Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by nissrro, Jun 27, 2012.
Bill Gates fortune didn't just magically appear.
I've been reading these forums the past few months as I've found them very entertaining but I never actually bothered to register, but I found this topic intriguing enough to finally do so.
Simon is absolutely right in his statements about equal pay. Women by no means deserve equal pay to men in tennis and, quality and match duration aside, the reason is simple: supply and demand. ATP tennis (as entertainment) is much more sought after than WTA tennis.
Here in Toronto (for the rogers cup), tickets sell much faster every other year (ie. when the ATP is in town and the WTA is in Montreal).
This is just how it is, it might not be fair, but it's a fact of life. Men are intrinsically more athletically capable than women and as a result they generally create more entertaining sporting events. It's the same reason very few people watch the WNBA compared to the NBA etc.
Women should play best of 5 if they want equal pay.
Also, should assess their expenses related to tennis compared to mens. Somehow I doubt they train as hard, due to the UE counts in most matches.
lol i love sloane's comment on simon. but, i do think that simon is right in this situation.
Man, you're right! If only someone could devise a way for people to invest in companies...
I think that the equal pay was based on revenue years ago... at that time, the women tennis was pretty popular, all these cute athletic chicks in short skirts and dresses - I remember that a lot of people were following women tennis. Then pretty much all of them wear the same stuff, the eyes got used to it, and now they shriek so horribly that people don't want to watch WTA matches anymore. The revenue is not the same, so now there are new reasons to be found, why the women should be paid the same amount.
I think that it would be interesting to see women play best of 5 in the grandslams. They would need to prepare differently, their fitness and game would need to develop to be able to play that long. I think they are capable of doing it, but they would need to prepare really well. It could be a positive change for the female bang-bang-shriek-shriek tennis.
OH GOD the WTA is so boring as it is why do you want to extend it by making it best of 5. I say finish the WTA matches quickly and lets get back to the actual and exciting tennis from the ATP. WTA players work a lot to but i think the men deserve more because thats what most spectators care about and since they have to work a bit harder they deserve it
SPOT ON^^^^ except for the fact that i think best of 5 would just extend matches and make it boring but otherwise spot on!
The point is plain and simple.....
When WTA is not generating enough revenues why pay them? You are simply pulling out hard earned TV & Ticket viewership and giving a big chunk to WTA who hardly have any viewership or ticket sales.
Let me ask a simple question here .... Lets say you have money to spend on watching tennis live, which one would you watch? Would you buy tickets for Men's or women's event? Heck even a 3rd round clash in Men's draw is way better than final of women's grand slam.
For me its un undoubtedly Men's tennis. I'll gladly watch women's tennis if they pay me
Late 70's-90' we had Eva Goolagong, Tracy Austin, Hana Mandlikova, Steffi Graff, Pam Shriver, Gabby Sabatini, Monica Seles. Never heard much about equal pay back then.
Agreed. There are only a few that I can watch nowadays. The simple fact is that the ATP is the main draw for the fans at any tournament.
It would be nice not to have peoples politics enter the discussion...
But anyway while I'm typing I'll just throw in my own .2$.
Instead of the WTA complaining about unequal pay, why don't the PTB of both tours arrange for lower ranked players of both sexes to get better pay? Kill 2 birds with one stone. The top women (AKA the shrikers) won't get as much prize money while the promising ( and for the most part quiet) new blood gets more dough. That'll shut everyone up.
Seriously though, they can't really decide pay by the whims of the market. Its too unpredictable. If men's tennis goes downhill and the women are more entertaining then the women will be paid more. Then when the WTA declines and the men become popular then they will be paid more. There will be no fixed income. If tennis just loses its viewership then everyone suffers. Paying by demand would also kill the lower ranks of the WTA, who barely win any prize money as it is. If they are paid by demand, then women's tennis may as well consist only of the top 50 players because there is no demand for lower ranked players (>150).
It would be nice to talk about something new instead of this topic that has been discussed 100 times over and always leads to disaster.....
Quit complaining. Over the course of a year the women players have much less total prize money available to them than the men. The Major's prize money is important to keep the WTA afloat. It provides an incentive to get the best female athletes into the sport. Right now tennis is by far the best sport in the world for supporting professional female athletes.
As a woman, I feel a tad shameful saying this, but I agree. Five sets in the WTA? Lord save us all.
I do agree that equal prize money is in order, but five sets...no.
Finally, someone high up in the ATP has the balls to say this. Congrats to you Simon.
It's ludicrous for the women to receive equal prize money. Women are getting paid the same amount for less work. Not to mention less crowds, less revenue, lower quality of play, etc. People don't care about the WTA as much as the ATP, or the WNBA vs the NBA, or women's soccer compared to men's. The reality is, people just don't like women's tennis very much.
I find it funny how posters such as sillymonkey are saying, "Yeah, I do agree that equal prize money is in order, but five sets...no".
You know what? How would you like it if for every 3 hours a woman worked I only had to work 2, and that we would still all be paid the same amount. There would be an uproar! People would start slinging around accusations of sexism, and how we're living in a misogynist society or whatever.
Yeah I found that to be the most interesting part.
...like Gilles Simon--someone soon to be less than a footnote in history.
As someone said earlier, the most sexist argument is that which disregards market forces, revenue being generated, and workload simply to focus on what's between the legs of the players.
Those arguing for equal pay, whether BJK or whoever in this thread, ALWAYS IGNORE THIS POINT. They are the sexist ones. It's as simple as that. I cannot understand how this isn't intuitive for everyone? Marxism is alive and well I see. Not to be inflammatory, but many arguing for equal pay sound incredibly uneducated. In the workforce, a woman is paid as much as a man if and only if she performs the same job. A female CEO should make as much as a male CEO, and bonuses would come accordingly depending on performance. Grand slam events are not the same. A woman winning Wimbledon is not performing the same job as a a man winning Wimbledon. That's why I automatically reject the notion of 5 sets for women, because if you are going down that road (which I don't recommend), you cannot stop there, you must make the tournament integrated. Then it is TRULY equal. But alas, this is not practical. Answer to the market.
And a quick aside about capitalism and evolutionary competition to survive: survival of the fittest/strongest is a misnomer. It is survival of the most capable of surviving. Notions of "fairness" or what have you hold no value in this blunt, scientific, efficient way of nature. If you want to carry this into Hume's is/ought problem fine, but at root, this is how existence is. Get over it. Why aren't you all crying over Neanderthal's not getting a fair shot and dying out to humans?
How is this even an issue. If women's tennis made as much money sponsor wise as men's then they should get equal prize money but they don't and they play less so what is the issue.
Pay should be based on performance and value. Even if you could argue that the performance was identical the value wouldn't be because the women make the events less money. That is like saying the max contract for a WNBA player should be 10 million a year because NBA players can make that.
So? Who cares that it's Simon who is saying this. It could be Djokovic saying this and the validity of the argument is not changed.
That dig about Simon being less than a footnote in history is irrelevant, just like people who are saying that he sounds like a ******.
its absurd, women's tennis is boring and the is so much lower, I think people who reach the first round on the mens side should get equal pay to the person who goes to the finals in the womens side, I really do believe that.
Simon is an misinformed dolt; TV audiences--the biggest audience for the sport--saw several U.S. Open women's finals of this century's first decade rate as high or higher than certain men's finals on CBS broadcasts.
The 2008 men's final (Federer vs. Murray) earned 1.7 rating.
The 2008 women's final (Serena Williams vs. Jankovic) earned 3.3 rating.
The 2000 men's final (Sampras vs. Safin) earned a 4.2 rating.
The 2000 women's final (Venus vs. Davenport) earned a 5.8 rating.
The 2001 men's final (Sampras vs. Hewitt) earned a 5.3 rating.
The 2001 women's final (Venus vs. Serena) earned a 6.8 rating.
Going back to the 1990s, we see a tie:
1999 men's final (Agassi vs. Martin) earned a 6.3 rating.
1999 women's final (Venus Williams vs. Martina Hingis) also earned a 6.3 rating.
...but we see another women's final performance surpassing the male counterpart:
1998 men's final (Rafter vs. Philippousis) earned a 2.7 rating.
1998 women's final (Davenport vs. Hingis) earned a 3.1. rating.
If the forgettable Gilles Simon actually paid attention to something other than his shrinking manhood, he would have realized how easy it is to shoot his moron-athon to pieces with historical data.
Fine equal prize money BUT
Women have to play 3 out of 5 or Men go to 2 out of 3, it's like a job you get payed for the work you put in. Or they could break down the pot and pay by the minute and have higher rates or bonus system for later rounds. Maternity leave for both (baby bonding), tennis playing pros have it pretty good the ones that win BTW.
Good good to see a man speak up.
It is like the welfare ranching out here in the west.
Running cattle out on arid and semi arid ecosystems.
Run them in the Designated Wildernesses.
Suicide and tax payers pay for the destruction and see less than 3% or less of the biomass as food on their plate.
What a joke....
American teenager Sloane Stephens reacted differently, saying she does not care what Simon says because he was mean to her when she was a kid at the Sunrise Challenger in Florida.
"He hit me with a ball when I was ball kid for the first time. He hit me right in my chest because he lost a point and set he turned around and slammed the ball and it hit me," Stephens told a small group of U.S. reporters. "Whatever he says, that means nothing to me. We had discussion about it on the court last year because he was trying to kick me off the practice court in Estoril and I'm like dude you don't have this court. His coach was nice and he asked me, 'Why don't you like him?' and I said because when I was 10 he hit me with the ball and he didn't even say sorry and kind of walked off. So I was like, 'I don't like him."
Anyone got a video on this?
Really?? Are you even trying? You're saying one tournament's ratings in one market in CERTAIN years for the FINALS only is dispositive of the argument? You're just going to ignore all the other matches at the US open, much less all other tournaments, much less all other markets, much less all other years. WOW...are you even trying?
by strongest you mean the banks who recieve bailouts, the oil companies who recieve subsidies or the multinationals squeezing the third world....
Source? Not necessarily doubting you, just curious.
Are those the only examples? Because that still means that from from any year prior to 1998, 2002 to 2007, and 2009 to 2011/12, men are bringing more viewers. Selectively choosing a few years does little for your argument. It would also be nice to see stats for coverage about the rest of the tournament.
Insulting Simon as a "misinformed dolt", and saying he has a "shrinking manhood" is just low and shows poor debating skills.
"Profanity or name calling is the last refuge for those who can't do battle on the playing field of ideas." (or something along those lines).
Facetious use of cherry-picked situations which bucked the overall, overwhelming trend in viewership figures.
The majors are the only widely televised events where the males and females feature in the same broadcast patch and, by a huge margin, there is more interest in the men's matches.
The matches you posted can easily be distinguished as outlying oddities by the fact that they're all US Open matches and feature American players. The two matches which don't feature even one American were both men's finals (98 and 08) being compared to matches which had local heroes playing.
Stats for viewship are roughly correlated to on-site viewership and, from what I've seen previously, most major events have empty stadiums for the female matches until the 1/4 finals - even those featuring top ten players. The ones with men are often full from day one (except a the French where hardly anyone shows up until later each afternoon).
Pre-bought tickets are the best indication of the lack of popularity of female tennis. At the Aussie Open they are sold out of the men's final, semi-finals, quater-finals before they've even sold 1/4 of the women's final. And those tickets only start to pick up once the men's are sold out.
Fact is, there would be more tons more interest in a men's 3rd and 4th playoff match than there would be for the women's final.
or maybe you are one of those ppl so easily brainwashed you get upset because not everyone doesn'y pray at your free market altar.
Is the first conditional on the second?
i think you got hit with a frying pan....you are one of those ppl.
^^ Even then, that's like saying WNBA players should be paid as much as NBA players.
Edit: Directed 2 posts up.
do you even know what socialism is...
apples and oranges...
Terrastar, should WNBA players be paid the same as NBA players?
The way I see the current situation is half way. There's equality in prize money, but not equality in the format. Before there was equal prize money, there was inequality in all aspects.
Exactly. The USA =/= to the world. Tennis is a global sport.
Federer/Murray got the lowest rating in the past 10 years. Just because more Americans wanted to see Serena rather than Federer/Murray does not mean the WTA is more popular globally. How about the millions of viewers in the UK who tuned in to watch Murray's first slam final? At Wimbledon, Murray's QF matches sometime get 10 million viewers alone.
To get a true estimate of viewership, we need global tennis viewership figures.
I am certain that such data would show that ATP draws more viewers than the WTA.
bill gates also runs an unchallenged monopoly.....that sure helps...
I see no reason to necessarily pay women the same amount.
On the other hand, if women's tennis is bringing in the same $ that men's is, then I can't see a reason to really complain. Does anyone have statistics on this?
Personally, I find watching men's tennis more interesting than watching women's tennis. I think the quality of play is usually more enjoyable to watch on the men's tour. I've heard the opposite, but my guess is that the ATP has more fans worldwide.
you criticise his facts but bring none of your own..
Pay should be based on revenues generated not sets played. Simple capitalism 101.
1. Not anymore
2. I also find it interesting that you continually ignore certain posts, such as my question, "Should WNBA players be paid as much as NBA players then?"
The entire flat earth global economic system is the biggest f*cking ponzi scheme of all time.
Also this "capitalism" thing is a joke basically a strip mining operation and welfare to prop up a dead culture.
Capitalism is a suicide march great when the Earth had new worlds to strip mine,
We are at the point now where we are squeezing kerogen out of rock to get the energy to run this hulk.
Get the point....?
Wow, way to go COMPLETELY off-topic... ironic that after all that talk about equality, at the end they show such stereotypical female whining about something that happened years ago.
''One female player asked about Simon's comments, 19-year-old American Sloane Stephens, said: ''I don't care what he says about anything. He hit me with a ball the first time I was a ballkid. He hit me in the chest, because he lost a point and lost the set. He turned around and slammed the ball with his racket and hit me ... and I've never spoken to him since then.''
As generality, it's pretty obvious that the men deserve more prize money since they generally put on a better show with great attendance. That being said much love to the women for getting that paper. More power to you. I say make all the money you can while you can. If the women can strike a deal and make more money than the the men then great. That means they are better negotiators than the men. Plain and simple. The women created the whole equal pay scandal and presented as if though it where on par with equal rights and equal pay in regards to labor laws and kept making it a PR nightmare for the tournaments until they were forced to have equal pay. Good smart move in their part regardless of the fact the argument has no merit. That's how you get things done. You complain and and create postive PR for you view and negative PR for the opposing view. Facts of the matter are forgotten under the mounting pressure of public perception. People don't want to be labeled old fashioned or be told their not progressive. Who doesn't want progress? So eventually facts, truth, and logic are all trampled and people buckle under the weight of the propaganda machine. You have to hand it to the women for playing this so well. If the situation were reversed I think the men would be to caught up in facts and figures instead of focusing on emotional claims of inequality which is how a lot of things get accomplished in today's world.
the wta should be in the same boat as the wnba etc..wnba stars get paid much less
Obviously, this equal pay thing is just the 4 slams making a point of gender rights equality since prize money amounts are publicly displayed for each slam
How? Oh right, it's only discrimination when gender or race is involved.
This equality argument is nonsense. It's only valid when men and women are doing the exact same job at the exact same organization. Eg, male and female engineers with the same responsibilities at Exxon Mobil. That isn't the case here.
Sidenote for laughs: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYZ8TSnGYYE
That's sexist bro. WNBA stars deserve 15 million dollar salaries like Lebron James. It doesn't matter how profitable the WNBA is.
But seriously WTA players deserve more than that. The WTA is much more profitable than the WNBA.
Separate names with a comma.