Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by fantom, Jul 7, 2005.
Gee, I'd better start practicing
Does anyone else think that equal prize money is unfair?
The womens tour is weaker and the number of 6-1 6-0 matches in the first few rounds is a joke.
If they wanted to play best of 5 then fair enough they should get the same money as the men, plus they have a rule that if it gets above something like 20 degrees they get to go inside and put their feet up!
Make them earn their money I say.
No it's not exactly fair, but why do you really care? We're talking millions of dollars here, none of which is coming out of your bank account. If they have the cash to pay the ladies equal, though not fair, I don't have a problem with it. Life itself is far from fair.
The money should definitely be less for women because they're doing much less work by playing a 3 set max match. You can let the men play a best of 3, let the women play a best of 5, or lower the prize money for women.
The meaning of that quote is being felt today, so I see it as our duty to make things fairer.
Even if equal prize money is a rather trivial scenario.
It seems those in charge have already done their 'duty' in this matter. Get over it.
Of course, it's coming out of our bank accounts. Think about it. Where do you think the organizers get all that money to pay the players from? It comes from your USTA membership fees, team registration fees (both of which keep going up), when you buy products from the sponsors (since they have to raise their prices to cover the cost of sponsorship), when you buy expensive tickets to the US Open, when you buy that $10 hamburger there, when you buy your overpriced souvenirs there, etc. Ultimately, all of that money comes out of the fans pockets. Without fans willing to pony up, there would be no professional tennis.
I'll be watching from home. :waves:
Then show your displeasure by putting your money where your mouth is. Boohooing in this forum won't help. If enough nit-pickers like you are out there, the ladies won't be getting equal pay for much longer.
i have to agree with the notion that women should also play 5 sets if they're being paid equally
?????? Show my displeasure? Where did you get that idea? I'm more than willing to pony up. I was just pointing out that you're wrong when you state that the prize money is not coming out of our bank accounts. Every time you buy a tennis racquet or tennis balls or tennis shorts, some of that money goes to pay the pros since they sponsor these tournaments. The only way to show your displeasure is to stop playing tennis, period. Perhaps you're willing to do that but I'm certainly not.
Nobody makes you buy that $10 burger. I stand by my previous post. It may come out of someone's pocket, but it doesn't have to be yours.
And your tennis racquet connection is almost as absurd as a dime bag of weed funding terrorist.
You're not much of a business person are you? OK, Let me make it simple for you. Wilson sponsors the US Open by giving them millions of dollars for that right. That money is not free. It comes out of the profits that Wilson makes selling tennis equipment to you and me. We have to pay more to buy Wilson (or any other company's) racquets and balls so that they have the money to sponsor the US Open. If they didn't sponsor the US Open, they could charge less for tennis equipment and still make the same profit. Thus, those millions effectively comes out of our pockets.
Why do you think they charge $200 for a piece of graphite that costs them $10 to make?
BTW, when I say "ours", I mean the fans collectively, not just you and me. So even if I don't buy that $10 burger, many others do, so effectively, it comes out of "our" pockets.
That is oversimplifying the issue. What effect would not advertising or endorsing the US open have- Wilson would sell less equipment, and may have to increase prices to ensure they remain profitable. That's coming out of your pockets too.
Or if tennis is promoted as a sexist, male only sport, where female participation is undervalued, what ramifications is that likely to have if millions of female consumers decide not to partake in tennis or purchase the equipment/club membership/coaching services etc associated with it...and female sports participation is still a financially under-appreciated market, the more people that play tennis, the eventual global reduction in prices is likely to occur.
Further, the sponsors are not going to pay out this money if it will be a losing situation for them. The marketing worth of promoting superstars such as Sharapova, Williams Sisters, Henin-Hardenne is well supported in profit margins. The prize-money is not calculated only on physical work- if this was the case of the world, then your local labour man digging holes all day should be earning millions each year whilst your professional Pricewaterhouse accountant should only earn $20 000....The value of the accountant to the overall worth of both the company they work for and the people who employ that company is greater than the labour man, perhaps by millions to hundreds of millions of dollars.
Also, people don't consider that past injustices or discrimination that may have effected sports participation to this day. Many complain about the level of women's tennis, but there are many points to consider. Prize money has always been higher for men for many years. Also, male sports participation and professionalism has being promoted to reflect the masculine ideals of our society. Therefore, more men have undertaken training to become professional because the money and societal status is there. Women in comparison have not had the prize money or the societal 'ok' to pursue professional sporting careers for the same time period that men have. Only relatively recently could women pursue professional tennis careers where they knew that even if they were ranked 50 in the world, they could still earn a living. So the raising of prize money to equal levels is perhaps just a catalyst to greater female participation and thus the raising of quality and competiveness in the women's game- because judging the games today without considering the past assumes that men and women have always been offered an equal amount of opportunity to become professionals in tennis, which is obviously not the case since here we are discussing the equalling of prize money...
"Why do you think they charge $200 for a piece of graphite that costs them $10 to make?"
You're going to claim I don't know about business and ask such a question in the same post? Not all $200 racquets ACTUALLY sell for that much. You knew that...didn't you? Surely a 'business' man such as yourself has heard of suggested retail price.
Since nswelchman has posted an excellent rebuttal, I defer to that post.
where the hell do they get the money from?????
It grows on trees. The USTA is a non-profit organization.
LOLi forget about that but does the
USTA gives that much money away ??? its nuts
First off, nswelshman's post is a well written composition lacking a clear description of tennis industry economics. For one, the ultimate individual opinion on whether or not women playing only best of three sets should receive equal pay is not simply a social matter. It is however a matter of equality amongst ourselves that our society is striving for today. IMO, woman need to play equal to receive equal pay. All throughout history men have dominated the money charts. Women have fought long and hard to equate themselves with the alpha male. As one can see.....women have achieved much in this respect except in our case of tennis it seems women have obtained the edge; Winning out in the pay:time (work) ratio. This makes for bad logical sense. Giving out the same amount of money for each group....while one group only performs 60% of the other group while keeping variable x equal (which is the same work...tennis).
These grand slam pay jumps are not putting any extra strain on the products we buy....they are simply "allowable" fluctuations equal in magnitude to the growth of our sport tennis. In a teeny tiny way, inflation will always create an illusion for rising pay...since a half percent inflation amounts to $90,000 in "lost" value.
TW sells tons of LM Prestiges for its suggested retail price of $200 every day. And where do you see the word "sell" in the above quote of my post? I said "charge", which means MSRP. In any case, it doesn't matter. Even if you're able to buy a racquet that has a MSRP of $200 for only $150, that's still $140 more than it costs for them to make it. If they didn't sponsor all of these tournaments and pros, perhaps they would only need to charge $160 for the same racquet and you would be able to buy it for $110, since they wouldn't need to cover those marketing costs.
Ever wonder why Nike clothes and shoes are so expensive, whereas, no name brands that don't sponsor anything are a lot cheaper? And it isn't quality as Nike comes in at the bottom of that list.
I think this is right. I believe the same is required for the doubles competition [the other thread ...] not what they actually plan to do.
I don't think its actually got anything to do with equal opportunity since there is a good argument that the ladies are doing less "work". The other thing that needs to be pointed out is that it is "prize" money not money "earnt". Otherwise Roddick shouldd have been paid more than Federer.
I just fail to see why some are so bothered by this. I can almost understand an affirmative action situation where space is limited and someone is going to lose out, but what is the REAL downside to paying the ladies the same? Is society set back by this? It's really quite silly. Too many more important things to worry about. The money is there. Pay 'em.
It's the meritocracy that we live in. Our society believes in equal pay for equal work. If the work is not equal, then pay shouldn't be either.
"Our society believes in equal pay for equal work. "
It's too bad that belief doesn't translate into actual action. Women are still underpaid in the workforce. I don't mind them having an edge on the tennis courts. They only have our children, for Christ sake.
If women want equal rights they should not keep their privileges - In tennis it means 3 out 5 sets. End of story
btw No woman has had my children(As far as I know).
You've left yourself open to the flamethrower, but I'm going to be the bigger man. Gotta love the 'net.
Separate names with a comma.