Men & Women: Equal Prize Money [Merged]

[barry]

Women -vs- Men: (Huge) Equal Money Thread

Cannot believe this from Davenport.

"Davenport slams Wimbledon over unfair prize-money shareout"

They play 2 out of 3 sets, why should they get the same pay as the men.

I think the WTA ought to give us a break and the Women should play a pro set, rather than forces the fans to watch boring tennis while and excellent mans match is going on.

The ideal would be to have one tour and eliminate the WTA.

 

[raftermania]

Who said the unquoted stuff you or Lindsay???

 

[baseliner]

Exactly how much did the year end WTA event lose in Los Angeles again this year? The comment tht WTA plays exciting tennis seems to be answered by the market. In events where the ATP and the WTA play separately who usually gets the bigger gate, sponsorship and purse? USO, AO and Cubai are the exception not the rule.

 

[tennis-n-sc]

If you are referring to gate revenue, I doubt any tournament, men's or women's, pays for the eventon attendance. That's where the sponsers come in. I really enjoy the formats where both genders play at the same time. Especially as a spectator. It is not particularly exciting to me to watch Federer beat someone early in the draw 6-1, 6-0.

 

[Grimjack]

Cannot believe this from Davenport.

"Davenport slams Wimbledon over unfair prize-money shareout"

They play 2 out of 3 sets, why should they get the same pay as the men.

Prize purses aren't thank-yous for excellent play or hard work. They're capitalist-based thank-yous to the players for providing entertainment and thus successfully/profitably promoting the event and its sponsors.

If an event/sponsor believes it's good business to pay the women as much as (or more than) the men, they are right. If they believe it's good business to pay the women less, they're right about that too. It's their advertising dollar.

 

[gts072]

I like to watch womens' tennis from time to time but I have to agree with Barry that the women have to play 3 out of 5 sets to even demand equal prize money.

 

[tommytom11]

shame on Lindsay. she is usually pretty sharp and rational. bottom line...when they play best of 5 they can talk. if not, NO WAY

 

[raftermania]

Hey Billie Jean King was given stigma when she tried to give the women some respect and look what she accomplished.

Why shouldn't they be offered the same purse??? The job title of the professional woman player and male player is very much the same except men play some five setters.

Tennis players are getting paid the big bucks because of the prestige of their sport. It's not about who's working harder physically. If you're going to pay people based on this logic, then blue collar workers should be paid more then those lazy lawyers who sit on their butts all day.

 

[spinbalz]

I think only 1 professional tour should exist, open to men and women at the same time, then we'll see how much money the Williams sisters, Davenport, Sharapova and co, really deserve to win, I mean ZERO $

 

[West Coast Ace]

Beating up an old man?

Hey Billie Jean King was given stigma when she tried to give the women some respect and look what she accomplished.

Why shouldn't they be offered the same purse??? The job title of the professional woman player and male player is very much the same except men play some five setters.

Tennis players are getting paid the big bucks because of the prestige of their sport. It's not about who's working harder physically. If you're going to pay people based on this logic, then blue collar workers should be paid more then those lazy lawyers who sit on their butts all day.

Billie Jean beat a tired, old man with a big mouth. Is that really a great accomplishment?

As someone else pointed out, it's all about the Benjamins. Putting aside the obvious point that men play longer matches, thus more TV commercials, think about the overall flow of a tournament. While things are getting better, the ladies top seeds usually breeze through the early rounds and their tournament really starts in the 16s. While the top men seeds do occasionally get easy draws, on any given day, they can get upset if they aren't on their game. Men's tournaments sell more tickets. Case in point - the year end tournaments. In recent years, the men's sessions are almost complete sellouts. The ladies event in LA has been an embarrassment. The Staples Center was a ghost town for the early rounds.

I'm all for women competing - but please don't try to sell me a Buick and tell me it's a Mercedes Benz.

 

[david aames]

Hello?!! Not a big fan of WTA myself but the girls pull the biggest ratings. Simple as that.

They play 2 out of 3 sets, why should they get the same pay as the men.

I think the WTA ought to give us a break and the Women should play a pro set, rather than forces the fans to watch boring tennis while and excellent mans match is going on.

The ideal would be to have one tour and eliminate the WTA.

 

[West Coast Ace]

Liars figure and figures lie

Hello?!! Not a big fan of WTA myself but the girls pull the biggest ratings. Simple as that.

Uh, David. Maybe for the semis and finals. But what about the other 5 rounds? I went to the 1st round of the WTA event day session in Carson, CA. There were more security people than fans. Whereas the 1st day session, a few weeks later when the men are in Westwood, is packed. If the ladies game is such a huge success, why did it take so long to find a new sponsor after Porsche left? I'll bet Sony Ericsson got a great deal - the WTA wasn't exactly deluged with offers.

 

[Datacipher]

Hello?!! Not a big fan of WTA myself but the girls pull the biggest ratings. Simple as that.

Which ratings are you referring to?

I don't follow TV ratings closely, but the last 3 uso finals, the men had significantly higher ratings than the women.

Tennis ratings are highly variable depending on who is playing, there have been times when a women's final has outdrawn the men's...and the women went through a great period a couple years back, but they've been falling steadily since then.

 

[david aames]

This is probably what Lindsay had in mind:

http://www.mediaweek.com/mw/search/article_display.jsp?schema=&vnu_content_id=1000781199

As far as the USO is concerned it's true, ratings have been higher but not significantly (especially considering that they play on saturday)

2004 USO
men 2.5
women 2.2

2003 USO
men 2.8
women 2.5

2002 USO
men 6.2
women 5.2

2001 USO
men ?
women 6.8

Wimbledon... Slightly different story.

wimbledon 04
?

Wimbledon 03
men 2.7 (lowest ever for a wimbledon men's final)
women 4.0

Wimbledon 02
men 2.9
women 4.6

Wimbledon 00
men ?
women final 6.0
women semi 5.0

Wimbledon 99
men ?
women 4.9

Which ratings are you referring to?

I don't follow TV ratings closely, but the last 3 uso finals, the men had significantly higher ratings than the women.

Tennis ratings are highly variable depending on who is playing, there have been times when a women's final has outdrawn the men's...and the women went through a great period a couple years back, but they've been falling steadily since then.

 

[prince]

Hello?!! Not a big fan of WTA myself but the girls pull the biggest ratings. Simple as that.

maybe if you clone a lot of anna k. and maria s. and let all of them play the tournament .

 

[Phil]

shame on Lindsay. she is usually pretty sharp and rational. bottom line...when they play best of 5 they can talk. if not, NO WAY

I would pay the women higher prize money to NOT play best of five. How many people REALLY want to see a five-set sleeper between, say, Elena Dementieva and Conchita Martinez? BOOOOO-ring! Best of three is plenty.

Tennis is not factory job-the players don't punch a time card. Prize money shouldn't be based on time on court-if the women are pulling in equal viewer numbers as the men, pay them their due. If they are not, don't bother. Based on the numbers provided by David Aames, it looks like Davenport has a legitimate gripe.

 

[West Coast Ace]

Well said

Tennis ratings are highly variable depending on who is playing, there have been times when a women's final has outdrawn the men's...and the women went through a great period a couple years back, but they've been falling steadily since then.

The men are victims of the depth of field. The women usually get a marquee matchup because the top seeds breeze through. Look at some of AA's 'victims' at the AU Open - Clement, Schuettler (sp?) - Nalbandian wasn't well known when he made the Wimbledon final - and those who knew him didn't think he stood much of a chance on grass against Hewitt. And look what happened at last year's USO when the ladies did have two non-stars. If the Williams sisters are involved the ladies ratings are skewed by those who only watch sports with black involved and when a hottie like Maria S is playing you get the 'dirty old man' factor. The men, when all is factored in, provide a more compelling tournament and deserve a little more cash.

 

[equinox]

They'll deserve equal prize money when they start wearing bikini and thongs on court.

 

[Datacipher]

This is probably what Lindsay had in mind:

http://www.mediaweek.com/mw/search/article_display.jsp?schema=&vnu_content_id=1000781199

Ah yes, that is probably what was fresh in her mind. Good link.

I do remember that one Wimbledon final being so low for the men...unfortunate....hopefully people will catch on that Federer is someone well worth watching.

 

[Datacipher]

As far as the USO is concerned it's true, ratings have been higher but not significantly (especially considering that they play on saturday)

2004 USO
men 2.5
women 2.2

2003 USO
men 2.8
women 2.5

2002 USO
men 6.2
women 5.2

I've seen different numbers for 2 of the years, which is why I said "significant".

2003 USO
men 3.5
women 2.5

2002 USO men 7.9
women 5.2

 

[rhubarb]

Hello?!! Not a big fan of WTA myself but the girls pull the biggest ratings. Simple as that.

Maybe that's true in North America, but I would very much doubt it in Europe. Unfortunately I don't have any figures to back that up .

 

[VamosRafa]

I've read the above, and all I want to do is post this article from March 1, as posted in Bob Larson's Daily World News:

Dubai to Pay Equal Prize Money to Women and Men

Dubai announced it was raising the prize money for this week’s women’s event by $415,000 bringing the total to $1 million. Thus it will equal last week’s prize money for the men’s event.

The promoters claim the US$415,000 boost in women’s prize money in Dubai is an indication of the growing global popularity of women’s tennis among fans, including in the Middle East region, and the commercial momentum generated by the Tour’s recent string of sponsorship deals with Sony Ericsson, Dubai Duty Free, Whirlpool Europe and the TOM Group.

 

[BLiND]

Those are only US viewing figures... its different in other countries.

Simply when they do the same job as the men, they can get paid the same... its the same for any job.

 

[Deuce]

Lindsay's usually a class act - but she should shut her mouth on this one.

This can't possibly be about the dollar value, as Davenport has more than enough money to live several lifetimes. So what is it about, then? Respect? Lindsay should know that honorable people don't measure others by their 'net worth'.

Anyone making over $1 Million per annum cannot possibly or legitimately - for any reason - complain that they aren't getting enough money without revealing their own ultimate greed and selfishness. Lindsay included.

 

[VamosRafa]

Those are only US viewing figures... its different in other countries.

Simply when they do the same job as the men, they can get paid the same... its the same for any job.

You are right. I'm a lawyer, and I get paid the same as any person of my level of experience does in my firm. It is indeed equal. (Although it took a long time for women to get paid the same in this profession, or even to be allowed in this profession -- but women way before me -- such as Sandra Day O'Connor and Ruth Bader Ginsberg paved that way, and it's all equalized to a certain degree.)

But I think things are a bit different in sports. A promoter stages events, gets sponsors, promotes the "athletes," gets the spectators in, and hopes to reap a profit.

It seems the women tennis players are bringing in the sponsors, spectators and money, so they should reap the same benefits the men do, if they are doing the same in terms of realizing a profit. It's only fair.

 

[aj_m2009]

I don't really think they should get equal prize money because they don't do the same amount of work as the men do. The men at times have to play 2 or 3 more sets than the women but then again at times they play the same. Here, why don't they make the tournaments that make the men play best of 3 set like the women have equal prize money. This way the women still get more money and they still get to play the same amount. Maybe this way they will be happy.

 

[tennis-n-sc]

No one responded to GrimJack's observation, which I believe to be excellent and a side of this argument I haven't considered. It is all business. I think as fans we get caught up in the mistaken idea that these events are held for us. They are held to make money for the sponsers. And the circle is huge. Think of the capital that a major brings into the location over two weeks. If the WTA were removed from these events, money would be lost, not gained. There are several reasons the gals should receive equal prize money but the most obvious is the money their side brings in. We are talking about an insignificant amount , really, when compared to all the money the event generates. From a business and social standpoint, it would appear to me to be the right thing to do. I believe Lindsey will be the new "Billy Jean" upon her retirement. A bright girl with vision for the women's game.

 

[VamosRafa]

I don't really think they should get equal prize money because they don't do the same amount of work as the men do. The men at times have to play 2 or 3 more sets than the women but then again at times they play the same. Here, why don't they make the tournaments that make the men play best of 3 set like the women have equal prize money. This way the women still get more money and they still get to play the same amount. Maybe this way they will be happy.

I think this argument has been made and rehashed over the past 10 years or so.

It doesn't come down to who spends more time on court. It comes down to who brings in the dough.

And the women are bringing it in. And the money reflects that, as it should.

The tourneys aren't going to fork out the money to the women if they aren't doing their part.

They apparently are, and good for them. It's great for tennis if both the ATP and WTA are drawing in the fans in equal measures.

 

[rhubarb]

Does anyone know in how many of the joint ATP/WTA events the prize money pot is unequal? It can't be that many. I know it is at Wimbledon and Roland Garros, although the differential is very small nowadays (a couple of percent I think); anywhere else?

With regard to the economic argument, I definitely don't think that women's tennis is more popular, or generates more money, than men's, especially outside the US. For example, I've just bought tickets for the (men's) Italian Open, and the prices are a lot higher than for the women's tournament the following week. A subscription ticket covering both tournaments costs about as the same buying daily tickets for the men's tournament; in other words you get the women's tournament free. There might be a few reasons for this, but it leads me to believe that they can sell tickets for the men's tournament a whole lot easier than the women's.

I guess it would be nice to have "equal pay" in name. But that's all it would be. Maybe reorganising how the money is earned and dished out in the first place would be a better aim to pursue.

 

[barry]

I think it is time we have ATP and forget the WTA. Let everyone compete maybe in 20 years the women will catch up and beat the man.
But for now they are not equal. Lets not make the women play 5 sets, the William sisters can't even play 3 without injury, plus it takes away from other quality matches.
Equal play, equal league!

 

[Kevin Patrick]

rhubarb:

"Dubai is only the third tournament on the world circuit which has equal prize money - the others are the US Open and the Australian Open - with the two other Grand Slams, Wimbledon and the French Open maintaining the women's prize funds fractionally below that of the men's."

I found that very interesting. There are many high profile joint events (Pacific Life/Lipton) but yet the only time equal prize money is an issue is at the Grand Slams. Even if the slams paid equally the women would still earn far less overall. I guess they only care that the general public thinks they are paid equally on the basis of 4 events.

http://sports.yahoo.com/ten/news?slug=afp-tenniswtauaegbr&prov=afp&type=lgns

 

[mishadude]

Name one other professional sport where the women are paid salaries equal to the men... Basketball? nope...Soccer? close but nope (with the exception of superstars with endorsements ie., Mia Hamm). Golf, hah we can't even play on the same courses. Maybe pool and bowling but I doubt it. Ah, figure skating finally. Tennis would definitely have to lead the equal pay movement. There are obvious pay differences in all professional sports that have both genders. Whose fault is it? Who knows, team managers, marketing execs., the fans, or sports channels that broadcast primarily male events. Probably all of the above.

 

[Datacipher]

There are obvious pay differences in all professional sports that have both genders. Whose fault is it? Who knows, team managers, marketing execs., the fans, or sports channels that broadcast primarily male events. Probably all of the above.

Well in this sense, I don't think you can simply pass off the blame. Sure, there may be some sexist barriers in traditionally male sports. BUT setting aside the business/marketing side of the issue, there is a reason why the women dont' tend to get paid as much and it's simple. Sports at their heart are about performance. Generally speaking, we pay to see the best. We reward the highest level of play. The women are playing at a level substantially below the men in tennis. They have by definition set up a tour which is inherantly gender biased. Open to women only, so that stronger male competitors cannot compete in their events. The public has been extremely accepting of this tour and it has done tremendously well to it's credit. Much better than say if I set up my own tour for men, not open to ATP pros where the level of play is lower, but still higher than the WTA....I don't think we'd do all that well....

 

[Very Western]

I can't bring myself to fork out money to watch a WTA match, when I can watch a much higher standard of tennis for virtually nothing by going to men's challenger/futures tournament.

I would also agree with Phil, in that I wouldn't want the women to play best of five sets (best of three has enough unforced errors for me).

 

[VamosRafa]

I can't bring myself to fork out money to watch a WTA match, when I can watch a much higher standard of tennis for virtually nothing by going to men's challenger/futures tournament.

I don't go to strictly WTA events myself, but I find that when I go to Indian Wells, I get the best bang for my buck over even other ATP events, because there's times when the women's matches are better than the men's.

The women's events start earlier in the week than the men's, so when I get there, the men are starting their first rounds, and the women are in the 2nd or 3rd round, with singles and doubles. And sometimes I'll look at the OOP, and see that there's a great women's match out on Court 1. And I'll go.

And I've seen some great WTA matches that way.

One of the best doubles matches I saw a few years ago was when Seles/Capriati took on Raymond/Stubbs.

I really enjoy events where both the women and men play. I wish they would have more of those, as I think both Tours would benefit.

Yes, oftentimes the men have some better matches going on, but if Davenport and Hantuchova are facing off on center court, and the most interesting men's event a the time is Nalbandian vs. Novak.

Well, it's a no-brainer. Off to center court I go.

And it's amazing how much that happens at events.

Of course, if you are at the event and Lindsay is blitzing Daniela, then you can head over to Nalbandian/Novak. And then move back if things get interesting again. But having that option is SO great.

 

[jonas-the-ball-basher]

Cannot believe this from Davenport.

"Davenport slams Wimbledon over unfair prize-money shareout"

They play 2 out of 3 sets, why should they get the same pay as the men.
QUOTE]

I agree with you, but....
The reason why women play only best of 3 sets is because they cannot handle long matches like men do.
So 3 sets for them is probably/maybe just as tough for them as a 5 setter is for men.
If it's like this, it is fair to pay them the same amount of money.

 

[spinbalz]

Vamosrafa wrote : there's times when the women's matches are better than the men's.

Not on a level of play viewpoint.

 

[spinbalz]

Davenport should consider herself lucky to win money by playing tennis, because she only has to compete against players from the same gender as her, which is only about half of the population, compare it to the other professions, where peoples have to compete against both genders, like Vamosrafa, who has to be an as good lawier as she can in a world where she will have to face men AND women lawiers. Imagine how much money Davenport would win if she would have to compete in a tour open to both genders, like Vamosrafa who has to win her life in a business open to both genders... Total gain for Davenport would be $0, she really doesn't realize how lucky she is.

 

[tennisjunkiela]

Women -vs- Men: (Huge) Equal Money Thread

The French open announced today that, starting next year, the women's champion will be paid the same amount of money as the men's champion.
Considering the popularity of women's tennis and women tennis players, I think this is long overdue.

Now that albatross Wimbledon is the only Grand Slam left in the dark ages.

 

[8PAQ]

The French open announced today that, starting next year, the women's champion will be paid the same amount of money as the men's champion.
Considering the popularity of women's tennis and women tennis players, I think this is long overdue.

Now that albatross Wimbledon is the only Grand Slam left in the dark ages.

Agreed! I am for 100% equality. Actually, I would go even further. Lets have women play 3 out of 5 sets matches. It is such a major discrimination to have to stop their matches after a maximum of 3 sets. Oh, oh, and even better! Lets merge ATP and WTA! Who says that women can't compete with men! Outrageous! Then and only then we will have true equality!

 

[tennisjunkiela]

Agreed! I am for 100% equality. Actually, I would go even further. Lets have women play 3 out of 5 sets matches. It is such a major discrimination to have to stop their matches after a maximum of 3 sets. Oh, oh, and even better! Lets merge ATP and WTA! Who says that women can't compete with men! Outrageous! Then and only then we will have true equality!

I didn't know there was a correlation between the length of match and whether it is entertaining and high quality? Then I guess they should pay clay courters, who stay on court longer and have longer rallies, more than hard courters?

Last time i checked in sports, there was a correlation between compensation and a player or team's drawing power (ability to draw paying customers), so since women's tennis consistently outperforms men tennis in tv ratings, maybe they should pay the women more.

Heck, almost every year the tv audience for the women's final at the US Open outdraws the men's final (just maybe that's why they broadcast the Women'sfinal, NOT the Men's, in primetime?)

 

[Taram_Nifas]

That's crazy, nobody even watches the WTA when it is a non Slam Event. Women's tennis is basically boring, the only players that are fun to watch are the Belgians.

 

[8PAQ]

I didn't know there was a correlation between the length of match and whether it is entertaining and high quality? Then I guess they should pay clay courters, who stay on court longer and have longer rallies, more than hard courters?

Last time i checked in sports, there was a correlation between compensation and a player or team's drawing power (ability to draw paying customers), so since women's tennis consistently outperforms men tennis in tv ratings, maybe they should pay the women more.

Heck, almost every year the tv audience for the women's final at the US Open outdraws the men's final (just maybe that's why they broadcast the Women'sfinal, NOT the Men's, in primetime?)

Hey read my post again. I said equality and not quality. Also, I didn't said anything remotely negative about women in it. Who knows, I might be a feminist who actually believes that women would be able to compete with men. Or maybe it was all sarcasm. And maybe I know that if ATP and WTA was merged than we would have 2 women and 126 men in a grand slam. Hehehe… It is all up to you how you decide to interpret my post. Once again, I said nothing bad in it. After all, I want nothing less than real and 100% equality!

 

[marialover]

I find the women's tennis matches more entertaining and interesting than the men's matches. However, there is more televised coverage of the atp matches than the wta matches and that makes no sense at all. That is hardly fair. I was screaming at USA network a couple of weeks ago. The commentators were saying that the wta matches were boring and only at the semis did things pick up. WRONG. There were great wta matches that I saw at the US Open live which were never shown. USA didn't bother to explain in detail what seems to be in parethesis ..."so far the women's matches have been dull (except for the many which we did not show you, such as Myskina/Likhovtseta, Dementieva/Chankvetadze, Vaidisova/Petrova, Mauresmo/ Groenefeld among others) now in the semis there should finally be some good matches..." The women's matches are usually better than the men's matches and yes, the women get better tv ratings which is why they have prime time coverage of the finals of the US Open women. It is absolutely ridiculous that espn and now, USA will continue to show horrible matches, like Rusedski vs karlovic instead of Henin or Dementieva... It makes no sense at all.

Anyway, when you take into consideration that the women tend to play better, more entertaining matches than the men, who often play boring 5 set matches, the pay should be equal and both sexes should only play best of 3 sets.

 

[tennisjunkiela]

That's crazy, nobody even watches the WTA when it is a non Slam Event. Women's tennis is basically boring, the only players that are fun to watch are the Belgians.

No one watches Tennis PERIOD, men's or women, it's a non Slam Event!

But if you would like to check for yourself that women's tennis consistently draws a bigger television audience, I invite you to go to www.arbitron.com for the official ratings or call the US Open and ask them why they are televising the women's final in primetime when they could get higher ratings televising the men's instead?

 

[thejerk]

How many rackets you think they can sell based on Meresmo's name? Equal pay? Now they are getting more. Why not demand that women play as good or atleast as long as men? If they aren't as good, why is it equality to pay them more?

 

[tennisjunkiela]

That's crazy, nobody even watches the WTA when it is a non Slam Event. Women's tennis is basically boring, the only players that are fun to watch are the Belgians.

No one watches Tennis PERIOD, men's or women, when it's a non Slam Event!

But if you would like to check for yourself that women's tennis consistently draws a bigger television audience, I invite you to go to www.arbitron.com for the official ratings or call the US Open and ask them why they are televising the women's final in primetime when they could get higher ratings televising the men's instead?

 

[Babblelot]

I suppose that explains why they added a 15th day to the event.

 

[Tchocky]

Are there any men who believe women should receive equal prize money for the same events men play? That's the real question. Someone should start a poll.

 

[splink779]

I'm sorry, I am for equal pay in every other even BUT the slams. While I am not sexist in any way, I beleive in this - Men work harder and longer in the slams by a huge margin. If it is admitted that women are admittedly (on average) weaker than men when it comes to sports (most namely 5 set matches) and that is why they cannot play 5 sets, they should admittedly take less money. This post is in the context of tennis.