Men & Women: Equal Prize Money [Merged]

Should women receive the same prize money as men?

  • Yes, women should receive the same pay at all events

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Yes, women should receive the same pay only at non 5-set events

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Yes, women should receive the same pay at Slams only if they play best of 5-set matches

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No, women should not receive the same prize money anywhere until they play men

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0
  • Poll closed .

The tennis guy

Hall of Fame
But why should women get paid the same for having to win less? It's an essential issue of fairness.
What do you mean by win less? If men's champion won his 7 matches all in 3-0, and women's champion won her 7 matches all in 2-1, then what do you mean win less?

It's you and other with the flawed argument about playing more sets and time. Tennis players are not paid by playing more sets, or longer matches. They are paid by winning a match, easy or hard, it doesn't matter. Until you change that fundamentally, your argument about who played more sets with pay is crap.

At least those who argue based on revenue generation have a point one way or the other.
 

alwaysatnet

Semi-Pro
What do you mean by win less? If men's champion won his 7 matches all in 3-0, and women's champion won her 7 matches all in 2-1, then what do you mean win less?

It's you and other with the flawed argument about playing more sets and time. Tennis players are not paid by playing more sets, or longer matches. They are paid by winning a match, easy or hard, it doesn't matter. Until you change that fundamentally, your argument about who played more sets with pay is crap.

At least those who argue based on revenue generation have a point one way or the other.
Whether someone is able to win a slam playing the minimum amount of sets(which is exceedingly rare) or the maximum isn't the point. What if both the man and woman win a slam in straight sets? The man has still played more(21 sets vs. 14 sets).Should I post again how players get payed to win,not play the most sets or the longest time? I shouldn't have to but let me repeat myself since you are having troubles with the concept: Tennis players are indeed not paid for playing the longest matches or most sets.They are paid for winning.But if one player has to play more sets,potentially,than another for the same money than that is inequality in action. There is no realistic way to determine absolutely who puts more butts in the seats. But paying the winner to win the most is an absolutely fair way to split the money,EXCEPT if one player has to play more than the other. What is so hard about understanding that?
 
Last edited:

The tennis guy

Hall of Fame
I shouldn't have to but let me repeat myself since you are having troubles with the concept: Tennis players are indeed not paid for playing the longest matches or most sets.They are paid for winning.But if one player has to play more sets,potentially,than another for the same money than that is inequality in action. There is no realistic way to determine absolutely who puts more butts in the seats. But paying the winner to win the most is an absolutely fair way to split the money,EXCEPT if one player has to play more than the other.
Federer won his first round match 3-0 in one hour, and Nadal won his first round match 3-2 in 5 hours. They still get paid the same for winning one round.

I don't know who has trouble with the concept. I don't hear you come out to say it is inequality at work. If you don't change this, stop argue about playing more sets should get paid more.
 

alwaysatnet

Semi-Pro
Where are you from? Mars? It isn't unequal if Federer wins in less time than Nadal. It IS unequal if Federer has to win three of five sets but Nadal has to win just two of three. Please stop being so dense.
 

katarddx

Semi-Pro
Equal pay ? When the ladies start playing best of 5 sets I'll say YES
pleeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaasssssssssssssssssssseeeeeeeeeeeee!
it is bad enough we have to watch it for 3 sets.... no, i mean, well.... just NO. WTA is on a pretty low level now soooooo, the answere is there. lately, is just toooooo much to spend even 30 minutes by TV watching women tennis, and i MISS womens tennis
 

The tennis guy

Hall of Fame
Where are you from? Mars? It isn't unequal if Federer wins in less time than Nadal. It IS unequal if Federer has to win three of five sets but Nadal has to win just two of three. Please stop being so dense.
That's your definition of equality, playing 1 hour is the same as 5-hour. I have no problem with this inequality because tennis players are not paid by the hours or sets they played. Your definition of equality is if it fits your arguement, it is equal, but if it doesn't, so it isn't.
 

alwaysatnet

Semi-Pro
I don't want to be a smart guy but is english your first language? You are making no sense. Doing more work for than someone else for the same amount is inequality. I don't know how to make it simpler.
 

deluxe

Semi-Pro
What about advertising revenue?

You see more women advertising than men (on any product).
We don't know what the advertising revenue is. We do know that advertising revenue will be one source of revenue for the tournaments, and that will be reflected in the prize money they are able to offer, which in turn will attract the best players.
 

Alexandros

Professional
If tennis players were paid by the hour like a shift worker then by all means, women should definitely get less than men. But they don't so that argument is moot and that is the bottom line.
 

The tennis guy

Hall of Fame
I don't want to be a smart guy but is english your first language? You are making no sense. Doing more work for than someone else for the same amount is inequality. I don't know how to make it simpler.
You are very smart, if you can't make a point, it is because someone doesn't understand english. Your english is great. What does "Doing more work for than someone else for the same amount is inequality"?

If you mean doing more work than someone else for same amount is inequality, I agreed with you. But winning a match in 3 sets in one hour or 5 sets in 5 hours are getting paid the same amount. So obviously there is inequality in tennis because TENNIS PLAYERS ARE NOT PAID BY THE HOUR OR BY SETS PLAYED. So your point is moot.

At least there are a few smart people on this board understand the point.
 
T

tennisconbroccoli

Guest
Here is my opinion... I think it should stay the way it is now because contrary to popular belief, the women generally get paid more than the men anyway. I was was watching some show on the tennis channel and Maria Sharapova as well as the Williams sisters had a substantial amount of money more than tennis great, Roger Federer. I am assuming this difference of money comes from endorsement deals and advertisements that men usually don't recieve, such as shampoo commericals or Sharapova's Canon commericials. What would those commercials be like if... Federer, or even someone popular with the ladies like Roddick were advertising a camera. It would be a travesty. I don't know about you guys but I would rather see a Sharapova, or a Williams, or any other beautiful lady on my television for my veiwing pleasure. My point is sex sells and I believe that concept works a heck of alot better for women than men. As far as money and sets go. I think that it should be kind of like a job...the more you work the more you should be paid. The mens side of tennis needs this compensation as well just to keep up with the girls' advertising campaigns.

-Brock
 
Last edited by a moderator:

alwaysatnet

Semi-Pro
You are very smart, if you can't make a point, it is because someone doesn't understand english. Your english is great. What does "Doing more work for than someone else for the same amount is inequality"?

If you mean doing more work than someone else for same amount is inequality, I agreed with you. But winning a match in 3 sets in one hour or 5 sets in 5 hours are getting paid the same amount. So obviously there is inequality in tennis because TENNIS PLAYERS ARE NOT PAID BY THE HOUR OR BY SETS PLAYED. So your point is moot.

At least there are a few smart people on this board understand the point.
But is one of them you? We agree that tennis players get paid to win matches so whether they win in a short time or long time their pay is the same. But pay attention to this: if one player,however, has to win less sets per tournament round,as women do,then it's unfair to men because the men have to play 40% more tennis(still paying attention?) PER TOURNAMENT ROUND in order to get the same amount of prize money(as the women). So please,I already know and have stated three times now tennis players are not paid by the hour or set. But that assumes everyone is playing potentially the same amount of sets in order to win a grand slam tournament. That isn't true when you compare men to women's tennis though. Men have to play 40% more,regardless of how little or much time it takes them to win those extra sets. I hope you are now fully informed. Men have to win more times than women in order to get the same money.That equals inequality.
 

danb

Professional
Typical misogynist answer

Equal pay ? When the ladies start playing best of 5 sets I'll say YES
C'mon guys - you can't ask women to play 5 sets. That would make women in WTA look like men (they would look muscular like men at that point) - makes me puke. Let them play 3 sets (let them look attractive) for the same money, don't be misogynist.
 

FitzRoy

Professional
C'mon guys - you can't ask women to play 5 sets. That would make women in WTA look like men (they would look muscular like men at that point) - makes me puke. Let them play 3 sets (let them look attractive) for the same money, don't be misogynist.
Kind of ironic that you encourage posters not to be misogynist...while basing your argument chiefly on the idea that women need to look attractive. Nice touch, I like that.

I think I'm with you on this one. I don't really think the "female marathon runner" look is a very attractive one.
 

bluetrain4

G.O.A.T.
While the quality of play is down on the WTA tour, that is cyclical and is a stupid reason to not offer the women as much at the slams.

The best-of-three vs. best-of-five argument obviously has some merit. But, a couple of points. First, women didn't choose to play the shorter matches. So, don't blame the players. Second, as commentators have pointed out, the majors that don't pay women equal to men still pay women 90 percent of what the men make (at least the winner). If you really wanted pay-for-play, then women should be paid between 60 percent of what men make (3 sets being 60 percent of 5 sets, the longest possible matches) and 66 percent (2 sets being two thirds of 3 sets, the shortest possible matches). Why go all the way to 90 percent and not close the deal. Also, then why not pay men's 5 set winners 1 million dollars, 4 set winners 800k, and 3 set winners 600k in the finals of Slams if we are basing prize money on the amount of "work" done.

Tennis revenue is its best at combined events. Mens and women's tennis feed off of each other. In any one combined event, the men may outdraw the women, but the men wouldn't get as many spectators as if women weren't there at all. Also, the revenue issue at combined events is not that simple. You can't just look at attendance for matches. Tickets are sold for sessions that include mens and womens matches, not on a match by match basis. It seems easy to make the revenue argument now because men's tennis is up and women's tennis is down. But, when Hingis, the Williams sisters, Davenport, Capriati, Seles, Graf all were playing in the late 1990's and even after Graf and Seles went away in the early 2000s, women's tennis was a huge draw.

Finally, I think of this issue in terms of the value of a grand slam. Do we want to tell women that their Wimbledon title is inherently of less value than a man's. I don't look at it from a "work" perspective, but from an accomplishment perspective. A woman winning a slam has achieved the ultimate in her chosen career, same as a man. she has proven she is a champion, same as a man. From this perspective, the only argument to be made in opposition to equal pay is that men are better than women. But, if that's the argument, then why even have women play?
 

bluetrain4

G.O.A.T.
I count $6,198,250 in prize money at mens tournaments in February,
and $4,175,000 in prize money at womens tournaments in February.

Obviously to do the numbers properly, you should compare the prize money available for the whole year, and probably eliminate competitions where both the men and women play, since the is obviously political pressure to offer the same/similar prize money to the women.

If you eliminate Dubai in February, where both the men and the women play, you get:

Men: $4,772,000
Women: $2,675,000

So by my back of the envelope calculation, the tour men are worth 78% more to tournament organisers than tour women.
But, those figures are from gender-specific events. Men absolutetly deserve to make more money in male-only events than women make in female-only events because they have more sponsorship dollars. Also, as a side note, almost all regular tour events are best-of-three, just like the women. Some finals are best-of-five, but many are not. So, the "equal work" argument really doesn't fly outside of the slams.

The sponsorship dollar disparity rationale justifying unequal money doesn't transfer to the Slams, where sponsors are sponsoring the whole tournamental not just men or women.
 

alwaysatnet

Semi-Pro
Like many posters I really don't care to see women play five sets either, though perhaps you could make a case for it at the slams. My point has just been one of fairness and in reality there are lots of factors involved. The "accomplishment" arguement doesn't fly because of the obvious fact that women haven't accomplished as much when they play 40% less tennis than men at the slams. Supposed the International Olympic commitee decides women are too weak to compete in the marathon so they decide women only have to run 19 miles to win their marathon. Wouldn't that devalue their accomplishment, as well as their gold medal? It's a Victorian mind set hold over to suppose women aren't strong enough to compete for best of five. There is one golden reason,from my perspective, to go best of five like the men(though as I say,I'm not a huge fan of the women's game). You would eliminate the kind of run Serena Williams made. An out of shape basher would never be able to hold up through all those extra sets.
 

deluxe

Semi-Pro
But, those figures are from gender-specific events. Men absolutetly deserve to make more money in male-only events than women make in female-only events because they have more sponsorship dollars. Also, as a side note, almost all regular tour events are best-of-three, just like the women. Some finals are best-of-five, but many are not. So, the "equal work" argument really doesn't fly outside of the slams.

The sponsorship dollar disparity rationale justifying unequal money doesn't transfer to the Slams, where sponsors are sponsoring the whole tournamental not just men or women.
My figures are "back of envelope" evidence that ATP tournaments draw higher revenue than WTA tournaments. It seems obvious to me that the combined tournaments offer similar/equal prize money because of political correctness since the evidence from the non-combined tournaments is that the mens game is more valuable than the womens game.

If you are going to ignore the fact that the men are a bigger draw than the women, then why shouldn't the juniors that play at the grand slams have equal prize money with the adults. The sponsors sponsor the whole tournament. The juniors play 3 sets. They do the same amount of work the adults do. Why should we permit this age discrimination?
 

danb

Professional
Kind of ironic that you encourage posters not to be misogynist...while basing your argument chiefly on the idea that women need to look attractive. Nice touch, I like that.

I think I'm with you on this one. I don't really think the "female marathon runner" look is a very attractive one.
Yes, you are right, that is not the best argument - mildly put. I still believe the entertainment is not by quantity (how many sets) as much as it is by quality. I prefer the women to play 3 good sets than to see them cramping or with exhausted expressions on their faces. Also, the good looking women do not hurt the tennis entertainment at all - and we are lucky to have quite a few of them around...
 

Nick Irons

Semi-Pro
2007 Regions Morgan Keegan and the Cellular South Cup

Is this right ?

The Winner's

Men's - $128,000
Women's - $28,900

This is a discrepancy; especially when everyone is talking about Venus
 
I love the interest in this subject. I started this thread the other day and my computer crashed over the weekend! Im at work now. Getting paid for being online:)
Now my 2 cents. Besides 2 to 3 female tennis players (Sharapova, and Williams sisters) what other women really generate marketing income? Davenport was #1 in the world and you didnt even see her off court...her looks had nothing to do with it Im sure. Earlier in this thread someone mentioned that 61% of the spectators at the AO were women...Ill bet many of them were there to watch the men.
My wife, a tennis fan says (we record the matchs)..."can you forward through the womens matchs and lets get to the good stuff"...thats coming from a woman.
Also, to all of you that say men are not used for marketing...you must have not left the US lately. Globally male tennis stars are marketing icons. Gonzalez and Massu in Chile, Paradorn (sp?) in Thailand and believe it or not Lee in Korea and the list goes on. So the marketing arguement gets lost here.
By the way did anyone Email these opinions to Ten-ace.com? Maybe I should just refer him here.
 

Swissv2

Hall of Fame
While differences of opinion may vary widely (women that like the men’s game more than the women’s game, men that like the women’s game more than the men’s game, etc) and the popularity – I believe it all boils down to two main variables:

Time & Money

TIME: Every event has to account for all non-televised matches including Jr., Handicapped, and Sr. schedules. If the women's matches lasted best of 5 sets, you will have to account for an additional 2-3 hours per match which will throw off the scheduling and perhaps extend the tournament unless they make changes to the other matches.

MONEY: The tournament has to consider revenue gained from the matches, NOT endorsements made by the players on their own time. The endorsements do not have a monetary affect on the tournament (popularity, yes, but these are intangible items). If the tournament has the TIME, then maybe they can make an exception for best of 5 sets for the women. If the tournament doesn't have the TIME, then they must analyze revenue streams from women’s matches which should equal revenue streams from the men’s matches - thus giving feasibility for …equal pay. Otherwise, equal pay is NOT feasible.
 

The tennis guy

Hall of Fame
But is one of them you? We agree that tennis players get paid to win matches so whether they win in a short time or long time their pay is the same. But pay attention to this: if one player,however, has to win less sets per tournament round,as women do,then it's unfair to men because the men have to play 40% more tennis(still paying attention?) PER TOURNAMENT ROUND in order to get the same amount of prize money(as the women). So please,I already know and have stated three times now tennis players are not paid by the hour or set. But that assumes everyone is playing potentially the same amount of sets in order to win a grand slam tournament. That isn't true when you compare men to women's tennis though. Men have to play 40% more,regardless of how little or much time it takes them to win those extra sets. I hope you are now fully informed. Men have to win more times than women in order to get the same money.That equals inequality.
On the other hand, there are men who play 40% more in one round than other men but get the same amount prize money as well. It seems like you can't comprehend that inequality, but it is so easy to comprehend when it comes women. If you talk about absolute equality, then let's just pay them by the hour or the sets they play, but you don't want to do that.
 

alwaysatnet

Semi-Pro
On the other hand, there are men who play 40% more in one round than other men but get the same amount prize money as well. It seems like you can't comprehend that inequality, but it is so easy to comprehend when it comes women. If you talk about absolute equality, then let's just pay them by the hour or the sets they play, but you don't want to do that.
You don't seem to get it. The bottom line is winning whether it takes one hour or five. The pay is the same. There is no inequality in not winning a match as fast as some other guy. It takes as much effort or time as it takes. You must have a learning disability if you can't catch on to that basic truth. The point isn't how long it takes to win a set but how many sets are you going to have to play? With the women's tour you play fewer sets than the men. I'm not going to argue whether that's good or bad. It's just a fact. When women demand equal money then they should be prepared to play as long as the men do, not that they are going to or people want to see that. Please stop being so dense and dim witted.
 

drakulie

Talk Tennis Guru
On the other hand, there are men who play 40% more in one round than other men but get the same amount prize money as well. It seems like you can't comprehend that inequality, but it is so easy to comprehend when it comes women. If you talk about absolute equality, then let's just pay them by the hour or the sets they play, but you don't want to do that.
With that logic, then why not just have one tour? All the women and men competing against one another. I'm quite certain when the female players don't even win one match, they will be more than happy to play best of 3 for less money.
 

Nick Irons

Semi-Pro
That's actually an interesting point

I'd prefer to see more unity in the tourney's with both Men and Women at the same events.
 
The bad thing is that no one really knows who the people come to watch, and for what reasons. Even at big events, large corporatations buy half the seats and either give them to employees and clients (who may or may not come) or the seats go empty (they still count as 'sold'). Often, if the seat is free, a person will come no matter who is playing. As far as bringing in endorsements, women's tennis probably offers things that are more compatible with advertising (clothes, jewelry, makeup, even camera's where you think photographing someone 'pretty', etc). I think items that can be advertised by either sex are normally advertised by men (Rolex uses men more than women). So, just because a female athlete is more marketable, doesn't mean people prefer to watch her play tennis.
 
N

ne1410is

Guest
My personal solution is to eliminate best of 5 matches. I personally do not like to watch tennis for that long (and I think of myself as a veritable fanatic). It gets boring, the players seem to get tired more often than not and their play seems to worsen with fatigue more often than not imo. Plus my attention span and desire to do other things in life means that I don't want to sit there forever spending that much time to watch one match. I think a close three setter is just right. So make it best of 3 for men and women.

I would also make pay equal for men and women. I am more interested in the women's game so I don't really think its so far fetched to imagine women getting paid the same or more than men for entertaining if that's where the interest is. Look at adult film stars, its much more lucrative for women than men.
 

haerdalis

Hall of Fame
They should be paid in regards to the interest they generate. So I guess it is fair that the pay is the same at joint events unless it is obvious that interest in mens and womens competiton is not equal.
 

jelle v

Hall of Fame
A whiner like me..

Doesn't make sense. The road to get to the final for a woman is way shorter than the same road for a men's tennisplayer. The victoriuous woman just has to do way less for the same amount of money.
 

Warriorroger

Hall of Fame
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/tennis/6385295.stm

Well WIMB has decided to offer equal pay to future champions - now for more whinners/moaners to come out and say they shouldn't be paid the same!
It's a shame, that lame tennis is now being awarded more money. We are not talking about female brainsurgeons, or teachers.

Just stupid tennis. This has nothing to do with legends like Billy Jean King who had a point and right to do what she did for women's tennis.

All of the women today play the same, yes yes with the exception of ''mental powerhouses'' Mauresmo and Henin. You can be fat, out of shape, make less errors and then you get the big bonus.
 

Supernatural_Serve

Professional
on this mornings news in New York covering this topic a woman news anchor made the comment that the woman's game on grass is more interesting than the men's game on grass and its about time women got equal pay.

Talk about a misinformed clown.
 
Not one to whine, but there is not equal pay for equal work. Also try getting a seat on an outside court at SW19 when the guy's are playing, on the flip side unless it's a good looking or top ranked girl the seats are easy readily available.
A best of 5 match is a lot harder that what the girlies have to endure, also the depth in the mens game means that any guy has a fair shot out there, the depth on the WTA amounts to say.........let's be generous........4 players.
 

ja_

Rookie
I think it's ridiculous, for all above said reasons that I don't need to repeat. There wasn't a hell of a whole lot of difference in the awards anyway.
However, maybe this increase in prize money will motivate the women to start playing better. The only players that will benefit the most from the increase is the champion, i.e. Henin, Mauresmo and very possibly, Serena. And why should they get more? None of these 3 players face a Henin/Mauresmo/Serena type opponent on a regular basis.
I'm actually quite shocked that this has happened. It's ridiculous.
 

onkystomper

Hall of Fame
i too will throw my hat in the ring and say it is absurd.
womens tennis is not followed as much and they play best of 3 sets.

I cant think of any really interesting matches in the 1st few rounds of slam events where women are involved they are generall 6-1 6-1 corelines YAWN
 

Shahar26

Rookie
I think its about time they settle that fight for equal pay, maybe this will motivate the women to play better, I dunno.

At least we won't see/hear any more arguments about it (or will we?)
 
Another blow for common sense in the face of over-zealous political correctness. If the men played for three sets instead of five Wimbledon would last two days less and the revenues would be 15% lower. Yes, some women have offered to play five sets, but so far no one is in a rush to take them up on that offer.

Sport is about rewarding elitism. The men offer a better contest than the women; more guile, more power, more speed. It's worth more.

It's about time the men started demanding equal prize money, in proportion to the job they're being asked to do!
 

sureshs

Bionic Poster
On the front web page of the NY Times as well.

Shows that when enough pressure is applied and women like Maria and Venus speak out about it, things do change.
 

caulcano

Hall of Fame
I'm actually quite shocked that this has happened. It's ridiculous.
I suppose it was inevitable.

I can remember it was quite a big thing in 2006, many current/former players (mainly women) coming out and arguing about 'equal pay' . I don't think the organisers at WIM would have wanted a repeat so yielded.
 

alwaysatnet

Semi-Pro
I can see the caving in to social or political pressure, not that I agree, but in terms of fairness it's a bad move for all the reasons already listed. It's just one more sign of the apocalypse. What's next for Wimbledon? Nadal wins? Sighhhhhhh...
 

drakulie

Talk Tennis Guru
Someone should start a poll to find out which matches everyone on the boards watches. Men or Women?

Also include live matches for those who attend the events. It be interesting to see the results.
 

alfa164164

Professional
I wonder what the basis of the change was - quality of play, quantity of play, marketability, ticket sales, etc.?
Oh yeah, political correctness!
At least we won't have to hear Billie Jean King's or Martina Navratilova's annual outrage at this historical injustice.
Flame on mates!
 
I personally do not believe in this equal pay. I feel that they get equal pay for equal play!

I respect all women and womens sports...but play 3-5 then get what the men get!
 
Top