Exciting 4 and 5 Set Matches!!

LaZeR

Professional
Even prior to the round of 16 we're treated to lots of exciting 4 and 5 set matches sometimes until 2:30 AM.

CAN'T say the same for women who get PAID THE SAME!!

Doesn't this constitute blatant discrimination on the basis of sex? Thought that's illegal.

Bonus $$$ should be reserved and paid for matches forced into 4 and 5 sets!! There's MUCH MORE WORK involved, more PAYING fans, more paying TV coverage, more aggression, speed, finesse, trick shots, exhaustion, injuries, etc, etc, etc, and above all else: excitement, entertainment, and EPIC matches. Furthermore, if tied at the end of 5 sets, men must win by TWO games as opposed to playing a tie breaker. At the 2018 Wimbledon this resulted in around 50 games in the 5th set, and a 6+ hour match. Many women's matches result in two sets. Please enlighten us ~ can you describe women's matches that offer any of the above, or are EVER remotely close to similar effort??

On another note lotsa those women are pretty H-O-T so... :cool:
 
Last edited:

Aussie Darcy

Bionic Poster
The women want to play B05 but the tournaments, ITF and broadcasters won't allow it as it would stuff up scheduling.

Learn the facts.
 

Bhagi Katbamna

Hall of Fame
Heck, sometimes I wouldn't mind if they were paid more as long as whoever was ahead after one hour wins the match regardless of the score.
 

LaZeR

Professional
The women want to play B05 but the tournaments, ITF and broadcasters won't allow it as it would stuff up scheduling.
Not to mention emergency medical teams will have to be ramped up if women start playing "best of 5", along with convoys consisting of dozens of ambulances lined up outside the courts ready to beeline it to nearby hospitals, and in order for said ambulances to do so, streets will have to be blocked off for the duration of tournaments.
 
Last edited:

Colin

Professional
Doesn't this constitute blatant discrimination on the basis of sex? Thought that's illegal.
True, if we were talking about two cashiers at Starbucks. But this is the sports-entertainment world, where things aren't the same for elite athletes and wage slaves.

Is it fair that American football players who work as part of a large team and play a limited number of games in a short season (and probably sit some of those out) get paid millions more than top tennis players who toil 11 months a year, all alone on the court for multiple hours and multiple times a week to win a tournament? I think that's crazy, but it's all about their perceived value in the marketplace, so they get paid what they get paid.

The slams choose to pay the women the same as men (WTA pays less than ATP, I believe). So even if the women's matches don't bring in as many fans in the stands or ratings on TV on average (and that's a case-by-case thing, because there will be more eyes on a short, one-sided Venus-Serena match than a Shapovalov-Seppi epic, no matter how exciting it is for tennis die-hards), they see the smart marketing value in equal pay. The good PR overshadows grumbles from men's right advocates. In the end, it''s not about quantity (really long matches may screw up their scheduling), and it's not even about quality (that's subjective because there are people who apparently like to watch an Isner-Raonic match; some prefer quick, action-packed matches to grueling wars of attrition, and vice versa). It's about decisions that slam organizers feel will put money in their own pockets.

As far as making a case for correlation between pay and length of match, you have to consider that a competitive three-set women's match might be longer than a beatdown handed out by a top male player. Federer's third-round match with Kyrgios, which even had a couple of somewhat competitive sets, lasted 1:44. The Vondrousova-Bertens match the same day went 2:20.

So, you ask: Why not pay based on time, like a Walmart stocker punching a clock? Well, imagine all those extended deuce games. Instead of serving in three seconds, Kyrgios will be bouncing the ball more than Novak on a break point and tugging at his underpants like Rafa in a tiebreak.

And bonus cash for extra sets? Are you kidding me?! Imagine a Nadal-Dudi Sela match that would have been 6-2, 6-1, 6-2 now being 6-2, 6-1, 0-6, 1-6, 6-1 for two bonus-pay sets.

"He was unplayable in those two sets, no? Really got on fire, could barely return his serve, congratulations to him on that Golden Set. But we give the crowd what they want — five-set epic for the ages with Dudi, no? ... Oh, you can make the bonus check out to Uncle Toni, easier for his tax purposes. Vamos!"
 
where things aren't the same for elite athletes and wage slaves
The US Constitution and anti-discrimination statutes don't differentiate people into "wage earners" and "elite athletes." The point of the law is no gender-based discrimination is allowed, for any group, period. The current system is discriminatory against men. Most likely, this arrangement was never challenged in a court. Also, even long-retired male players would have standing to sue tournaments for lost earnings because they had to play 5 and were paid for 3. Another twist is the effect this discrimination has on the careers of players like Isner. It's undeniable that this arrangement really hurts them.
 

Colin

Professional
The point of the law is no gender-based discrimination is allowed, for any group, period.
Really? So can Meryl Streep sue because she got paid less than the Rock when she made a long Oscar bait movie and he made a short action film? Can Justin Timberlake sue because he makes less money than Taylor Swift? Can an actor on a 24-episode show sue because he made less than one on a 13-episode show? He put in a lot more hours, but got paid less. Unfair, no?

In the end, tennis is just like other forms of entertainment and subject to what the tournament owners are willing to pay.
 

Kalin

Legend
...The current system is discriminatory against men. Most likely, this arrangement was never challenged in a court. Also, even long-retired male players would have standing to sue tournaments for lost earnings because they had to play 5 and were paid for 3. Another twist is the effect this discrimination has on the careers of players like Isner. It's undeniable that this arrangement really hurts them.
But were they? Unless I am wrong, men players get paid more during Slams than during regular events. So, it seems they are indeed paid for playing 5 sets.

You surely can make the argument that women are overpaid, if you wish, and I will not even argue too much. But it is a different argument.

As for Isner, he should be the last guy to complain. In a truly enlightened society he would have been long ago banned from tournament tennis and instead assigned to a side-court variety tennis freak show together with Mansour Bahrami and John McEnroe.
 
Really? So can Meryl Streep sue because she got paid less than the Rock when she made a long Oscar bait movie and he made a short action film? Can Justin Timberlake sue because he makes less money than Taylor Swift? Can an actor on a 24-episode show sue because he made less than one on a 13-episode show? He put in a lot more hours, but got paid less. Unfair, no?
Those are individual contracts. Employers are free to enter individual contracts as they choose. However, even in those individual contracts it is not allowed to act in a discriminatory manner against certain groups, called "protected." Gender is a "protected group." If it can be proven that studio "Big Bucks" CONSISTENTLY pays women less than men (or vice versa) for the same kind of performance, the studio can be sued for discrimination.

In tennis, however, majors don't enter individual contracts with players. The rules and payment is the same for all participants. However, since the rules ARE substantially different for men and women, there is discrimination because US Open, for example, requires men to work substantially more than women to reach the same reward. That's gender-based discrimination, pure and simple. It's just wasn't litigated, I suppose.
 
Unless I am wrong, men players get paid more during Slams than during regular events. So, it seems they are indeed paid for playing 5 sets.
Yes, but that's not the point. The point is that proceeds from majors are distributed unfairly and the US Open (can't speak about the other majors and the rules in their countries) is clearly violating the US law by requiring men to work more than women for the same pay.

You surely can make the argument that women are overpaid
I'm not making that argument. It's up to the ladies to negotiate their fair pay with WTA or whatever.
 

Vrad

Professional
The women want to play B05 but the tournaments, ITF and broadcasters won't allow it as it would stuff up scheduling.

Learn the facts.
This. If the grand slams had their way men would also be playing 3sets.

Women get grand slams far more bang for the buck than the men’s game does since 3 sets mean they can fit in more games for the same ticket prices at less expense. It also gives them far more scheduling wiggle room than the men’s game at 5 sets.

The grand slams don’t pay women the same amount of money out of altruistic reasons, as much as people who write posts in a multitude of colors would like to imagine so.
 

Vrad

Professional
Yes, but that's not the point. The point is that proceeds from majors are distributed unfairly and the US Open (can't speak about the other majors and the rules in their countries) is clearly violating the US law by requiring men to work more than women for the same pay.



I'm not making that argument. It's up to the ladies to negotiate their fair pay with WTA or whatever.
You do t even know who they are supposed to negotiate with and think you have something to contribute.

They did negotiate with the grand slams, and that’s why they get paid what they do. There is a reason that other than a few clowns like Tipsaveric, very few people on the men’s tour complain about the prize money for women being the same. For one thing, the money that keeps players afloat isn’t prize money, but endorsements. That’s what’s paying the bills. For another, the women’s game allows the slams to charge more money per ticket (in excess of the prize money they pay), bring in a much wider fan base (and the way the slams are structured, bringing in people means significantly more money) and most important of all, at 3 sets allows them tremendously more scheduling flexibility, all of which contributes to helping the men’s game as well.
 
You do t even know who they are supposed to negotiate with and think you have something to contribute.
Where did you see me trying to "contribute" anything about who the ladies should negotiate with? It's not what I was posting. I was posting about the unequal working conditions. The full name of the concept is "Equal pay for equal work." The ladies achieved their equal pay part but the gentlemen have not achieved their "equal work" part. Also, it has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with individual endorsements. The facts are:

1. Tennis players are essentially seasonal employees of the US Open; they are the only "employees" who do the actual work; they exercise no independence in doing this work (they have to show up on time, follow the US Open rules, etc.)

2. Equal Pay Act and subsequent amendments (which later included "professionals") specifically prohibit gender-based discrimination in compensation paid.

3. The legislator specifically stated that gender-based discrimination creates unfair competition. If it's unfair for women to work more for the same pay, it equally unfair for men to be required to work more for the same pay. Therefore, it's obvious that the US Open created such unfair competition by allowing women to achieve success under the best-of-three format while requiring men to follow the best-of-five format to achieve the same success.
 

Bukowski

Professional
Jeez this topic is beat to death. The men don't even want to play best of 5. The women don't play in the ATP, they can only play by the rules that are of the WTA. Prize money is a smaller percentage of the top players income anyway, I'm not sure why some obsess over it.
 

LaZeR

Professional
... the women’s game allows the slams to charge more money per ticket (in excess of the prize money they pay), bring in a much wider fan base (and the way the slams are structured, bringing in people means significantly more money) and most important of all, at 3 sets allows them tremendously more scheduling flexibility, all of which contributes to helping the men’s game as well.
I believe the majority of tournament organizers would disagree with that. After many years of working at Indian Wells the Director was FIRED for speaking the truth that "women's tennis rides on the coat tails of men's". You can find lots of articles via searching Google.
 
Last edited:

Kalin

Legend
Yes, but that's not the point. The point is that proceeds from majors are distributed unfairly and the US Open (can't speak about the other majors and the rules in their countries) is clearly violating the US law by requiring men to work more than women for the same pay.
OK, I see your point now.

But, doesn't it happen in companies that different employees (regardless of gender) manage to negotiate a different pay packet despite doing the same job? I am pretty sure it happens all the time.

In any case, I can't imagine that some labour lawyer hasn't spoken to anyone about it yet. It is one of these super-sensitive issues that nobody wants to be at the forefront of. I bet most male players would love to be paid more than the women but I doubt any of them want their name on the petition list, for obvious reasons.
 
But, doesn't it happen in companies that different employees (regardless of gender) manage to negotiate a different pay packet despite doing the same job?
Yes, absolutely. If it's based on a "seniority system," a "merit system", a productivity system, or "any other factor other than sex." As I said, subsequent amendments added professionals to this category of employees. Later, in case law, individual contractors were found to be essentially employees, if they are basically used as employees and are not acting "independently." Another point to be argued (an extremely powerful one) is the intent of the law, which is crystally clear: no gender-based discrimination is allowed. Period. One more point which should be argued is the unjust competition in a discriminated system, which I referenced earlier, and which is specifically mentioned in the law. Another point is (and I don't know anything about it): the statutes in NY State and NYC. They offer more protections than the federal statutes and they certainly have stricter provisions against gender-based discrimination.

Here is the federal protection from the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission:
"(d) (1) No employer having employees subject to any provisions of this section shall discriminate, within any establishment in which such employees are employed, between employees on the basis of sex by paying wages to employees in such establishment at a rate less than the rate at which he pays wages to employees of the opposite sex in such establishment for equal work on jobs the performance of which requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which are performed under similar working conditions, except where such payment is made pursuant to (i) a seniority system; (ii) a merit system; (iii) a system which measures earnings by quantity or quality of production; or (iv) a differential based on any other factor other than sex..."

https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/history/35th/thelaw/epa.html
 

LaZeR

Professional
@ AllPlayersAreGood ~ agree with everything you're saying, but as far as it applies to tennis pros, IMO "employer / employee", is a huge stretch. Also IMO there is no way in this case, in any court or argument, that employer/employee status could/would ever fly, especially as it applies to: a) a 2-week tournament where rankings & qualification determines participation, b) all players are incorporations into themselves, and c) hundreds of other extenuating factors and variables. Professional Golf works the same way.

I also think similar might apply, albeit to a lesser effect, to Umpires, Linespeople, Ball Boys/Girls, and other temporary positions, during the tournament fortnight, OR they could be considered "temporary employees".

At the US Open the only folks that can be considered employees are full time staff working on W2 status year round. For example, Directors, Managers, Secretaries, Maintenance, etc. For the majority of work circumstances and situations even 1099 status for the most part is also never considered fulltime or employee. The definition of "Seasonal Employees" is usually reserved for (migrant) farm workers or similar, who are contracted for several months at a time, or during a regular period for a specific duration or purpose.

The main, moral, and conscientious arguments supporting that men players should be paid more is encompassed in the OP, and some other fragmented posts in this thread. The ONLY way it could be implemented is if the ATP and players ban together, campaign, lobby, and most effectively ~ strike ~ which IMO they should do, especially after events that took place at 2018's Wimbledon and US Open, where they sometimes play until 2:30 AM(!!).
 
Last edited:
As I said, the Equal Pay Act was later amended to include professionals. Later, case law established that contractors are covered too. That significantly expanded the law. Also, the tournament is producing tennis, which is not produced by umpires, cleaning people, etc. The key personnel in the production are players. They are their "seasonal employees" and they are the key part of it. Nobody else is producing the US Open product. Furthermore, it's would be very difficult to deny the intent of the law in any potential litigation, I think. Let's just look from the opposite side. In order to oppose such hypothetical challenge in court, one would have to argue that men and women should not have the same rights, in the nutshell. Furthermore, there are state laws and NYC ordinances against discrimination.
 

LaZeR

Professional
As I said, the Equal Pay Act was later amended to include professionals. Later, case law established that contractors are covered too.
Contractors as they apply to your examples consist of those on long term assignments ~ perhaps for 3, 7, 11 months ~ and for the most part must work at the payor's office, and all rules, work hours, instruction, duties, responsibilities, tasks, etc, are all dictated to them, and as well, equipment, tools, supplies, etc, are made available for them.
 
Contractors as they apply to your examples consist of those on long term assignments
Contractors were included because: 1) this prevents employers from hiring contractors and using them instead of employees (to circumvent the law); 2) the fundamental principle of the law is equal pay for equal work.
In the case of US Open, there are no other employees whatsoever. Tennis players are the only "employees" who do the entire job. It's a seasonal job in a short-season business. Also, EPA has been expanded in the past in the Congress and in courts, and they can certainly expand it more in a successful litigation brought by a male tennis player. They expanded it because there's just no good argument against the underlying principle--equal pay for equal work.
 
Top