Men should either start playing est of three in Grand slams or stop ******** about women's pay!

[Levi_Ackerman]

If you're able to earn the same amount of money for less work, why would you choose otherwise? It's clear that men like playing best of five, because their odds of winning are higher. They could easily say, "okay, we will play best of three at the grand slams", but they keep saying "no, we'll play best of five, but we should be paid more for it". What ********!

 

[reaper]

A guaranteed recipe for both genders taking a pay cut.

 

[Levi_Ackerman]

A guaranteed recipe for both genders taking a pay cut.

As long as they are being paid equally...But don't choose to work harder and then complain that someone else is being paid more than you for less work. Think about it like this: if I am contracted to work 9 - 5, but I choose to stay longer at work, I cannot complain about a colleague, also contracted to work 9 - 5, leaving at 5. The men were offered and still are offered the opportunity to play best of three at grand slams, at every turn, they say no, and the organisers applaud them and say, "well done boys, you've made the right decision!". Do you know why the organisers applaud them? Money. Best of five equals more advertising revenue.

 

[reaper]

As long as they are being paid equally...But don't choose to work harder and then complain that someone else is being paid more than you for less work. Think about it like this: if I am contracted to work 9 - 5, but I choose to stay longer at work, I cannot complain about a colleague, also contracted to work 9 - 5, leaving at 5. The men were offered and still are offered the opportunity to play best of three at grand slams, at every turn, they say no, and the organisers applaud them and say, "well done boys, you've made the right decision!". Do you know why the organisers applaud them? Money. Best of five equals more advertising revenue.

And more revenue means higher pay. So if they change to best of 3 sets, they'll still be paid the same as the women, but it will be less than what it is now.

 

[Levi_Ackerman]

And more revenue means higher pay. So if they change to best of 3 sets, they'll still be paid the same as the women, but it will be less than what it is now.

But the men won't be able to argue for more pay. It would truly be equal work for equal pay. Not unless they inplement a system whereby players are paid based on ticket sales. In that case, some women would get paid higher than the men, and vice versa.

 

[La Grande]

Who actually controls the sets they play? Can it be changed very quickly? Answering my first question, ATP and WTA I guess (obvious). How about women playing 5 sets (for slams like men) in 2 or 3 years (gving em time to improve fitness or adjust) ? It would only be 4 times a year (slams)

 

[La Grande]

Oh, ITF control things too I guess

 

[Levi_Ackerman]

How about women playing 5 sets (for slams like men) in 2 or 3 years (gving em time to improve fitness or adjust) ?

It goes back to my original post? I don't think it's about fitness. It's logical to choose to work shorter and easier for the same amount of money. Why would you choose otherwise? The men could easily petition the ITF to reduce the grand slams to best of three, but they don't because they have something to gain from the grand slams being best of five. You will notice that of the men who have complained about having to to play best of five at the grand slams, many of them have lost from being two sets up. They weren't really irate about the money. They just couldn't figure out why they are having to work harder for equal pay as the women who work "easier". They didn't come out and outright say it, but what they were saying was "men should start playing best of three at grand slams".

 

[La Grande]

It goes back to my original post? I don't think it's about fitness. It's logical to choose to work shorter and easier for the same amount of money. Why would you choose otherwise? The men could easily petition the ITF to reduce the grand slams to best of three, but they don't because they have something to gain from the grand slams being best of five. You will notice that of the men who have complained about having to to play best of five at the grand slams, many of them have lost from being two sets up. They weren't really irate about the money. They just couldn't figure out why they are having to work harder for equal pay as the women who work "easier".

Well yeah, I agree the best players have less chance of losing in best of 5... I do like the physical, mental challenge of those long slogs though. So as a fan I want men to keep doing it (and women to start) and as a player? Honestly depends if you're one of those "top players" doesn't it? The ones that lose the long matches. I would like to hear what the ATP and WTA have to say on this tbh, responses would be interesting.

 

[gn]

That would have seen Raonic in AO' Final lol.

 

[TahoeTennis]

If you're able to earn the same amount of money for less work, why would you choose otherwise? It's clear that men like playing best of five, because their odds of winning are higher. They could easily say, "okay, we will play best of three at the grand slams", but they keep saying "no, we'll play best of five, but we should be paid more for it". What ********!

Bobby Riggs from 1973 called, and he wants his opinion back.

 

[Levi_Ackerman]

Bobby Riggs from 1973 called, and he wants his opinion back.

I don’t think you understood that post of mine. In fact, I'm sure you didn't. Because a careful reading of that post of mine would reveal that I'm actually on the side of the women continuing to play best of three at the grand slams, if they so choose, and against the men for complaining about them being paid equally for it.

 

[Jaitock1991]

To me, a grand slam title would not have the same value to it if it was only bo3. Playing bo5 is what seperates it from the rest of the tournaments(that and obviously a bigger draw).

 

[heninfan99]

 

[heninfan99]

 

[ScentOfDefeat]

As long as they are being paid equally...But don't choose to work harder and then complain that someone else is being paid more than you for less work. Think about it like this: if I am contracted to work 9 - 5, but I choose to stay longer at work, I cannot complain about a colleague, also contracted to work 9 - 5, leaving at 5. The men were offered and still are offered the opportunity to play best of three at grand slams, at every turn, they say no, and the organisers applaud them and say, "well done boys, you've made the right decision!". Do you know why the organisers applaud them? Money. Best of five equals more advertising revenue.

Yes, but there is an additional problem here, which is tradition and precedence. Why should the men's game, that's always been played in 5 sets at the Slams, change according to innovations that are made in the women's game? In my opinion, they should either be treated as different sports (acknowledging the difference between men and women, letting each tour survive on its own merits - nothing wrong with that) or, alternatively, if we want to acknowledge radical equality, some kind of compromise must be reached (I've always advocated best of 5 for the semifinals and finals on both tours). You can't force the men's game to change drastically because of the women's game, nor can you have women being paid the same for best of 3 sets (vs. best of 5 in the men's game). The sensible solution is either separation or compromise.

 

[Rina]

If you're able to earn the same amount of money for less work, why would you choose otherwise? It's clear that men like playing best of five, because their odds of winning are higher. They could easily say, "okay, we will play best of three at the grand slams", but they keep saying "no, we'll play best of five, but we should be paid more for it". What ********!

What???? Aren't men payed more????? But, aside from that, I am a woman and I think in tennis men should be paid more, they bring more money and more spectators in. Nobody cares about women's tennis, well most don't care. I am also against Title IX.

 

[Levi_Ackerman]

What???? Aren't men payed more????? But, aside from that, I am a woman and I think in tennis men should be paid more, they bring more money and more spectators in. Nobody cares about women's tennis, well most don't care. I am also against Title IX.

Why do you feel the need to point out that you're a woman? It doesn't make your argument more resonating, you know. It makes me uncomfortable when people do that. It's like, "I'm Black, and I don’t think White privilege or Police Racial profiling exists (anymore)", or "I'm gay but I don't support marriage equality".

 

[WarrenMP]

Let's revisit this questions of equal pay after a couple of years. Right now, Serena and Maria sell out the stadium when they play. Other WTA players (i.e., Bouchard, Azarenka, Keys, Bencic) have their following and it is growing. It depends on the future players generating and maintain interest in WTA tennis. The same goes with the men. What will happen after Fed, Rafa, Novak and Murray retire? You can make the argument that the ATP will not generating enough interest to support the pay.

I think it is silly to make it men vs. women with pay. Women earned equal pay because of the interest they were able to draw to the sport. I believe they work hard with training, playing, promoting and marketing. We all have our opinion, but the WTA rightly won the battle to earn equal pay because of how they transformed the sport.

 

[Fedinkum]

If you're able to earn the same amount of money for less work, why would you choose otherwise? It's clear that men like playing best of five, because their odds of winning are higher. They could easily say, "okay, we will play best of three at the grand slams", but they keep saying "no, we'll play best of five, but we should be paid more for it". What ********!

I kind of like your logic...

 

[Rina]

Why do you feel the need to point out that you're a woman? It doesn't make your argument more resonating, you know. It makes me uncomfortable when people do that. It's like, "I'm Black, and I don’t think White privilege exists", or "I'm gay but I don't support marriage equality".

Sorry if it offended you. I mentioned it as I am often on another board which is anonymous and I forgot that here you can clearly see. But also because people are often surprised that a woman is against Title IX in other conversations that I had.

 

[Levi_Ackerman]

Sorry if it offended you. I mentioned it as I am often on another board which is anonymous and I forgot that here you can clearly see. But also because people are often surprised that a woman is against Title IX in other conversations that I had.

It didn't offend me. Not in even in the slightest. It made me uncomfortable due its fallacious nature. It's similar to the friend argument; you know the "some of my best friends are [insert marginalised group]"-argument. Being part of a marginalised group does not necessarily make your arguments stronger, and it is certainly not (or at least its shouldn't be) controversial. In some circumstances, maybe. But certainly not in this one.

But also because people are often surprised that a woman is against Title IX in other conversations that I had.

More fool them. They ought to get out more. A lifetime of spending their lives online in an echo chamber has undoubtedly led to such surprise.

 

[Levi_Ackerman]

@Rina, I'm from the UK, so I am unfamiliar with Title IX. However, quick research shows that Title IX states:

No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.

Why would you be against this? Okay, one might argue against its interpretation. I'd get that. But why would one be against something that - broadly speaking - seeks to prevent sex discrimination in sports? Are you some kind of libertarian? Or you just don't like equality?

 

[ScentOfDefeat]

I don't quite understand how the solution to this can be anything other than one of the two paths I described above. It's just a matter of knowing what your gut tells you, because both are acceptable in my view.

 

[Levi_Ackerman]

I don't quite understand how the solution to this can be anything other than one of the two paths I described above. It's just a matter of knowing what your gut tells you, because both are acceptable in my view.

Haha. Classic "false dilemma".

 

[Rina]

@Rina, I'm from the UK, so I am unfamiliar with Title IX. However, quick research shows that Title IX states:


Why would you be against this? Okay, one might argue against its interpretation. I'd get that. But why would one be against something that - broadly speaking - seeks to prevent sex discrimination in sports? Are you some kind of libertarian? Or you just don't like equality?

It is an opinion after following college sports and seeing how athletic scholarships are wasted on girls who are neither interested or good at their sport because Colleges had to implement Title XI. Over 400 men's athletic teams had to be cut to be compliant with Title IX. In the beginning title XI may have been a force for equality in college sports but now it is simply hurting male college sports. The reality is that there are more men than women interested in participating in college sports and many can't recruit males as they have to recruit and give scholarships to female athletes. In US, football in the main attraction and makes more money than any other program yet money they earn they have to give to female sports and other sports, which I also find unfair. What this translates to in college tennis is that many boys can't get full scholarships even though they are extremely good, but girls that are often less than average players can get a full ride which significantly lowers the level of play.

 

[Levi_Ackerman]

It is an opinion after following college sports and seeing how athletic scholarships are wasted on girls who are neither interested or good at their sport because Colleges had to implement Title XI. Over 400 men's athletic teams had to be cut to be compliant with Title IX. In the beginning title XI may have been a force for equality in college sports but now it is simply hurting male college sports. The reality is that there are more men than women interested in participating in college sports and many can't recruit males as they have to recruit and give scholarships to female athletes. In US, football in the main attraction and makes more money than any other program yet money they earn they have to give to female sports and other sports, which I also find unfair. What this translates to in college tennis is that many boys can't get full scholarships even though they are extremely good, but girls that are often less than average players can get a full ride which significantly lowers the level of play.

On what basis do you contend that these girls are neither interested or good at their sport?

Also, I think I know what you are. I hate putting labels on people, but I suspect you may be one of those female MRAs. Would I be wrong in thinking that?

 

[indianabones]

So your answer to this ongoing discussion about equal pay for equal work is for the men's side to make changes? The men's side could quite easily say, why should be the ones to accommodate, why don't the women accommodate.

When I think of arguments of equal pay my inital thoughts are not for sportsmen/women. They are for every day jobs.

 

[Rina]

On what basis do you contend that these girls are neither interested or good at their sport?

Also, I think I know what you are. I hate putting labels on people, but I suspect you may be one of those female MRAs. Would I be wrong in thinking that?

I have no idea what this MRA is? Never heard of it, but you are putting labels even though you hate it. I have first hand experience with how Title IX impacts college tennis mostly, and there are numerous news articles online and in newspapers about trying to bring Title IX up to date. I have spoken to college coaches who are in a bind, some because they can't find girls who want to play tennis and can't fill their rosters and some who can't get the player they want because they can't offer him a scholarship and kid can't afford tuition but would be a great asset to the team.
Maybe my dislike of equal pay in tennis is also simply due to my understanding and liking of basic capitalism practices even in college sports? If football brings in money why should they spend it on women's lacrosse or for that matter or on men's track? I am for woman's rights, apart from title IX, I,not only, am for equality of gender rights, but think that women are better in most jobs than men. In that way I will openly admit that I consider women superior to men in many ways, I am sure you will find a label for that too now.

 

[PDJ]

The women did play best of 5 for their tour championships final late 80s/early 90s. I'm not sure why they started, or indeed why they stopped?

 

[ScentOfDefeat]

The women did play best of 5 for their tour championships final late 80s/early 90s. I'm not sure why they started, or indeed why they stopped?

Yup, I remember a great final between Graf and Hingis that the former ended up winning in five.

 

[ScentOfDefeat]

Haha. Classic "false dilemma".

How is it a false dilemma? In this discussion about equality, there can't be more than two options: either we accept difference or equality, there should be no middle ground decision. If equality is indeed the way we're going, then women should be thrilled to play 5 sets.

 

[Levi_Ackerman]

I have no idea what this MRA is?

Of course you don't.

but you are putting labels even though you hate it.

Hey...if it walks like a duck...

I have spoken to college coaches who are in a bind, some because they can't find girls who want to play tennis and can't fill their rosters and some who can't get the player they want because they can't offer him a scholarship and kid can't afford tuition but would be a great asset to the team.

How many colleges? All the colleges in America? You don't find it odd that these coaches "can't find girls who want to play tennis", but they have no problem finding males whom they they are ready to offer scholarships to? That doesn't strike you as odd?

Maybe my dislike of equal pay in tennis is also simply due to my understanding and liking of basic capitalism practices even in college sports? If football brings in money why should they spend it on women's lacrosse or for that matter or on men's track?

So you are a libertarian.

I am for woman's rights, apart from title IX, I,not only, am for equality of gender rights, but think that women are better in most jobs than men. In that way I will openly admit that I consider women superior to men in many ways, I am sure you will find a label for that too now.

Some examples of these many ways in which you think women are superior to men, please, if you don't mind?

 

[Levi_Ackerman]

How is it a false dilemma? In this discussion about equality, there can't be more than two options: either we accept difference or equality, there should be no middle ground decision. If equality is indeed the way we're going, then women should be thrilled to play 5 sets.

Why should women be the ones to compromise? It goes back to my original question: why would you choose to work longer and harder when the option of not doing so is on the table? It's just not logical. The choice is there.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

Also, for the spectacle, I'd love to see 5-set matches for the women in the last two rounds of the majors. I respect the women's Slam final matches less because it's only best of 3. I come away from it thinking "is that it?"

 

[ScentOfDefeat]

Why should women be the ones to compromise?

It's not compromising. It's playing the game like the ones they want to be considered equal to.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

Why should women be the ones to compromise? It goes back to my original question: why would you choose to work longer and harder when the option of not doing so is on the table? It's just not logical. The choice is there.

Well, I believe I've said in the past that both men and women could play bo3 until semis and finals, where it'd become bo5. This is undoubtedly an unpopular view.

 

[Levi_Ackerman]

It's not compromising. It's playing the game like the ones they want to be equal to.

The women should aspire to play the game like the men? What makes the men the standard by which the game should be played?

 

[Levi_Ackerman]

Well, I believe I've said in the past that both men and women could play bo3 until semis and finals, where it'd become bo5. This is undoubtedly an unpopular view.

I actually think this would be a sensible compromise?

You see that, @ScentOfDefeat? In reality, in most cases, there are many in-between or other alternative options, not just two mutually exclusive ones, as you believe is the case here.

 

[ScentOfDefeat]

The women should aspire to play the game like the men? What makes the men the standard by which the game should be played?

The fact that women have chosen the path of equality means that they want the same rights as men, not that they want men to adapt to their standards. I think it's quite clear.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

I actually think this would be a sensible compromise?

You see that, @ScentOfDefeat? In reality, in most cases, there are many in-between or other alternative options, not just two mutually exclusive ones, as you believe is the case here.

I think it's a sensible and smart compromise, but it's radical and I'm sure it would be violently opposed.

 

[ScentOfDefeat]

I actually think this would be a sensible compromise?

You see that, @ScentOfDefeat? In reality, in most cases, there are many in-between or other alternative options, not just two mutually exclusive ones, as you believe is the case here.

Go read my original post, where I say exactly that. A compromise where the women also agree to play best of 5.

This shows you didn't read my original post, even though you "liked" it.

 

[ScentOfDefeat]

I'll requote myself:

Yes, but there is an additional problem here, which is tradition and precedence. Why should the men's game, that's always been played in 5 sets at the Slams, change according to innovations that are made in the women's game? In my opinion, they should either be treated as different sports (acknowledging the difference between men and women, letting each tour survive on its own merits - nothing wrong with that) or, alternatively, if we want to acknowledge radical equality, some kind of compromise must be reached (I've always advocated best of 5 for the semifinals and finals on both tours). You can't force the men's game to change drastically because of the women's game, nor can you have women being paid the same for best of 3 sets (vs. best of 5 in the men's game). The sensible solution is either separation or compromise.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

Yeah, I seem to recall having this conversation before with ScentOfDefeat. We agreed.

 

[Levi_Ackerman]

I think it's a sensible and smart compromise, but it's radical and I'm sure it would be violently opposed.

lol. What radical compromise isn't?

 

[Levi_Ackerman]

Go read my original post, where I say exactly that. A compromise where the women also agree to play best of 5.

This shows you didn't read my original post, even though you "liked" it.

That was because you were suggesting compromise on both parts - i.e. by the men and the women. That I think is fair. In this posts which I quote below, however, your tone seems to change and you seem to be suggesting - or at least I am inferring - that the women be the only ones to compromise, which I disagree with. It's not compromise if only one side "compromises". It's concession.

How is it a false dilemma? In this discussion about equality, there can't be more than two options: either we accept difference or equality, there should be no middle ground decision. If equality is indeed the way we're going,

To say "there can't be more than two options" is by and large the very definition of "false dilemma" in a situation like this. Of course there can be more than two options.

It's playing the game like the ones they want to be considered equal to.

I assume by "the ones they want to be considered equal to", you are referring to the men? If that is the case, you are proposing the women compromise to play the game like the men. This is vastly different to your original post (the one I "liked") and I don't agree with it. Why should the women be the ones compromising? Why can't the men play the game like the women, i.e. best of three in all tournaments?

So, yeah, I did read your original post. I hope that clarifies things. I know you're always looking for a chance to one-up me, but let's just stick to playing the ball rather than the man, eh?

 

[ScentOfDefeat]

That was because you were suggesting compromise on both parts - i.e. by the men and the women. That I think is fair. In this posts which I quote below, however, you are suggesting - or at least I am inferring from them - that the women be the only ones to compromise, which I disagree with. It's not compromise if only one side "compromises". It's concession.



To say "there can't be more than two options" is by and large the very definition of "false dilemma" in a situation like this. Of course there can be more than two options.



I assume by "the ones they want to be considered equal to", you are referring to the men? If that is the case, you are proposing the women compromise to play the game like the men. This is vastly different to your original post (the one I "liked") and I don't agree with it. Why should the women be the ones compromising? Why can't the men play the game like the women, i.e. best of three in all tournaments?

I've always said that compromise should be on both parts. You misunderstood. When I said "there can't be more than two options", I was going back to my original point, where I said the solution could only follow one of two paths (both of which I have no problem with): either a) separation (i.e. admitting that the men and the women's game are completely different, and that both tours should then survive on their own merits) or b) equality (i.e. having to reach a compromise where both men and women would play 3 sets and 5 sets).

It can't remain in the "middle ground", so to speak, which is the system that is currently in place: pushing for equal pay but having the men play best of 5 and the women best of 3. This is unacceptable to me.

So yes, if the solution is equality I think both sides should compromise. But I don't think it's controversial to say that the women's game has depended on the revenues of the men's game, and - addressing your last point - it would be bizarre to change the men's game completely (a formula that has been successful for many years) to adopt the formula of the less successful venture for both tours. How do you reconcile the fact you agree with me (that they should both compromise) with the doubt you express at the end ("why can't the men play the game like the women, i.e. best of three in all tournaments?")?

 

[Rina]

I apologize for not realizing this topic was started by a moron teenager,(and even if you are no you are acting like one), there is a label for you. Hence we all need to concur with him or be called stupid or something else! My fault for trying to express my opinions but now I will not engage in time wasting. I don't think in tennis women and men should be payed equally at Grand Slams, is that clear enough? As people so eloquently say "You can't argue with stupid!"

 

[Levi_Ackerman]

How do you reconcile the fact you agree with me (that they should both compromise) with the doubt you express at the end ("why can't the men play the game like the women, i.e. best of three in all tournaments?")?

Because I believe men choose to play best of five at grand slams, not because of tradition or anything as arbitrary as that. They so choose because their odds of winning increase. They have more of a chance of mounting a comeback. That is why, I believe, they want grand slams to be best of five. Because best of five is "safer". It goes back to my original post, men were offered the opportunity to play best of two in grand slams, and they refused. Women were offered the opportunity to play best of five in grand slams, and they refused. Why should women be penalised for opting not to work harder when the choice to work easier for the same amount of money is available. It's just common sense.

 

[ScentOfDefeat]

I apologize for not realizing this topic was started by a moron teenager,(and even if you are no you are acting like one), there is a label for you. Hence we all need to concur with him or be called stupid or something else! My fault for trying to express my opinions but now I will not engage in time wasting. I don't think in tennis women and men should be payed equally at Grand Slams, is that clear enough? As people so eloquently say "You can't argue with stupid!"

I agree. Grand Slams are the most viewed tennis tournaments in the world, so it's understandable that they've been somewhat obliged to become the face of gender equality in the tennis world. Other tournaments, where men and women both play best of three sets, however, have maintained the paycheck gap. It's absurd to say the least.