Mainad
Bionic Poster
Love how Fed's age keeps on increasing in the minds of some of us. He's actually still 36 (will turn 37 in 4 months time).
Ion Tiriac criticizes Roger FEDERER, Serena Williams and Equal Prize Money in Tennis
- Thread starter Checkmate
- Start date
- Status
Love how Fed's age keeps on increasing in the minds of some of us. He's actually still 36 (will turn 37 in 4 months time).
Im(moral) Winner
G.O.A.T.
Looks.
Backspin1780
Semi-Pro
Nadal never had a shot. Cant even do 4 finals in a year in his entire career. Its a reason why nadal isnt even on novaks level. Fed and nadal have done much better getting closer to 4 in a row and novak did it, this easily outshing anything nadal has ever done or will do
Nadal has has effectively quit indoors his entire carerr and grass 5 years ago. Bless his little socks for still trying. Its this foolishness of over playing which means he is eternally injured and has lost the chance to ever be a top 100 athlete due to physical fragility
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 688153
Guest
lol
sportmac
Hall of Fame
We both think he probably has the data. All he has to do is provide it. Case closed. If he has the numbers to back it up then put them on the table for all to see. We've been here before. Well, here's a man that has the figures, not some player ranting. He actually possesses the data. He's made a claim and apparently has the numbers to back it up. Great. I want to see the break down.
That's not proof. That's your opinions.
Chris Kermode, executive chairman and president of the ATP:
"The ATP seeks to achieve fair compensation for its players by setting minimum prize money levels for ATP events in accordance with the revenues that are generated from men’s professional tennis. The ATP also respects the right of tournaments to make their own decisions relating to prize money for women’s tennis, which is run as a separate Tour."
Donald Dell on meeting with the ATP about adding the WTA to the Citi Open:
https://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/05/...omen-share-tournament-but-not-main-stage.html
You said they failed at making the tour more popular. Their tour or both tours?
"If" making the women's tour more popular? Well, of course that's what they're concerned with. They haven't got there yet? They just signed a huge 10 year deal with Shenzhen China to host the YE finals. A new stadium is being built in the downtown area. China is a big growth area for the WTA. How is that failing?
WTA tournaments the world over have "much lower" attendance than a comparable ATP event? Maybe or maybe not. Where's the proof? Since you state it as fact then show me the attendance numbers of the Japan Women's Open, an International event - same level as an ATP 250 - and the ATP Quito tournament.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 742196
Guest
Of course you would say that if you were the same person.
Changing a few digits in the same username would be easier trying to keep track of multiple accounts - although unimaginative and lazy enough to be spotted sooner
@nikdom meet @Backspin1183
It is possible on a forum, like on a tennis court, to come across a variety of spins.
Backspin1183
Talk Tennis Guru
@nikdom is probably just messing with the other poster or just haven't seen the posts of the Backspins. Or is speaking from own experience with multiple accounts.
D
Deleted member 742196
Guest
Bobby Jr
G.O.A.T.
He doesn't need to prove it. He was articulating and opinion which should be well-informed. He doesn't have to argue with randoms on the internet - they're irrelevant and their demands to see proof are too. He is the holder of the cards and he knows what he knows. Demanding he prove it is just new-age bullshittery.
If he wanted to go to the ATP and WTA and make a case for having different pay then, yes, it would be reasonable to expect him to front up with numbers and trends etc. But he's not as far as I know - he's just voicing his opinion. And since he knows virtually infinity more than you about it questioning his knowledge on that particular topic (let's set aside the separate topic of his misogyny for a moment) seems very internet warrior-like.
Can I just get you to clarify your view here? Because it seems like you're suggesting something so absurdly moronic I'm not sure you can be serious. Do you think the prize money equality that has been achieved has come about just randomly without there being high level discussions between the tournaments, the ITF and the two tours? Because if you do then this conversation is over. I can't explain things to that level of stupid.
It is obvious, extremely obvious in everything they say and do, that the prize money equality achieved so far was a joint effort between multiple organisations. They did it because it is good PR and therefore good business. It sets them apart from most other global sports where both men and women compete where pay prize money is rarely comparable. Tennis is probably 10, closer to 15 years, ahead of the prize money equality curve by sporting averages. And that cannot possibly be down to chance. The way they talk about it and they way they present it are matters of pride for the sport (compared to other sports).
Irrelevant.
No, by comparison to men's tennis.
They have been trying to close the popularity gap and whether both tours have been growing or not in popularity the relative gap between the tours has not narrowed a lot in the last decade. This must be a failure given the ongoing talks about gender equality etc. And, back to Tiriac's point, tournaments where there is equal prize money have to take a slice of the pie earned by men and apportion it to the women. Ergo, the men are at some level propping up the women. This is seen world over. A good case in point would be the Auckland (NZ) WTA and ATP tournaments which run under the same name and are held on consecutive weeks. There has been much talk about why the men get more prize money but the fact is they command higher ticket prices and sell out quicker every year regardless that the WTA event gets multiple marquee players (Serena, Wozniacki, Sharapova etc) each year while the ATP event gets lower profile guys like Sock, Bautista-Agut, Ferrer. Moreso the TV rights for the ATP event is much more valuable to the organisers.
This is a pretty good example of Tiriac's point from somewhere where there have been ongoing public discussions about why the prize money differs. Despite this there are annual protest letters/articles written saying it's sexist. Some people just wont listen to reasonable discussion about the differences because they interpret them as excuses why not to improve women's tennis or increase prize money when they're actually just explanations of why. And they offer ideas of how to close the gaps, or where societal biases might lie in how sporting excellence is viewed - thing which individual tournaments virtually have no influence over.
These examples are silly. The Shanghai Masters organisers built their stadium to be a massive showpiece for the World Tour Finals.... For years since it became a 1000 tournament it has suffered from extremely poor attendance right throughout the tournament. It is the better example of how pissing money into things doesn't make them more popular. Again, you can't "buy" cultural change that easily.
You can't keep approaching these things with libtard "transparency" demands like this. Everyone who goes to tournaments can plainly see the difference. The only people who want to ignore that are those who come with an agenda. And you can't debate with people who have such aggressive agendas because they wont stick to a narrative that can be dissected and viewed properly without it being poisoned by ******** or lies.
Bartelby
Bionic Poster
Tiriac doesn't need to prove anything because he is running on prejudice, just like you are.
Unfortunately tennis is giving a platform to a misogynist whose views few accept these days.
Unfortunately tennis is giving a platform to a misogynist whose views few accept these days.
Bartelby
Bionic Poster
Yes, being 'transparent' is sooo demanding and makes it sooo impossible to get away with something sooo unargued.
Tiriac grunts that he has the facts and you cry out that he does not have to reveal them because that doesn't suit your prejudices.
Tiriac grunts that he has the facts and you cry out that he does not have to reveal them because that doesn't suit your prejudices.
Bartelby
Bionic Poster
Tiriac doesn't like the men's tournament because he thinks Federer should work to his timetable rather than ATP rules.
And he doesn't like the women's tournament because Serena is too fat and there are women in non-servile positions actually getting paid well.
It just shows that the 'old continent' is getting very old yet again.
And he doesn't like the women's tournament because Serena is too fat and there are women in non-servile positions actually getting paid well.
It just shows that the 'old continent' is getting very old yet again.
True Fanerer
G.O.A.T.
He'll be 40 by Wimbledon.Love how Fed's age keeps on increasing in the minds of some of us. He's actually still 36 (will turn 37 in 4 months time).
sportmac
Hall of Fame
"libtard" eh. Priceless.
So it's his "opinion" now. Demanding proof is new age bullshittery. Wow. Just wow.
Your broad declarations mean nothing. You seem to think because you can type something out that it becomes valid simply by the act. You dismiss facts and logic, offer no facts to prove your declarations, you simply reply with more. You dismiss what the frickin president of the ATP said, a direct quote, because it doesn't fit into your program.
Yeah, pumpkin, we're done. Don't engage me again until you've completed a logic 101 course at the local community college.
Last edited:
Mainad
Bionic Poster
Bobby Jr
G.O.A.T.
It's a private ****ing business. There is no obligation legally or morally for Tiriac to answer to the demands of random keyboard warriors.
The prejudices thing cannot possibly apply to me to even a tenth of the extent of the person I was responding to. His/her furious but pointless demands show exactly how little he/she can step back and appreciate what must have gone on to achieve the prize money equality examples already seen in tennis. All they want to know is why someone dare make a point against it despite most tournament directors privately knowing exactly Tiriac's position. They are just unable to make commercial arguments because no matter what they will come across as unreasonable owing to the utterly poison environment which is dominated by assholes who think every. single. thing. can be blamed on men, white men, old men, rich old men, rich old white men, sexist old white men, rich sexist old white men patriarchal organisations and similar. Or worse.
The thing is: they're not. And tennis is proof that big leaps can be made towards equality regardless that natural differences exist which make men's tennis generally more compelling as a spectator sport to more people than the other way around. And until that ceases to be the case there will always be legitimate reasons, if not unpopular ones, to ask why X and Y is happening when C and D also happen.
Bobby Jr
G.O.A.T.
Your broad comments mean something. They demonstrate the utter stupidity of some people who think every inane brainfart they have needs to be shared with the world in the form of demanding proof.
Nothing Chris Kermode said conflicts with anything I have said. If you think it does then you need to go back to the beginning and read again what I've typed.
I'll engage you as long as I enjoy slapping obvious idiots around in my spare time.
This is not some big conspiracy. This isn't Architects & Engineers for Tennis Truth. It's a quite easily apparent, ongoing issue in tennis which, until addressed, wont change. People will always have solid ground to stand on in saying the men's tour props up the women's tour because it obviously does - right through the different levels of tournaments and including the majors. This doesn't mean it's right, or there's some intentional *hand* making it so. It just is - and the tours have recognised this many years ago and front-footed the issue in their encouraging of prize money equality discussions.
Dolgopolov85
G.O.A.T.
Well, the year ending championships is definitely a more prestigious event on the men's side than the women's. Time was when it was not the case. In the late 90s, the WTA finals were still hosted at MSG while the ATP event was scouting for venues, even moving to Lisbon in 2000. This of course could also change with, yup, the retirement of Federer. The fact that Fed loves playing indoors and has generally performed well at the WTF.
Bartelby
Bionic Poster
And there is no obligation for the public to treat his uninformed rantings with any degree of seriousness either.
As a businessman, Tiriac came to an agreement with the ATP/WTA so he should honour it fully or get out of the tennis business if he is not happy with the commercial arrangements he voluntarily entered into.
His tournament does not award equal prizemoney to men and women. His tournament is contracted to put on two different top level events with prizemonies determined by their respective organisations.
He wants a men's only event, but he is not getting one so the Princess of Transylvania needs to suck it up!
As a businessman, Tiriac came to an agreement with the ATP/WTA so he should honour it fully or get out of the tennis business if he is not happy with the commercial arrangements he voluntarily entered into.
His tournament does not award equal prizemoney to men and women. His tournament is contracted to put on two different top level events with prizemonies determined by their respective organisations.
He wants a men's only event, but he is not getting one so the Princess of Transylvania needs to suck it up!
Last edited:
ANDYbhGENIUS
Professional
Prize money equality is in fact a contradictio in terminis. Equality is non-existent in this world, let alone prize money equality. It's an abomination that "prize" "money¨ and "equality" are mentioned in one sequence. If you have more talent and work hard, and people want to pay lots of money to see you do what you do, then so be it. Banks sponsoring events in any sport is their business, and it has nothing to do with equal treatment, both in between genders as well as "within."
sportmac
Hall of Fame
Oh pumpkin. Tsk tsk . . . Well, since you didn't listen then I have an idea.
Write another rant about how it's all so obvious and everyone can see it and of course there were secret meetings and of course actually proving what you claim is bullshittery, new age ones at that, and of course 25% is an opinion and of course these two separate organizations and tournaments are behind it all and of course the WTA has failed and of course no WTA tournament outdraws any ATP tournament and whatever you do don't provide ONE. SINGLE. FACT. to support any of it.
And of course don't forget to throw in some good old ad hominem's in there. Those always win the day.
It'll be fun.
Do it now.
Last edited:
hugobosstachini
Professional
Yes he has. In the current era of things, fake news and alternative facts are kings and queens. Proof or everything is a lie.
No. It's not because the opinion comes from Tiriac that he is necessarily well informed.
If we are randoms from the internet, then you are too. Randoms from the internet are irrelevant, therefore you are too. In which case, you have no relevance to classify demand for proof as irrelevant since you have no relevance as the people asking for said proof.
Asking for proof for example that "the world is indeed flat" as opposed to previous demonstrations is "new-age bullshittery"?
Those who claim that the earth is flat are also just voicing their opinions. That does not exempt them from providing documented peer-reviewed proof to make it as a fact.
If what he says is true, from a general stance, provide the papers so that people can audit the numbers.
Appeal to authority is not a valid form of argumentation. People who run sects state that they have the knowledge too without any proof of the fact. They also tend to refuse that their followers contradict that knowledge.
Questioning somebodies knowledge or pertinence on facts is a valid way of establishing inconvertible facts.
These are your conclusions. They follow you agenda. However, there exists many other explanations as of why this was done.
Furthermore, PR is not a single element of success for business. Having a bad product with great PR does not give you good business (e.g. Faraday Futures, Elizabeth Holmes with Theranos etc.). Therefore the conclusion is slightly off and ignores numerous other parameters.
Source?
Source?
So the women's tour exist because of the men? In other words, if the men's tour dies, the women's tour dies? And if the women are popular it is because the men are popular?
You need to demonstrate the correlation between these two independent variables with facts that show that X is only, and only dependent of Y, else, this is another Trump-structured alternative fact logic.
Generic non-substantiated claim.
You make a general claim stating that this is seen the world over and then reduce it to a particularity to support that statement. If what you claim is seen everywhere, then provide proof for that general claim. Picking a single particularity of that bigger picture does not support you statement.
In other words, Auckland is not representative of anything other than your bias unless you provide with data over the last 10 to 20 years to establish your statement as a general truth for the dynamics between ATP and WTA on that subject.
Source?
Generic non-substantiated claim. Who is everyone, and does everyone care?
This is a classic case of giving people one's intentions, since they cannot answer for themselves, in order to give strength to an argument. However, people is not a unique identical block. Therefore, you should rephrase your statement as such: When I go to tournaments, I can clearly see the difference.
Structured so, this is your opinion. Unsubstantiated opinion.
Furthermore, you are also assuming that everyone has the same level of eyesight and level to process what they see, which is quite discriminatory to some of these people.
This argument is false because:
>> The only people who do not want to ignore that are those who do not come with an agenda
>> Those who do not come with an non agenda are the only people who do not want to not ignore that rephrased: Those who debate the subject without afterthoughts are the only people who accept that fact
It's inverse and contrapositive are false.
Regardless of your side in the debate, you have an agenda or a purpose when you debate a subject. The essence self of debating a point and sticking to it. Hence, everyone has an agenda or a purpose on a given subject in life and this also explains why these subjects always see the same usual suspects on this forum (good or bad).
Last edited:
Aussie Darcy
Bionic Poster
News flash: tournaments and their directors have the power to remove equal pay if they want to discriminate and pay women less than the men. But they haven’t used this power and instead, men like Ion attack specific women in the media which is disgusting.
They need to shut up and move on.
They need to shut up and move on.
D
Deleted member 756486
Guest
Men and women should be paid the same at all tournaments apart from the slams imo.
Tennis players are employees and employees who work more (play more sets) should be paid more.
Bobby Jr
G.O.A.T.
Finally, we agree on something.
Bobby Jr
G.O.A.T.
Well, it's obvious what it means in terms of tennis. Namely that people who achieve the same success in a tournament be paid the same.
Oddly, the WTA have had a different distribution curve of the total prize funds meaning those who lose in the earliest rounds sometimes get paid more than men in like-for-like comparisons - while the later round prize money is mirrored.
The equality thing in tennis prize money is about what the organisation(s) wants to achieve and the efforts they have gone to so far. They know there will never be true parity because of a myriad of reasons which will always be lost on those who can't be reasoned with.
Bobby Jr
G.O.A.T.
Check this new guy out stating about a hundred obvious things and proving that even tennis discussions aren't immune to Gish Gallop stupidity.
Thanks for your contribution.
Bobby Jr
G.O.A.T.
Seriously, you can't even go back and read my earlier post to see how vapid your attack on things I never said or claimed was.
Everything you've said here about me basically applies to your earlier nonsense.
Pumpkin?... Sounds about the sort of terminology I'd expect to go with the inarticulate ranting you seem so eager to type.
sportmac
Hall of Fame
Not really another rant but it will do I suppose. However there is paucity of personal attacks. Surely you can do better. Give it another go. Do it now.
Pumpkin.
C
Chadillac
Guest
Has any tournament director said these comments about women not bringing in their share was false? So far we a got a few who says they arent.
Bobby Jr
G.O.A.T.
Correct. But he has run tournaments (and other businesses) for many years so it's a very good bet he knows a crap load more about it than anyone here.
Congratulations - a point without any actual point.
Apples/oranges. A moronic comparison which doesn't contribute to the conversation.
I don't need to. The people making the claims he is wrong need to demonstrate why. His experience (save for his previously mentioned misogyny and general troll-like public persona) alone is enough to give him some credibility above randoms who are just claiming he's wrong. And basically any dissection of what he's said by people who really wanted to understand the situation would agree his relevant experience must come with at least some clout.
Sadly, it is when there is a void of actual metrics. Unless one assumes every experienced commentator on a topic has an agenda which forces them to lie/mislead every time they comment on a topic. If that assumption is taken then there is no discussing anything with anyone anymore.
Covered. His knowledge on the specific topic must be multitudes greater than anyone here claiming he's wrong.
Agreed. But pointing out one person's agenda doesn't cancel out another's or make them somehow equivalent in how tainted they might/might not be.
I never said or implied anywhere that this was the case or that PR was all-encompassing in running a business or managing its reputation. Making this point shows you're just reading too much into what I said and now trying to show us how smart you are by making a, sadly, point which is has no point here.
Again, I never said or implied anywhere that this was the case. You're just showing your own inability to read what was written here. I said "..the men are at some level propping up the women." You even quoted me just above your reply. Did you bother to read what I actually wrote or are you just so furious to see how many quotes you pull out in your Gish Gallop reply that you forgot to read and understand what I actually said?
Every single tournament director and player understands that in order for there to be prize money equality at join tournaments some concessions must be made on one side which is apportioned to the other party. This doesn't mean one tour/event exists only because of the other, nor that if the men's tours disappeared the women's tour would fall over. It means what I said it means. That at some level the men's tour props up the women's tour.
Examples are a commonly used method to create supporting analogies in all walks of life. Are you suggesting that because you don't like the example that it means there aren't others? I can't refute the idea that somewhere there will be a WTA event which outdoes a like-for-like ATP event where the situation/details are similar enough to make a true comparison. But I do know that, repeatedly, when people do attempt to make such comparisons they are so moronically stupid as to defy belief - comparing different countries (and cultures), cities with vastly different populations, general interest in tennis, and omitting any competing tournament factors which vary greatly throughout the calendar (some tournaments compete with 2 other events held the same week, while others have no competition etc).
No, Auckland is one of the best examples because it is one of the only events where the same venue is used and the events are held at basically the same time of year (they are held in consecutive weeks), are the equivalent level events (unlike Brisbane for example), have the exact same infrastructure, population base. There are a still a few differences (their time-proximity to the start of the Australian Open and the restrictions on top 10/20 players the WTA has which the ATP doesn't) but, largely, Auckland is an excellent example to use in terms of this discussion.
No, it is quite apparent actually and tournament directors world over know it. As for whether everyone cares? I doubt it - but I never said they do, or even whether it's of any broader importance to the vast majority of people. It just is.
What actual planet are you from? You contribute nothing to the discussion but are hell bent on some freshman-level dissection of every single comment/claim in terms of argument type or whether it can be defended, proven or supported with something that satisfies your newfound interest in argument techniques and logical fallacies.
You can make the same suggestions you've made here about almost anything that Albert Einstein wrote, or Stephen Hawking. Their views were often formed on gut-feelings based on their broader experiences and knowledge. And they were often later proven to be wrong many times too.
Is this what they teach you fools these days? To argue incessantly and dismiss any opinion regardless that it might be very well informed on the basis of, effectively, "you can't prove it so you're wrong"? Or to poison debates with clever dick multi-quote posts saying "nope" to every disparate point while missing completely the broader argument/point/view? Is that your chosen superpower?
There really isn't much point in continuing this silliness.
Enjoy being that logical fallacy pointer-outer person. Improve your game though, you kinda suck at it.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]
Bobby Jr
G.O.A.T.
sportmac
Hall of Fame
Oh pumpkin, you're turning into a real disappointment. Come now, where's those "idiots" and "libtards"? Surely you have more than Muppets. Dig deep. Do it now.
every7
Hall of Fame
I give him credit for it. Granted "clever and cunning" are my words, and you disagree here (agree to disagree). You may be right in that it is out of necessity, but even then he is being very selective about which tournaments he plays, not just the amount of tournaments. He is exercising discretion far beyond mere necessity and it's designed to capitalize as effectively as possible and gain as much advantage as possible right at the stage when his opponents are at their most fatigued (right after clay). It's a brilliant strategy, and Federer is not only great at career management but a skillful opportunist.
every7
Hall of Fame
IMO the WTA can do without Tiriac's endorsement. It's doing fine as it is, and quite frankly most people would prefer if someone else had that M1000 / Mandatory licence in lieu of his administration at Madrid site. Plenty of people would love the combined tournament instead, and it was better utilized prior to him owning it. Madrid has been mickey mouse for a while......
To sum up the interesting narrative of the WTA at the moment, I always say to people imagine the ATP if Zverev, Kyrgios, Shapovalov etc etc all made good on their talent and stepped up and started not only taking it to the established legends, but went above that and started winning majors and taking over?
Because that's what it's like in WTA right now. What we are seeing at the moment is a new ruling class of players all around 18-25 wrestling powers from the greats with some extraordinary play. Everything from power players like Ostapenko with a mixture of shot-making and impenetrable self-belief, to enigmatic all-courters like Kasatkina who win with a mixture of guile, skill and variety. There are 3 or 4 players who have the potential to be generational No. 1's (still not sure who will take that role) along with some very spicy rivalries simmering at the top.
Tiriac's comments indicate that he hasn't really watched much of the WTA in the last 12-24 months, and is not really across what is happening in the women's game. It's fine if he doesn't want to watch it, but if he knows nothing about it, he doesn't have a role to play in commentating on the health of the women's game.
zagor
Bionic Poster
Actually Fed is one of the worst opportunists among ATGs I've seen, for years he's been always there, going deep and fighting tooth and nail to face his rivals even when in terrible form and suffering injuries/ilness. Taking a prolonged break in 2016 was the first good career decision he has made in ages. He was finally a bit rejeveunated both mentally and physically after playing 65 slams in a row which took its toll.
No, I don't believe Fed is trying to capitalize on being fresher than the field on grass (presuming that the same guys that go deep on clay will go deep on grass which certainly isn't always the case), if that was his goal he would have starting skipping clay long before turning 35 and having a knee surgery. I think it's simple, if Fed at 36-37 fully commits to clay (the most physical, grinding surface) he has zero chances at WImbledon and is likely going into fast retirement (especially considering what his physio said). I don't think he's considering the field at all but his own body which at this point won't allow him to contend for the biggest titles without prolonged breaks.
So yes I do think it's entirely out of neccesity and until I see a 36 year old tennis player playing a packed schedule and still coming out of that season intact I'll consider it to be a fantasy.
Bobby Jr
G.O.A.T.
I'll try my best. I'll need to to deal with the special kind of stupid you bring to the table.
sportmac
Hall of Fame
Well, pumpkin, that's a little better but still... I'm sure you have some real zingers in there. Lean into it. Do it now.
Bobby Jr
G.O.A.T.
I don't to lean into it too much. Your incontinence pants can only hold so much in before you get leakage.
every7
Hall of Fame
I consider Federer a shining example of career management, and his approach here is a great example of late career management to maximise his potential. It's another point of difference we have about whether or not Federer is great at taking his chances. My belief is that he is excellent opportunist. You disagree and you make some good points here.
sportmac
Hall of Fame
Excellent pumpkin! Well done! A bit sophomoric but still a marked improvement! Now bring out the big guns. Do it now.
Bartelby
Bionic Poster
Ranting in public by tournament directors is rare and we've already established that he has not made available any evidence for his claims.
And who are the 'few' you are referencing here?
And who are the 'few' you are referencing here?
Backspin1780
Semi-Pro
Do slams have byes? Sibce winning a slam/breaking tgrough Nadal has 4x 1R or 2R losses at wimby. How could he have all of these first round losses if there are byes?
Edit: Lookd like they dont. Gold Byes are stupid anyway. I supoose they encourage big names to play smaller tournaments but still they just help players with an existing advantage and gives them free moneys.
Plus seeds are given to much protection. Less seeds is better
airchallenge2
Hall of Fame
Self made billionaire. Not that mad, in my opinion. And he definitely knows his tennis business.
West Coast Ace
G.O.A.T.
For this if you ripping @Bobby Jr for ‘proof’: here are the 2017 prize money lists. The money tells the story.
http://wtafiles.wtatennis.com/pdf/rankings/All_YTD_Prize_Money.pdf
https://www.statista.com/statistics/276895/prize-money-leaders-on-the-atp-tennis-world-tour/
The individual deals made tournament by tournament for ad space, TV deals, aren’t publicized. So in that regard he is right - you’re asking for Data that you know can’t be delivered to rationalize your silly stance - I don’t believe any of you are dumb enough to think the ladies game is close to as popular as the men’s. But you love spending Other People’s Money in the name of equality. If it was your tax money you’d all be singing a different song.
http://wtafiles.wtatennis.com/pdf/rankings/All_YTD_Prize_Money.pdf
https://www.statista.com/statistics/276895/prize-money-leaders-on-the-atp-tennis-world-tour/
The individual deals made tournament by tournament for ad space, TV deals, aren’t publicized. So in that regard he is right - you’re asking for Data that you know can’t be delivered to rationalize your silly stance - I don’t believe any of you are dumb enough to think the ladies game is close to as popular as the men’s. But you love spending Other People’s Money in the name of equality. If it was your tax money you’d all be singing a different song.
sportmac
Hall of Fame
Your two links:
The WTA link is prize money leaders to date for 2018 up to April 2 only, not all of 2017.
The ATP link is total prize money for all of 2017.
Here is the ATP prize money leaders to date for 2018:
https://nytimes.stats.com/tennis/rankings.asp?tour=ATP&rank=3
Last edited:
Aussie Darcy
Bionic Poster
Auckland Open director Karl Budge commented on it a while back and discussed how the women’s tournament outperformed the male tournament in viewership and the year Li Na was there also saw huge ratings as it opened the China market.
https://www.google.com.au/amp/www.n...-and-women-players-differs-by-market.amp.html
Last edited:
Bartelby
Bionic Poster
Yet another oligarch who made his money through political connections with the de-Sovietisation of Romania.
Bartelby
Bionic Poster
No one is arguing the ladies game is as popular as the gentleman's game and nor is anyone arguing that the ATP or WTA should pay the same.
There is equal pay at Slams, which are autonomous, and there are some joint events where prize money is roughly equivalent due to the respective levels of the event.
You are constructing and refuting propostions which have never been advanced because, as you make clear, you are a zealot.
There is equal pay at Slams, which are autonomous, and there are some joint events where prize money is roughly equivalent due to the respective levels of the event.
You are constructing and refuting propostions which have never been advanced because, as you make clear, you are a zealot.
sportmac
Hall of Fame
2018:
1 Wozniacki, Caroline 3,338,704
2 Halep, Simona 2,238,803
3 Osaka, Naomi 1,614,470
4 Stephens, Sloane 1,471,796
5 Svitolina, Elina 1,425,958
6 Kerber, Angelique 1,392,959
7 Kasatkina, Daria 1,178,603
8 Ostapenko, Jelena 883,841
9 Kvitova, Petra 920,949
10 Mertens, Elise 903,262
1. Roger Federer 4,336,500
2 Juan Martin Del Potro 2,199,566
3 Marin Cilic 1,767,040
4 John Isner 1,689,097
5 Hyeon Chung 1,135,811
6 Alexander Zverev 942,467
7 Roberto Bautista 805,051
8 Kyle Edmund 781,316
9 Diego Schwartzman 743,271
10 Kevin Anderson 728,472
1 Wozniacki, Caroline 3,338,704
2 Halep, Simona 2,238,803
3 Osaka, Naomi 1,614,470
4 Stephens, Sloane 1,471,796
5 Svitolina, Elina 1,425,958
6 Kerber, Angelique 1,392,959
7 Kasatkina, Daria 1,178,603
8 Ostapenko, Jelena 883,841
9 Kvitova, Petra 920,949
10 Mertens, Elise 903,262
1. Roger Federer 4,336,500
2 Juan Martin Del Potro 2,199,566
3 Marin Cilic 1,767,040
4 John Isner 1,689,097
5 Hyeon Chung 1,135,811
6 Alexander Zverev 942,467
7 Roberto Bautista 805,051
8 Kyle Edmund 781,316
9 Diego Schwartzman 743,271
10 Kevin Anderson 728,472
- Status
