside.”

“You get a code violation because I express who I am. We’re in America last I checked.”

• “‘Really, don’t even look at me. I promise you don’t look at me because I am not — don’t look my way.”

She’d go on to lose in straight sets and, despite being on probation from the 2009 incident, only received a paltry $2,000 fine — or exactly 1/700th of the $1.4 million she earned at the Open that year.

Despite being given multiple opportunities to apologize over the years, Serena has refused to do so, except in the perfunctory way of apologizing to people who may have been offended, not directly to the persons who were certainly offended: the two women she threatened, however flippantly.

Those incidents were six and four years ago, respectively. Serena hasn’t had a similar outburst since and has warmed her image, making sure photographers see her with her dog Chip, at basketball games with new bestie Caroline Wozniacki and having tea with Kim Kardashian before the U.S. Open semifinal. These are all carefully choreographed media moments, intent on letting the world get to know the “real” Serena. And that’s fine. But life isn’t all about courtside seats and trips to the beach. Reality inevitability comes a-callin’.

So when Williams was upset at the U.S. Open on Friday, by an Italian journeywoman who didn’t even have betting odds on her before the tournament, she should give the press the time it deserves. The media fawns all over her, so the least she can do is reciprocate when there’s a big story at hand. Instead, Serena blew them off, going on for about three minutes in press before cutting off questions, ending her own interview and leaving the National Tennis Center.

Was it a tough loss? Absolutely. But it wasn’t the only one at the Open. Here’s a chart showing the amount of total words spoken at press conferences of various U.S. Open losers.



Roger Federer’s loss was just as crushing and he takes questions in three languages. Vinci speaks broken English and handled questions with aplomb. Serena barely sat down long enough for her seat to get warm. Her sister, Venus, spoke four times as long after her quarterfinal loss to her sister than Serena did after her loss. (Take a note on how to lose with class from Vee, Serena.)

What does that prove by itself? Nothing. But when looking at everything but together, it’s quite telling.

This is not a post to say Serena Williams is a bad person or that she’s not worthy of your adulation. Kids should certainly look up to her as a role model for both athletics and life. But they should also realize role models aren’t perfect and that we all have flaws — Serena’s come out on the court, which, in the long run, is a far better place than anywhere else.

Yet those moments — threatening the line judge, insulting the chair umpire, blowing off the press — should be every bit as career defining as the 21 Grand Slam wins. (All we do is talk about John McEnroe saying “you cannot be serious,” which barely compares to what Serena said.) Yelling at a line judge shows just as much about Serena as any victory and tells a story that’s even more interesting than the one Team Serena would rather be reading. It’s the champion with a temper. The winner who can’t stand to lose, perhaps so much that she creates excuses for herself (see: Wimbledon, last year).

Instead, these things are glossed over. When’s the last time you heard a reference to the 2009 incident? You’ll never see video unless you hunt it down on YouTube. You might hear mention of the Asderaki beef, but only in a passing wink-wink sort of way, like how football announcers talk about the point spread without talking about the point spread.

I don’t mind feistiness or temper tantrums. I quite like them, in fact. It shows a real person is underneath that facade of calm. But if you are that way, own it. And if you want all the attention when you win, you have to deal with it when you lose.
 

THUNDERVOLLEY

G.O.A.T.
As someone going to school for psychology and having a background in social psychology, this is kind of a rediculous statement. I suggest you start here and do your own research about implicit racism in the united states and elsewhere, especially towards african americans and other minority groups.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicit-association_test then https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aversive_racism
Remember, pretending racism in this case does not exist allows the usual suspects to continue creating hostile attacks against Serena.

I think that this question parallels the main point, which is what I find hilarious and also incredibly 'dumb' of you. Serena is vastly more successful on court. Maria is vastly more marketable. The question is WHY? And one very compelling and interesting answer, especially when we considered how deep rooted racism is globaly, in america and in marketing often times, is the racial differences between these two players.
Agreed, as seen in the disastrous Abercrombie & Fitch discrimination case.

But because you're a bit slow I'll spell it out for you. Success does not mean a player is more marketable, but common sense, and similar comparisons would say that it should make a player more marketable. Especially when the difference in on court success, in a sport, is as drastic as it is between sharapova and serena.
Excellent observation--the very point I've repeated in this thread. The only objective, fact-based measure is to compare the subjects (Serena & Maria), their common traits, public behavior which would influence public and/or corporate perception, and how each is treated in the marketplace. With the profession which brought both to public notice being the only other comparison of importance, and the obvious planet-sized distance between their professional achievements, there are not many remaining evidence to draw conclusions about the difference in the marketing of both--other than that manufactured, false "value" Abercrombie & Fitch used to promote their ill "value" system based on race.

Who's the most marketable tennis player in the world? Roger Federer. Who has the most titles and most success in the Men's open era? Roger Federer. Wouldn't you think it would be STRANGE if suddenly stan wawrinka was the most marketable player on the planet, after only winning 2 majors compared to roger's 17? I'm still willing to bet though you'll find some way to straw man argument this too.
Again--an excellent observation.


Regardless who is "right" or who is "wrong" it's a complete waste of my time. I hope you learn something about implicit associations and consequently implicit racism.
Six pages in, and I think it is not a stretch to say learning anything about implicit associations and consequently implicit racism, particularly when those arguing against it also fuel the problem.
 
C

Chadillac

Guest

RanchDressing

Hall of Fame
Remember, pretending racism in this case does not exist allows the usual suspects to continue creating hostile attacks against Serena.



Agreed, as seen in the disastrous Abercrombie & Fitch discrimination case.



Excellent observation--the very point I've repeated in this thread. The only objective, fact-based measure is to compare the subjects (Serena & Maria), their common traits, public behavior which would influence public and/or corporate perception, and how each is treated in the marketplace. With the profession which brought both to public notice being the only other comparison of importance, and the obvious planet-sized distance between their professional achievements, there are not many remaining evidence to draw conclusions about the difference in the marketing of both--other than that manufactured, false "value" Abercrombie & Fitch used to promote their ill "value" system based on race.



Again--an excellent observation.




Six pages in, and I think it is not a stretch to say learning anything about implicit associations and consequently implicit racism, particularly when those arguing against it also fuel the problem.
I'm just glad someone out there gets it.

I don't like serena. I don't like sharapova. Not sure which one I dislike more. Probably sharapova because of that banshee noise she makes that would annoy the crap out of me. Serena has had her very unprofessional moments on court, and does her fair share of banshee screams, but when it comes to marketing racism is glaringly obvious. I don't need to like a player to be able to smell racism without bias.
 

britam25

Hall of Fame
I'm glad you find my traits lovely. After all it's the main reason you can't stop thinking about me :D I notice you dear, it's ok.
I don't think about you, except, maybe to remember that you're one of several people who welched on a bet around here. The ratio of you addressing me initially rather than the other way around has got to be around 10 to 1. Get over yourself.
 

dlk

Hall of Fame
As someone going to school for psychology and having a background in social psychology, this is kind of a rediculous statement. I suggest you start here and do your own research about implicit racism in the united states and elsewhere, especially towards african americans and other minority groups.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicit-association_test then https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aversive_racism


I think that this question parallels the main point, which is what I find hilarious and also incredibly 'dumb' of you. Serena is vastly more successful on court. Maria is vastly more marketable. The question is WHY? And one very compelling and interesting answer, especially when we considered how deep rooted racism is globaly, in america and in marketing often times, is the racial differences between these two players.

But because you're a bit slow I'll spell it out for you. Success does not mean a player is more marketable, but common sense, and similar comparisons would say that it should make a player more marketable. Especially when the difference in on court success, in a sport, is as drastic as it is between sharapova and serena. Who's the most marketable tennis player in the world? Roger Federer. Who has the most titles and most success in the Men's open era? Roger Federer. Wouldn't you think it would be STRANGE if suddenly stan wawrinka was the most marketable player on the planet, after only winning 2 majors compared to roger's 17? I'm still willing to bet though you'll find some way to straw man argument this too.


I'll even go on to directly quote from my first post what you exactly paralleled in your "question" that I "avoided"



Is it really that hard to understand this idea? The other member and I are posting an opinion. This isn't fact. But it's an idea. It's POSSIBLE. Do you UNDERSTAND that this is an IDEA? My goodness.


Ok sure. I'm not going to get anything out of this discussion and clearly others can't understand my ideas. Regardless who is "right" or who is "wrong" it's a complete waste of my time. I hope you learn something about implicit associations and consequently implicit racism.
Ahhh. Wikipedia, the source for all scholars:rolleyes:
 
C

Chadillac

Guest
Ahhh. Wikipedia, the source for all scholars:rolleyes:
Ya, any reference that can be edited isnt credible. Psychology and sociology are very elastic fields based on what your trying to achieve when your speaking of "experts".

Lebraun james disproves you idea of major marketeers being racist (serena shares the same sponsers and they put her in the back row), the black demograph isnt there to explain his endorsements in a % basis. Serena isnt as attractive as sharapova and seems masculine with her threats and stature. She just isnt very marketable but as a female athlete she is doing great.

Not to be sexists but sex is what sells womans sports, we arent looking for quality play. Was watching summerslam and the diva match up was great, their execution and sells werent great but it was highly watchable.
 

RanchDressing

Hall of Fame
Ya, any reference that can be edited isnt credible. Psychology and sociology are very elastic fields based on what your trying to achieve when your speaking of "experts".

Lebraun james disproves you idea of major marketeers being racist (serena shares the same sponsers and they put her in the back row), the black demograph isnt there to explain his endorsements in a % basis. Serena isnt as attractive as sharapova and seems masculine with her threats and stature. She just isnt very marketable but as a female athlete she is doing great.

Not to be sexists but sex is what sells womans sports, we arent looking for quality play. Was watching summerslam and the diva match up was great, their execution and sells werent great but it was highly watchable.
Yeah because lebron james and the nba single handedly disproves any controversies in the ferguson case, any number of the black violence crimes, the james blake case, and disproves ideas studied and put forth by professors at yale etc. Im actually planning on doing research with my aunt at yale in a few years but alas i digress.
Or even the clippers owner. A recorded opinion of straight racism by an economic elite.
Youre totally right. The fact that there are some wealthy black men in america totally disproves that aversive racism exists. I bet you think that because we have a black president, racism is dead.

That has to be single handedly the most ignoramous and single minded thing I've read in years.
 
C

Chadillac

Guest
controversies in the ferguson case
What contraversies? He was a 6time felon who attacked a police officer. You realize he had two counts of committing a felony while using a firearm? He should of been in prison for 40yrs min based on missouri law.

Goto the doj and look at black on black crime and tell again me why you crying over a couple isolated cases. White on black = headlines, while black on black and black on white never get reported.

You go to yale, explain to me how statistics are racist
 

RanchDressing

Hall of Fame
What contraversies? He was a 6time felon who attacked a police officer. You realize he had two counts of committing a felony while using a firearm? He should of been in prison for 40yrs min based on missouri law.

Goto the doj and look at black on black crime and tell again me why you crying over a couple isolated cases. White on black = headlines, while black on black and black on white never get reported.

You go to yale, explain to me how statistics are racist
He shot and killed a man on the street. There are conflicting reports as to the situation of the shooting.

The officer didn't even know his name, yet he killed him. How in the world are his previous cimes relevant? He should have been tased and or maced and arrested. Not shot a multiple number of times including the head.

As for black on black crime that is a huge part of the issue in america regarding how blacks are treated and how they treat each other. Same with quotas for racial diversity. There are huge double standards that have no true consistency across the board. This is all generally supportive evidence for racism in America.

You're strawman arguments are weak and lack logic. If you really want to get into that case we'd have to talk about the nature and true "rehabilitation" of prisons in america. Prisons have become the college for small time criminals to elevate their syndacates and increase their knowledge on how to commit crime.

Why do most convicted criminals end up back in prison? Why is there so much money made off prison systems?

I'm not even particularly interested in race relations. But even the most fundamental first and second year sociology courses cover a huge part of what youre saying is incorrect as fundamental fact. Implicit racism is real and it's testable. Go take some tests yourself. I'm not even a minority, nor can I say I have any minorities as friends.

But really I'm sick of talking about this with you people. Go buy some aeropros and complain about your 3.5 matches or something
 

Mr.Lob

Legend
He shot and killed a man on the street. There are conflicting reports as to the situation of the shooting.

The officer didn't even know his name, yet he killed him. How in the world are his previous cimes relevant? He should have been tased and or maced and arrested. Not shot a multiple number of times including the head.

As for black on black crime that is a huge part of the issue in america regarding how blacks are treated and how they treat each other. Same with quotas for racial diversity. There are huge double standards that have no true consistency across the board. This is all generally supportive evidence for racism in America.

You're strawman arguments are weak and lack logic. If you really want to get into that case we'd have to talk about the nature and true "rehabilitation" of prisons in america. Prisons have become the college for small time criminals to elevate their syndacates and increase their knowledge on how to commit crime.

Why do most convicted criminals end up back in prison? Why is there so much money made off prison systems?

I'm not even particularly interested in race relations. But even the most fundamental first and second year sociology courses cover a huge part of what youre saying is incorrect as fundamental fact. Implicit racism is real and it's testable. Go take some tests yourself. I'm not even a minority, nor can I say I have any minorities as friends.

But really I'm sick of talking about this with you people. Go buy some aeropros and complain about your 3.5 matches or something
Dude, if you want people to take you seriously, you are going to have to change that username! RanchDressing??? Too funny. :p
 

THUNDERVOLLEY

G.O.A.T.
Chris Chase is obviously a racist because serena diddu nuffin wrong.
No, but you are with that racist stereotype of a speech pattern. And before you--or your ilk jump in saying, "Well how do you know its racist, unless you associate it with _______people!!!??!" Racists themselves created an evil manner of stereotyping allegedly "non-white" speech over the centuries, and were not secretive about revealing the intended target when attacking in public. You are carrying on their tradition.

I'm just glad someone out there gets it.
I think others do, too; you are just facing Talk Tennis Warehouse's usual suspects who deny all facts with historical foundation all for the purpose of fueling their ritual assault on Serena Williams.

when it comes to marketing racism is glaringly obvious. I don't need to like a player to be able to smell racism without bias.
Agreed--you are analyzing the situation with objectivity--clarity of thought. The only way to recognize, address, then reach a logical conclusion.

Yeah because lebron james and the nba single handedly disproves any controversies in the ferguson case, any number of the black violence crimes, the james blake case, and disproves ideas studied and put forth by professors at yale etc.
I see you have run into the "one-black-success-erases-all-injustice-or-racially-motivated-mistreatment" excuses. They pick random references out of thin air, which cannot possibly be related to, or address a false, active "value" system embraced and promoted by those who manipulate image--as in a major company on the losing end of a discrimination suit: Abercrombie & Fitch. The dishonest of this board will never seek the innumerable, similar cases where a false "value" of one image (racial) was used against a minority in an otherwise level playing field of consideration.

Or even the clippers owner. A recorded opinion of straight racism by an economic elite.
Ahhh yes, Donald Sterling--the unconscionable creature who believed he could treat players like he was running a 17th century plantation, and justify his racism by extolling his own "generosity" toward his black workers with "I support them and give them food" (the implication that they are not the party actually working for everything they've achieved / and the historic connotations of a statement of that kind), among other unforgivably evil statements.

That has to be single handedly the most ignoramous and single minded thing I've read in years.
Believe me, the TTW archives are filled with so much more of that kind of hatred.
 
Top