...at which point they would lose 6-0 6-0 6-0 in the first round of qualifiers...
Men & Women: Equal Prize Money [Merged]
- Thread starter barry
- Start date
...at which point they would lose 6-0 6-0 6-0 in the first round of qualifiers...
Dreamer
Professional
There is no end to this debate! I wonder how many times it would be brought up in real life without an avatar to hide behind and in front of sneering women.
And the 5 set argument is weak. Training is what takes majority of the hours as a professional athlete, not the amounts of sets played. This is not pay by the hour in any case.
And the 5 set argument is weak. Training is what takes majority of the hours as a professional athlete, not the amounts of sets played. This is not pay by the hour in any case.
tangerine
Professional
It's ironic to me that the women of the 60s-90s deserved equal pay far more than any of the choke artists playing today.
I'm tired of seeing players like Navratilova looking bored and disgusted watching women's finals. I don't blame them in the least.
The women need to save face and step the hell up already. They are a disgrace and embarrassment to the Billie Jean King generation who fought so hard to give these women the level playing field that they enjoy and take for granted today.
I guess that's what true equality is: play like crap and get away with it, just like the men. I wish they'd show some self-respect.
I'm tired of seeing players like Navratilova looking bored and disgusted watching women's finals. I don't blame them in the least.
The women need to save face and step the hell up already. They are a disgrace and embarrassment to the Billie Jean King generation who fought so hard to give these women the level playing field that they enjoy and take for granted today.
I guess that's what true equality is: play like crap and get away with it, just like the men. I wish they'd show some self-respect.
Last edited:
boredone3456
G.O.A.T.
If you want women to play best of 5, write to the grand slam organizers. Venus and several other top women have said they would play best of 5 to get equal pay if thats what it took, but the tournament organizers still have them playing best of 3. Why? because if women were to play best of 5 you may as well add another week to each slam because thats what is would take to accomodate for the necessary shift in the scheduling of court times, which would add another month to the season and thus throw the entire season off its base, which would lead to chaos. Slam organizers have enough trouble setting court times with women playing best of three...especially at Wimbledon where mother nature always finds a way to interupt.
If the women not playing best of 5 sets at the majors is the base of your argument against equal pay, then its not that great because the number of sets the women play is not under their direct control but is under the control of the tournament directors and organizers of the tour. As for the quality, strength on the tour comes in ebbs and flows and right now there is a lull, and to increace and decrease pay out potentially year by year based on percieved quality of the field is nuts. If the prize was not consistant, players would probably not play because why get paid two different amounts in consecutive years for the same amount of work if you win the slam both years, what player is going to accept two different amounts of money for the same amount of work? I mean...should the prize money at the French be less simply because Nadal has no competition there and there is seemingly little clay court depth? Same for Wimbledon until last year when Nadal beat Fed?
and to blame American Political Correctness is a shallow argument. The other slams were not forced by the americans to offer equal prize money as we have no jurisdiction over them. The reason the slams did it is because they knew they would lose revenue if they didn't equal the prize money because the top women then would not play them. No gaurantee the players suing them would have resulted in a change, but the players threatening to boycott the tournament probably would, because its face value would decrease.
What it all comes down to is, like it or not, the women are getting equal pay and whether you think they deserve it or not really doesn't matter because it is the way it is.
If the women not playing best of 5 sets at the majors is the base of your argument against equal pay, then its not that great because the number of sets the women play is not under their direct control but is under the control of the tournament directors and organizers of the tour. As for the quality, strength on the tour comes in ebbs and flows and right now there is a lull, and to increace and decrease pay out potentially year by year based on percieved quality of the field is nuts. If the prize was not consistant, players would probably not play because why get paid two different amounts in consecutive years for the same amount of work if you win the slam both years, what player is going to accept two different amounts of money for the same amount of work? I mean...should the prize money at the French be less simply because Nadal has no competition there and there is seemingly little clay court depth? Same for Wimbledon until last year when Nadal beat Fed?
and to blame American Political Correctness is a shallow argument. The other slams were not forced by the americans to offer equal prize money as we have no jurisdiction over them. The reason the slams did it is because they knew they would lose revenue if they didn't equal the prize money because the top women then would not play them. No gaurantee the players suing them would have resulted in a change, but the players threatening to boycott the tournament probably would, because its face value would decrease.
What it all comes down to is, like it or not, the women are getting equal pay and whether you think they deserve it or not really doesn't matter because it is the way it is.
Last edited:
LurkingGod
Rookie
I hope if they made women play best of 5 they'd make them play their own GS seperately. A 5 sets marathon match from women side sounds just as entertaining as watching a clock tickling..
JeMar
Legend
No... just... no.
I don't post super often, but I've been reading this board for at least a couple of years and this is a new addition to my "Worst 10 Statements of All-Time."
miniRafa386
Hall of Fame
if women want the same pay, then they should play by the same format. end of story.
miniRafa386
Hall of Fame
couldnt have said it better, well done babo
RestockingTues
Banned
Club players can hold their own serve against each other... :?
000KFACTOR90000
Professional
I like the best of 5 set format just for the grand slams. In the conversations I've had, women have been more likely to chime in and strongly agree with the concept rather than sneer.
the problem with this argument is that it's rooted somehow in the feminist movement. somehow, BJK convinced everyone that women being paid less in tennis is because the world is sexist. that's simply not how i look at it.
tennis is a business, at least with respect to prize money. the equation should be simple, the more money you bring in, the more you get paid. if you play in the finals you're not only being rewarded for being badass, you're being rewarded because you provided 7 rounds of entertainment, and got the largest number of viewers/audience to watch, erego bringing in the most money.
why don't tennis players whine to the nba or nfl or soccer(football) about equal pay? federer was just as dominant a no. 1 (if not more) than tiger woods, why didnt' he whine to nike to get more pay? simple, because it's not about fairness. the amount of money you get paid is proportional to how productive you are. tiger brings in more money to nike (for instance) than roger does, erego he gets paid boatloads more
i wish people to get rid of this idea of sexism. now, i'm not a huge capitalist, but for a sport like this, this is a market, let the market decide! if the women can pull in as much money for a tournament as the men (and yes this can be quantified, ratings, ticket sales for women headlined days, etc.) they should get as much money. if they can pull in more money, even if they play fewer sets, even if they play 1 set, hell, even if they play 1 game they should get more money!
this isn't about sexism, it's about capitalism, simple as that
tennis is a business, at least with respect to prize money. the equation should be simple, the more money you bring in, the more you get paid. if you play in the finals you're not only being rewarded for being badass, you're being rewarded because you provided 7 rounds of entertainment, and got the largest number of viewers/audience to watch, erego bringing in the most money.
why don't tennis players whine to the nba or nfl or soccer(football) about equal pay? federer was just as dominant a no. 1 (if not more) than tiger woods, why didnt' he whine to nike to get more pay? simple, because it's not about fairness. the amount of money you get paid is proportional to how productive you are. tiger brings in more money to nike (for instance) than roger does, erego he gets paid boatloads more
i wish people to get rid of this idea of sexism. now, i'm not a huge capitalist, but for a sport like this, this is a market, let the market decide! if the women can pull in as much money for a tournament as the men (and yes this can be quantified, ratings, ticket sales for women headlined days, etc.) they should get as much money. if they can pull in more money, even if they play fewer sets, even if they play 1 set, hell, even if they play 1 game they should get more money!
this isn't about sexism, it's about capitalism, simple as that
I def agree and i think how someone put it before seperating them for one grand slam to see the difference in sales and market revenues would be an awesome way to see.
That's true, it's not about sexism, its a simple matter of demand and supply.
D
Deleted member 25923
Guest
Djokovic lasted longer than the required amount of sets to be played by the WTA.
Also, equal pay outside of slams is fine because they play best of 3, but not within slams.
Also, equal pay outside of slams is fine because they play best of 3, but not within slams.
aceX
Hall of Fame
Yes, if they don't, it's discrimination.
C++ Primer
Rookie
WTF WTA
10 chars
10 chars
dsa202
Banned
Uh that's completely not true. Although maybe you could argue that the top 20 has a lot of talent, fact of the matter is there isn't a lot of depth in womens tennis.
If you just think about it for a minute it makes sense. There are a lot more men on tour than women. That alone creates a deeper field of players.
And as an example just compare the first few rounds of any grand slam. In womens tennis we almost always see a blowout by more experienced players, while we seldom see that in men's tennis. Upsets are more adamant in mens tennis than womens.
Just the facts.
Lol, this.
If women want to claim the whole "equality" argument (despite the fact it not holding for basically every other sport), then why not also extend it to doubles players and wheelchair tennis players?
vandre
Hall of Fame
and ppl thought bobby riggs was the shyster!
Federerx16
Rookie
that's really funny because if there's one thing i associate with the women it's the early round upsets. Last years us open was a disaster for the seeds! And we are more likely to see the same players in the latter stages with the men. I attribute that to the 3 set versus 5 set factor (easier to be upset in 3 than 5- ask Fed)
Federerx16
Rookie
the problem with this argument is the assumption that grand slam organisers are oblivious to these facts. If the women were an economic burden on the slams i doubt very much that the organisers would be willing to pay them the amounts they do. Obviously someone out there thinks they are worth what they are given so as much as you may disagree, really it's not up to you as long as you're not doing the paying.
It makes no real difference to the slams how they award their money though...
Let's pretend the men make vastly more revenue for the slams than the women.
It has no impact on the slam whether it gives out prize money in proportion to the revenue generated or not.
So I've no idea what you're talking about really...
Equal pay was introduced after considerable pressure was put upon the slams by BJK etc. If the slams thought the women were "worth equal pay", why didn't they implement it sooner, out of their own initiative?
aceX
Hall of Fame
lol last time I went to the rugby two beers cost more than two tickets
Federerx16
Rookie
if it makes no difference to the slams how they award money, how is this an issue?? I would imagine it affects the people complaining in this thread even less.
Secondly, i don't see why the fact that there was a campaign for equal say should diminish it's credibility. Is non-discrimination between blacks and whites less credible because there was a civil rights movement? Is the right of women to vote irrelevant because people campaigned for it?
Also, you say that BJK put "considerable pressure" on the slams "forcing" them to give equal pay. According to the post i was replying to women do not bring in enough money to be considered equals, supply and demand, it's "business" ... etc.
So if the women are of so much less value than the men, what pressure could they POSSIBLY put on the slams to give equal pay?? Really?
And whether Federer or Nadal wins slams doesn't really affect people on here, but they still talk about it. People have opinions on things.
Do you really think women bring in equal amounts of money to the slams than men? I've no evidence either way of course, but it seems unlikely.
You say "what pressure could they POSSIBLY put on the slams"? This is what my last post was about... it's irrelevant how the slams award their prize money. Even if the males bring in more revenue, the slams don't have to award prize money in proportion with that. It doesn't affect the slam in any way.
Lots of tennis players were starting to attack the slams over a perceived "lack of fairness", so the slams were worried about getting called unfair, sexist etc, so it was probably less hassle for them just to award equal prize money.
aceX
Hall of Fame
I don't, ESPN gets clogged up with womens matches during majors.
cknobman
Legend
I agree with aceX with the supply and demand theory.
In grand slams women should be paid what the market is willing to tolerate. But unfortunately that would mean they would get paid squat in relation to the men and the world is growing more and more to cater to the loud minority in order to look "PC". The squeaky wheel gets the grease!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
In grand slams women should be paid what the market is willing to tolerate. But unfortunately that would mean they would get paid squat in relation to the men and the world is growing more and more to cater to the loud minority in order to look "PC". The squeaky wheel gets the grease!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Nadalfan89
Hall of Fame
Women bring in about 1/10th of the revenue as the men do, yet get paid the exact same. It's actually quite ridiculous.
Liberals will be liberals I suppose...
Liberals will be liberals I suppose...
Devilito
Hall of Fame
Tennis is a business. It has nothing to do with the amount of time played or work put in but the amount of money you bring in.
If a women’s match can be 1 set and bring in more money then a men’s match, women should make more money. The way I’d do it is have prize money as a percentage of total money made during the tournament per draw. This way it would motivate certain events to become better. If women end up making very little, it would motivate the WTA to do something different to attract more viewers. When you have this blanker affirmative action type payer system you do nothing but stifle innovation and motivation for different groups to change and strive to improve.
On the other hand, tournaments can do whatever they want. It’s their money. If they want to pay women double what the men make then they can do it. It’s their business model and their freedom to make bad decisions.
In the end we’re talking about millionaire athletes and business men that make more money in *one month* (prize money plus endorsements) than most of us will make in a lifetime. It’s rather comical to even be discussing it.
If a women’s match can be 1 set and bring in more money then a men’s match, women should make more money. The way I’d do it is have prize money as a percentage of total money made during the tournament per draw. This way it would motivate certain events to become better. If women end up making very little, it would motivate the WTA to do something different to attract more viewers. When you have this blanker affirmative action type payer system you do nothing but stifle innovation and motivation for different groups to change and strive to improve.
On the other hand, tournaments can do whatever they want. It’s their money. If they want to pay women double what the men make then they can do it. It’s their business model and their freedom to make bad decisions.
In the end we’re talking about millionaire athletes and business men that make more money in *one month* (prize money plus endorsements) than most of us will make in a lifetime. It’s rather comical to even be discussing it.
It's really due to the fact that slams are both male and female, that we have equal pay.
Obviously, if, like other sports, there were separate "men's and women's" slams, then the women would have to "fend for themselves", the tournament would bring in less money, and they'd get less pay.
Obviously, if, like other sports, there were separate "men's and women's" slams, then the women would have to "fend for themselves", the tournament would bring in less money, and they'd get less pay.
Nadalfan89
Hall of Fame
With that logic, it's comical to discuss anything we discuss here considering we have no actual authority or even expertise in the matter. People have opinions.
Devilito
Hall of Fame
Most of us here on this forum actually play and watch tennis so it’s fair to discuss the game and the pros matches. To discuss the business side and how much money they should be making is rather comical to me because, more than likely, nobody on this forum has any experience in what it takes to run a pro athletic franchise. Plus, way to comment on only the last 3 lines of my post. Are you one of those people that read the front and back cover of a book and feel like you've read it?
Nadalfan89
Hall of Fame
Nope, I just happen to agree with the rest of your post. Would you like me to validate your ego and tell you that I agree with it before I can continue with my post?
Devilito
Hall of Fame
no need. Sorry for being jumpy
Devilito
Hall of Fame
Tennis is a sport but the ATP tour and pro tournaments are a business built around showcasing the sport. If we didn’t have the business, Federer and Nadal would be playing points on a public court right now for a chance to win a free racquet bag before having to go back to their shift serving fries at McDonalds to make enough rent money for the month.
Grass_for_cows
Semi-Pro
Women on average get paid less than men, given equal competence and qualification. Go make a thread about that.
Similar threads
- Poll
