so should all the men who haven't beaten him get less money? with all due respect, maybe should use less exclamation points and think about what you say lolEqual pay means equal performance no? we are in the pro world! Remember!
If you want no sex discrimination in the pay so this is the challenge IMO! You want to get the same pay as Federer (he is the best !) try to beat him once at least! That is it ! don't dream ! Otherwise it is not fair!! not fair sorry!!
That happens in many offices women can compete with men when it has to do with intellectual activities! but outside that field it is still questionable!
No, it's not about work ratio or effort either.haha we all know the women don't statistically do as much work, but i guess if you consider theyre naturally not as strong then they might be doing the same ratio of work that the men do, but whatever, it is what it is. i guess wimbledon wants to just show that they value all their players equally
with a forum with a majority of the people being male, i think we're just gonna get the same answer over and over "women don't deserve as much pay", i'm a guy but idk what the answer to that is, if you just go by how many sets played then women shouldnt get as much money, but a lot of women probably put just as much effort into their tennis, so idk. like i said, it is what it is
I think the two groups are those who haven't had at least in introductory course in economics and those who have.Basically, we've got several pages of posts here, and with some exceptions, it seems to be divided into two groups: young, mostly male posters who think men should be paid more because they are better and play more sets, and other, mostly older (and wiser!) posters who understand that tennis is just another business in a capitalistic society.
heycal's post just above yours summed it up nicely. Capitalism. The women earn the same as men because they were able to negotiate it.scineram said:I have yet to see one good good argument in favor of women earning the same as men.
The women's rights movement is a hypocritical joke.Good point, badboi78. Women claim to want equality and equal pay, but when it comes to order of play, the WTA suddenly falls back on the old-fashioned "Ladies first!" cry. It's hypocrisy at its worst.
Professional wrestling is not even a real sport because there is no competition, it is just an athletic show similar to a circus, so there is no comparison with olympic wrestling.You doubt that women's tennis generates as much revenue as men's because it is at a "lower level"??? And do you doubt that professional wrestling generates as much revenue as olympic style wrestling because it too is at a "lower level"??
I don't know anyone that cares for women's tennis, except maybe some female junior players who idolize players on the WTA. Show me some stats that shows there is more interest in women's tennis.If level or quality determined what most people watch, PBS would put all the other TV networks out of business. Get over it, folks. Everyone complained during the AO on this board that they kept showing a Sharapova-Trashanova match instead of Djokovic-Tuarsonov or whatever for a reason....more women's matches are shown on TV because the general (i.e. non-TW) audience prefers them. I've seen the numbers through my daughter's office. Focus group data show that the perceived rivalries among the women are of more interest to the general public than the blander male personalities.
I was getting my hair cut in a toney styling salon (I normally use a barber, but I couldn't get into him. No, really! ) and we started talking about all the money Sharapova makes and Kournakova made (with modest tennis skills). No one cared a whit about Federer and I'm talking about men and women. The women knew all about women's tennis and so did the men. Let's have a reality check here. The vast majority of the public likes watching women's tennis. For better tennis players, men's tennis might be better viewing, but it depends on one's values. Personally, I like pretty women and the female form in action. So, on balance, I slightly prefer women's tennis. But, Sharapova earns over $30 million dollars a year in endorsements only. You think she isn't being watched by a gazillion people world wide?!?! She makes Federer look like a slave laborer in a coal mine.Honestly, the average person knows who Serena Williams, Venus Williams, and Maria Sharapova are. They might know who Andy Roddick and Roger Federer are, but not for sure.
Men's tennis as a sport isn't that special to the average person. There is the NBA, MLB, NFL, NHL, etc. which are based more on athleticism than technique. Obviously, if you play tennis, you'll probably watch it, but not the average sports fan.
Women's tennis is special. It is by far the best sport for women to play and it is impressive to see female athletes like 5'5" Justine Henin Hardenne crush the ball.
Also, women's tennis is NOT like minor league baseball to the MLB. That is really a ridiculous comparison. It is more like college basketball to the NBA. It is a totally different game with a totally different feel. Lots of people prefer college basketball to the NBA, even though the NBA is a higher level.
I am a huge tennis fan, and I definitely love both.
I believe Sharapova has more endorsement $ than anyone in tennis, or any other women's sports figure.KTE makes the point quite well. Ask people who are NOT tennis fanatics if they know who Venus, Serena, Sharapova, Capriati, Mauresmo are and they typically do. Ask them if they know who Ljubicic, Nadal, Baghdatis are and you'll likely see puzzlement. In fact, ask a typical American if he knows who Mardy Fish is.
But, Cal, it doesn't matter because the result is always the same.Can someone remind me which side of the argument I've been taking in this thread? I'm getting this thread mixed up with the others, and can't remember in which one I'm arguing "pro" and which one "con" on the issue of equal pay.... Is this the one related to Wimbledon's announcement or the one about smelling like French *****s?
How many people don't know who Pete Sampras and Andre Agassi are?KTE makes the point quite well. Ask people who are NOT tennis fanatics if they know who Venus, Serena, Sharapova, Capriati, Mauresmo are and they typically do. Ask them if they know who Ljubicic, Nadal, Baghdatis are and you'll likely see puzzlement. In fact, ask a typical American if he knows who Mardy Fish is.
You've hit on a big problem for USA Tennis-the lack of tv coverage. In England, tennis is on all the time! All the tournaments. Every week there is something to watch or tape. In the USA, I'm starved for tennis action on tv.How many people don't know who Pete Sampras and Andre Agassi are?
I didn't know who Mauresmo or Sharapova was until about 8 months ago, and I've been playing tennis since 2000. But I happened to stop watching the sport on TV because its never on except during majors and one or two other tournaments.
Perhaps so. And the biggest losers when all is said and done is ourselves.The French *****s don't come out smelling too good at the end of the day either.The result is that everyone's prejudices remain unchanged. So it doesn't matter which side of an argument one takes.
Nobody seems to know who brings in more revenue, but most seem to think the women do. I don't know a single person who prefers women's tennis over men's, so I am bias to thinking the men bring in more because everyone I know tennis fan or not prefer's the men's game.Female models make more than males so there is reverse discrimination going on there! If female tennis players bring in more dollars for the tournaments then they should get paid more and vice versa.
This is false information. I pointed out earlier that women make less than men as a group because more men are in higher paying positions than women. This stat has been manipulated by the women's rights movement to say that women are paid less for the SAME JOB, but its not true.Out in the "real world" women in the work force have been getting shafted, i.e. they've been getting the proverbial "90 cents" on the dollar compared to their male counterparts doing the SAME JOB
Didn't someone quote some statistics earlier in the thread from Ms. Magazine saying that women's tennis brings in more revenue? Now, I know Gloria Steinem may not be the most trustworthy source when it comes to such issues, but until her erstwhile boss Hef provides some data to the contrary, that's all we've got to work with so far.Nobody seems to know who brings in more revenue, but most seem to think the women do... Someone please find some information/stats to prove one or the other so we can put this topic to rest.
Woman-owned companies already have an advantage and are awarded contracts with the US government that other companies are not eligible for; the same goes for minority-owned companies.If women make so much less, then why not start their own company and only hire women and out-profit those overpaid male companies?
I think the ATP brings in a bit more than the WTA but I can't find any stats. I would say it's on the order of $3 to $2 but I will keep looking.
Whats left out of the equation is the fact that men on average work for more years, longer hours, and at higher-level positions than women. Women are more likely to take off time for raising children, or even retire earlier all because gender roles still have men as the bread winner. Yet women as a group should make the EXACT same amount of money as men do as a group, even though they work less and are in less-important positions on average. Great logic.Well in the modern era, benefits are more important to a lot of folks than salary and since maternity leave can be up to 12 weeks and standard paternity leave is 1 week, I think it all comes out in the wash....
You've hit on a big problem for USA Tennis-the lack of tv coverage. In England, tennis is on all the time! All the tournaments. Every week there is something to watch or tape. In the USA, I'm starved for tennis action on tv.
I live in Scotland, we get the same tv coverage as England, buy you only get every week tennis if you have sky or eurosport, the only time its free is at wimbledon.
Well, for starters, there was the famous "phantom limb" cheating incident in her match against Betty Friedan when she was down 1-6,1-4 at the Leggs-Nair Finals in 1974. I completely lost respect for her after that."Gloria Steinem may not be the most trustworthy source...." Why not? My wife admires her greatly for the reasonableness of her feminism and got me to read two of her books -- I was impressed with her candor and fairness. What makes you think otherwise, Cal?
Now, this I agree with. I would also consider this equal pay. They would be payed by the revenue "they" generated.As for equal pay / play arguments, in this modern world of advertising-driven TV revenue, if we wanted actual earnings equity,it should be 'pay for share of TV revenue', and I think the women would earn more than equal money there....