Men & Women: Equal Prize Money [Merged]

[jukka1970]

Is there a place to write all the slams and voice opinions about the equal pay

I know it's been covered here before. But seriously, this is just plain ridiculous. There's got to be a place to complain over this. I didn't think it could get worse then last year, but it has. The women's matches are even more of a yawn, while the men's matches have been outstanding.

I won't mention any results, as events are still going on. But seriously, just look back over the matches. I've always been for women's rights, but is there any other job on the planet that someone makes the same money for doing about 1/3 of the work as someone else in the same exact job?

Jukka

 

[Ruzica]

I know it's been covered here before. But seriously, this is just plain ridiculous. There's got to be a place to complain over this. I didn't think it could get worse then last year, but it has. The women's matches are even more of a yawn, while the men's matches have been outstanding.

I won't mention any results, as events are still going on. But seriously, just look back over the matches. I've always been for women's rights, but is there any other job on the planet that someone makes the same money for doing about 1/3 of the work as someone else in the same exact job?

Jukka

I am a woman, and I totally agree with equality in educational opportunities and equal pay for equal work, but I so totally agree with you here. This morning, the womens' final started at 8.30am (my time) and the presentations were over by 10.15am, - meaning that the entire match could have lasted no more than an hour and a half tops.

Yesterday, Nadal v Verdasco started at 8.30am and finished around 2.00pm. Quite frankly, if I went into my office and completed less than two hours' work, I would not expect to be paid the same money as a colleague who worked for five hours - so why should they get equal pay, as it is most definitely NOT equal work?

The fact that tickets for the womens' final weren't even sold out proves something too surely? In these days of economic recession, people are watching ther money - so if you can't afford to buy tickets for both final days, why pay for just a couple of hours' one-sided tennis on a Saturday, when you can pay the same for 4 or 5 hours the next day? So if the women are not even bringing the cash into the tournament and the sport, why pay them the same as the people who are attracting customers? The whole thing makes me really mad.

 

[pound cat]

I am a woman, and I totally agree with equality in educational opportunities and equal pay for equal work, but I so totally agree with you here. This morning, the womens' final started at 8.30am (my time) and the presentations were over by 10.15am, - meaning that the entire match could have lasted no more than an hour and a half tops.

Yesterday, Nadal v Verdasco started at 8.30am and finished around 2.00pm. Quite frankly, if I went into my office and completed less than two hours' work, I would not expect to be paid the same money as a colleague who worked for five hours - so why should they get equal pay, as it is most definitely NOT equal work?

The fact that tickets for the womens' final weren't even sold out proves something too surely? In these days of economic recession, people are watching ther money - so if you can't afford to buy tickets for both final days, why pay for just a couple of hours' one-sided tennis on a Saturday, when you can pay the same for 4 or 5 hours the next day? So if the women are not even bringing the cash into the tournament and the sport, why pay them the same as the people who are attracting customers? The whole thing makes me really mad.

The womens AO final had an audience of 15,000 people. Unfortunately you can't guarantee that your ticket willl buy you a 59 minute match, or a 21/2 hour match. Nor can you guarantee a men's 5 set match. It could be 3 fast sets, or one of the players might have to retire after the first game.

When you buy tickets to sports events, you take a chance on the potential quality or length of what you are about to see. If you are a cautious person, it's best to stay home and watch it on TV.

The one guarantee is that you get to see the ceremony if you attend.

 

[kungfusmkim]

I think women work as hard as men to their abilities. Considering they have less testostrone than men, they have no choice to play the way they do. But i have agree the women's top 10 really have a bad mental EDGE.

 

[sarmpas]

blah,blah,blah............but is there any other job on the planet that someone makes the same money for doing about 1/3 of the work as someone else in the same exact job?

Jukka

Happens in mens tennis ALL THE TIME and most recently in the Aus Open semi-final matches. Roddick's SF performance was no way no how as good as Verdasco's in the other SF yet Roddick got the same prize money as Verdasco.

 

[FiveO]

Happens in mens tennis ALL THE TIME and most recently in the Aus Open semi-final matches. Roddick's SF performance was no way no how as good as Verdasco's in the other SF yet Roddick got the same prize money as Verdasco.

Both losing SF'ists earned the same pay-checks for the work they put in winning five previous rounds.

And in a way, regarding these two men's losing SF'ists they earned that money in the off-season through their own, elevated, hard work.

So, in a sense, what we saw was a bonus. Either one could have pulled a Djokovic or a Del Potro (I know I'm being a little hard on him) and withdrew, retired or tanked.

I never had the sense that Andy took an "easier way out" he tried, he worked, unfortunately he is, at least, a level below his opponent, in this form. He ran into a buzzsaw and kept fighting to the end. I don't care for him taking his frustrations out on the umpire, but he tried.

Verdasco contributed to "one for the ages". Verdasco did the same as Roddick but in this match-up in this iteration of self, he ended up giving Rafa almost more than he could handle. And, if one thinks about it he has nothing more to show for it than before the first ball was struck in that SF.............


.........except of course for our admiration and respect for how he played vs. the world #1 at one of the four biggest tennis events on the planet.

And we got Verdasco's side of that match for free.

5

 

[ollinger]

It is simply worthwhile for the tournaments to offer equal pay.....it is good publicity since about half the people who attend the tournaments are women, and it avoids the potential embarassment to both the tournament and (more importantly) the TV sponsors of having women's groups calling for boycotts of the tournament and its sponsors. For the tournament, it's simply good business.

 

[sarmpas]

Both losing SF'ists earned the same pay-checks for the work they put in winning five previous rounds.

And in a way, regarding these two men's losing SF'ists they earned that money in the off-season through their own, elevated, hard work.

blah...blah
5

Rubbish. Professional tennis players get paid for results, for winning rounds. They don't get paid to train in between tournaments. Roddick played to a lower level than Verdasco so he too should get less pay than Verdasco.

 

[FiveO]

Rubbish. Professional tennis players get paid for results, for winning rounds. They don't get paid to train in between tournaments. Roddick played to a lower level than Verdasco so he too should get less pay than Verdasco.

Wait!

Let me get my Nadalian to English and Djokovicatic to English Dictionaries out, so I can properly decipher this outburst.

Oh, and you put the "blah blah" in the wrong section of your post.

I'll be right back.

5

 

[gowrath]

I think we've talked about this before...

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=237588

IMO, what you see on TV is only a small percentage of what it takes to be a professional tennis player: you don't see the off-season training, fitness conditioning, hours in the gym, etc.

You can't say men work harder; everyone on the pro circuit works hard--that is why they are pros.

Playing Best-out-of-5 sets are not an adequate guarantee that men work harder...

Sometimes womens' finals take longer than mens' finals... even though its best-of-three. (The ladies’ final at Wimbledon in 2005 lasted 45 minutes longer than the men's)

(Who knows how much shorter the Wimbledon Men's Final 2008 would have been if Nadal didn't take half-a-minute before every serve?)

 

[sarmpas]

Wait!

Let me get my Nadalian to English and Djokovicatic to English Dictionaries out, so I can properly decipher this rant.

On and you put the "blah blah" in the wrong section of your post.

I'll be right back.

5

translation :
When I can't given a rebuttal I will use spin and when that is called I will resort to insult or change the subject.

 

[FiveO]

translation :
When I can't given a rebuttal I will use spin and when that is called I will resort to insult or change the subject.

Thanks! Now I don't have to look it up.

5

 

[sarmpas]

Thanks! Now I don't have to look it up.

5

Verdasco played 23 sets. Roddick played 19 sets plus the 2-1 set-ette when Novak quit. Roddick played fewer sets than Verdasco and it was of a lower quality overall so Roddick does not deserve equal pay to Verdasco.

 

[avmoghe]

I've long advocated just eliminating the WTA and letting women join the ATP.

Women want to be treated fairly and equally? Well, there's nothing more equal and fair than being treated exactly the same.

At the very least... stop the discrimination. Allow men to participate on the WTA if they so choose.

Seriously.. what's next? Are we going to have the handicapped or senior tours asking for "equal pay for equal work"?


EDIT - holy freaking crap... Billie Jean King actually agrees with my suggestion... I was just joking too..

http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/tennis/news/story?id=3862731&campaign=rss&source=**********lines

If this actually came to pass..... I would laugh for a year non-stop.

 

[Sentinel]

Wait!

Let me get my Nadalian to English and Djokovicatic to English Dictionaries out, so I can properly decipher this outburst.

Oh, and you put the "blah blah" in the wrong section of your post.

I'll be right back.

5

LOL !

I like your previous post, the one to which Saram/sampras responded rather "outburstily". I did not get the bolded part about being paid for the offseason work though.

 

[skip1969]

It is simply worthwhile for the tournaments to offer equal pay.....it is good publicity since about half the people who attend the tournaments are women, and it avoids the potential embarassment to both the tournament and (more importantly) the TV sponsors of having women's groups calling for boycotts of the tournament and its sponsors. For the tournament, it's simply good business.

i think this pretty much sums it up. besides the fact that there's no way the slams could rescind their most generous gesture. how could they?

it is what it is. i think the fans will make their feelings known by not showing up to women's matches. not that it will change the status quo for the slams. but at least by not attending, the fans won't feel so jipped. after all, the chances of getting your hard earned $$ worth at a wta match just keep getting slimmer.

 

[Ruzica]

It is simply worthwhile for the tournaments to offer equal pay.....it is good publicity since about half the people who attend the tournaments are women, and it avoids the potential embarassment to both the tournament and (more importantly) the TV sponsors of having women's groups calling for boycotts of the tournament and its sponsors. For the tournament, it's simply good business.

Well Wimbledon, which most people think is the most prestigious Slam of all, didn't have equal prize money until 2007, neither did Roland Garros, and I never remember reading of any boycotts by womens' groups or embarrassment/adverse publicity for either tournament. I admit that maybe things are different in The States, with home-grown female champions like the Williams' Sisters, but here in Europe the womens' game is very much the "poor relation" to the ATP, and that is shown by the empty seats at most European WTA events, whilst places like Rotterdam ATP, Queens, and Halle are sold out months in advance. I'm not lying when I say that most of the females I know who attend Grand Slams, never watch the women at all, - preferring to watch mens' singles, mens' doubles, and then mens' practice sessions (LOL!) at Wimbledon and Roland Garros, to any WTA match So I don't think it's necessarily good business here - unless the tournament want to make extra money from the catering, as the queues for refreshments grow one-hundred fold at Wimby and RG when the women are playing on the main courts, and the fans are "stocking" up before Federer/Nadal or whoever get on court .

 

[rolandg]

Well Wimbledon, which most people think is the most prestigious Slam of all, didn't have equal prize money until 2007, neither did Roland Garros, and I never remember reading of any boycotts by womens' groups or embarrassment/adverse publicity for either tournament. I admit that maybe things are different in The States, with home-grown female champions like the Williams' Sisters, but here in Europe the womens' game is very much the "poor relation" to the ATP, and that is shown by the empty seats at most European WTA events, whilst places like Rotterdam ATP, Queens, and Halle are sold out months in advance. I'm not lying when I say that most of the females I know who attend Grand Slams, never watch the women at all, - preferring to watch mens' singles, mens' doubles, and then mens' practice sessions (LOL!) at Wimbledon and Roland Garros, to any WTA match So I don't think it's necessarily good business here - unless the tournament want to make extra money from the catering, as the queues for refreshments grow one-hundred fold at Wimby and RG when the women are playing on the main courts, and the fans are "stocking" up before Federer/Nadal or whoever get on court .

That's completely true. You see it at Wimbledon all the time.

 

[West Coast Ace]

To the OP: don't waste your time. Some things just can't be undone.

The women's groups probably would call for boycotts if one of the majors did rollback the pay.

It's a joke; you know it, I know it. Everyone knowledgeable - and honest - about tennis knows it. Leave it at that.

 

[lambielspins]

To the OP: don't waste your time. Some things just can't be undone.

The women's groups probably would call for boycotts if one of the majors did rollback the pay.

It's a joke; you know it, I know it. Everyone knowledgeable - and honest - about tennis knows it. Leave it at that.

That is all the more reason to rollback the pay though. It would be great if the women boycotted a major and we could avoid seeing them altogether. The exciting possability they might just not bother to show up is the best reason of all to rollback the pay.

 

[Ruzica]

That's completely true. You see it at Wimbledon all the time.

Indeed - same as when they interview people in the queue and ask who they're queuing for, you hear loads of "Murray" (not surprisingly being UK I guess), and large amounts of "Nadal, Federer, Djokovic and Safin" (yes, Safin even now) - but I've never yet heard an overnight queuer who was queuing for a female player. Neither have I ever seen a Roland Garros ticket tout flogging his wares on the basis of which female player was on Chatrier or Lenglen. It's always - "hot tickets for Nadal etc or (being France) Tsonga or Gasquet". But as West Coast Ace said - probably impossible to change it now

 

[Ruzica]

That is all the more reason to rollback the pay though. It would be great if the women boycotted a major and we could avoid seeing them altogether. The exciting possability they might just not bother to show up is the best reason of all to rollback the pay.

LOL - word

 

[West Coast Ace]

That is all the more reason to rollback the pay though. It would be great if the women boycotted a major and we could avoid seeing them altogether. The exciting possability they might just not bother to show up is the best reason of all to rollback the pay.

That would be a beautiful thing... I just don't see it happening. The majors are all (lately) breaking all their attendance records and signing nice TV deals. No reason for them to rock the proverbial boat...

 

[sureshs]

I strongly support the idea that someone like Novak Quitovic should not get paid the same as the women.

 

[sureshs]

Add Del Quitro to that too. Two bagels in a match? What kind of competition exists in the ATP? 2 guys know how to play and the rest are losers.

And neither of them has still won all the 4 Slams like Serena has.

 

[vicnan]

Unequal pay is not an option, nor will it lead to improved quality as evidenced from the past. As others have said, it is political suicide. The question is how to improve quality in women's tennis [and in fact tennis in general]? To me, one answer is coaching -- on court, during the match, between games, even between points. Other sports allow it to good effect. At least, it will reduce the number of lopsided matches, esp. in qtrs, semis and finals. At least, it deserves some experimentation.

 

[jukka1970]

Unequal pay is not an option, nor will it lead to improved quality as evidenced from the past. As others have said, it is political suicide. The question is how to improve quality in women's tennis [and in fact tennis in general]? To me, one answer is coaching -- on court, during the match, between games, even between points. Other sports allow it to good effect. At least, it will reduce the number of lopsided matches, esp. in qtrs, semis and finals. At least, it deserves some experimentation.

Please understand though, it's not just the quality (though as I said, it's probably the worst it's been in a while). The point is that how can someone get paid the same as someone else for working less. The men play 3 out of 5, the women play 2 out of 3. I really think fans should try and do something about this.

Jukka

 

[jukka1970]

Thanks for the posts all, I think a couple have been a bit to harsh with the women. I mean, I don't want the womens game to disappear, we'd lose a lot of things if that happened.

I haven't heard from anyone where we can write, and I seriously think as fans we should do something about this. As one said, it may turn out to be a waste of time, ie they just ignore us, but at least we can try.

The game is suppose to improve over time, not die over time.

Jukka

 

[oranges]

I'm sure slam organizers are eager to hear some of the opinions expressed here The one on Verdasco getting more money than Roddick because he played more sets in the semi is particularly bright.
Is it difficult to understand that pay involves more than hours spent on court? No awareness that most players (both men and women) train hard from a very early age to get where they are? You think doctors' pay is higher than a secretary's because he/she works longer hours, or because you need to invest years in education to be able to do it at all? You're certain women do not attract as much or more advertisers/sponsors as men and this is where a large part of the prize money comes from? I wouldn't bet much on Federer or Nadal being more attractive to them than Sharapova. I also think they couldn't care less if Verdasco played five sets or three. Tennis players are not cashiers to be paid by the hour. Try thinking broader, what it involves to become a top player in both ATP and WTA, as well as how the finances of both function.

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

you can't guarantee that your ticket willl buy you a 59 minute match, or a 21/2 hour match. Nor can you guarantee a men's 5 set match. It could be 3 fast sets, or one of the players might have to retire after the first game.

When you buy tickets to sports events, you take a chance on the potential quality or length of what you are about to see. If you are a cautious person, it's best to stay home and watch it on TV.

Logical observation.

Anyone screaming against equal pay for the same individual sport where time is no guarantee (nor quality at any given moment in a match) has some rather warped need to seek inequality.

 

[JeMar]

I think women work as hard as men to their abilities. Considering they have less testostrone than men, they have no choice to play the way they do. But i have agree the women's top 10 really have a bad mental EDGE.

Serena used to be able to tear through fields carrying about 20 pounds of extra fat while only playing part-time. A man would not be able to do the same.

And no, Nalbandian isn't as fat as Serena used to be.

 

[jukka1970]

Happens in mens tennis ALL THE TIME and most recently in the Aus Open semi-final matches. Roddick's SF performance was no way no how as good as Verdasco's in the other SF yet Roddick got the same prize money as Verdasco.

And what does this have to do with anything? Ok, so you've cited an example where one semifinal went 3 sets, and the other went 5. I mean that just hits the point home more that one of the semifinals went 5 sets, something that can't happen right now on the women's side unless the rules get changed. And therefore, once again the pay should be different.

And for future reference dimwit, if you're going to quote me, don't change what I wrote. I didn't write blah, blah, blah.

Jukka

 

[tennis_hand]

I know it's been covered here before. But seriously, this is just plain ridiculous. There's got to be a place to complain over this. I didn't think it could get worse then last year, but it has. The women's matches are even more of a yawn, while the men's matches have been outstanding.

I won't mention any results, as events are still going on. But seriously, just look back over the matches. I've always been for women's rights, but is there any other job on the planet that someone makes the same money for doing about 1/3 of the work as someone else in the same exact job?

Jukka

It's political. it doesn't matter that the men put in more efforts. forget it.

 

[jukka1970]

Logical observation.

Anyone screaming against equal pay for the same individual sport where time is no guarantee (nor quality at any given moment in a match) has some rather warped need to seek inequality.

Except for the fact that there's already a difference to begin with, where the men have to play at least 3 sets no matter what. So you call it a warped need to seek inequality. Isn't it just that right now, inequality. Inequality means not equal, and since when is 2 out of 3 equal to 3 out of 5?

Jukka

 

[oranges]

And what does this have to do with anything? Ok, so you've cited an example where one semifinal went 3 sets, and the other went 5. I mean that just hits the point home more that one of the semifinals went 5 sets, something that can't happen right now on the women's side unless the rules get changed. And therefore, once again the pay should be different.

Jukka

Care to answer to me why they should be paid as if they are working on a cash register and the hours spent on court are all that matters? Any insight into how the funds for prize money are obtained and the way they should be distributed according to that?

 

[jukka1970]

I'm sure slam organizers are eager to hear some of the opinions expressed here The one on Verdasco getting more money than Roddick because he played more sets in the semi is particularly bright.
Is it difficult to understand that pay involves more than hours spent on court? No awareness that most players (both men and women) train hard from a very early age to get where they are? You think doctors' pay is higher than a secretary's because he/she works longer hours, or because you need to invest years in education to be able to do it at all? You're certain women do not attract as much or more advertisers/sponsors as men and this is where a large part of the prize money comes from? I wouldn't bet much on Federer or Nadal being more attractive to them than Sharapova. I also think they couldn't care less if Verdasco played five sets or three. Tennis players are not cashiers to be paid by the hour. Try thinking broader, what it involves to become a top player in both ATP and WTA, as well as how the finances of both function.

I've changed part of the post to the font color of blue, to start with that example. You do realize that you are comparing two different jobs when you compare a doctor to a secretary, right?

I'm sure the women do attract as big of a crowd at the slams, probably the other tournaments as well. However if we're going to bring sponsors and advertisers into it, well then you have to bring the factor of time played. (this isnt' the issue for me, but the next paragraph will debunk that theory)

Lets say the men's match goes 3 hours, and the ladies match goes 1 hour. Let's say company A advertises during the men's match, and Company B advertises during the women's match, and they each pay the same fee for advertising on court. Exactly which company makes out more, and that would be Company A, 3 hours of advertising vs 1. But this to me isn't even the argument.

The argument for me is this, you talk about all the efforts, sacrifices, etc made by players to reach the top. Are you now trying to say that women exert more efforts and make bigger sacrifices, I'm going to guess no, which means they are equal in these areas. So please tell me, where is the equality when it comes to playing sets, the women play 2 out of 3, the men play 3 out of 5, it's that simple.

Jukka

 

[jukka1970]

Care to answer to me why they should be paid as if they are working on a cash register and the hours spent on court are all that matters? Any insight into how the funds for prize money are obtained and the way they should be distributed according to that?

Because it's not a question of hours, it's a question of playing the same amount of winning X sets out of Y sets.

If the women are going to play 2 out of 3, and the men 3 out of 5, the fair way in my opinion to divide it, is simply this. Take the minimal amount of sets needed to win, and divide. The minimum for women is 2, the minimum for men is 3, which gives us 2/3.

You're confusing the issue by trying to turn the job into hourly, when in fact is actually salary. Hours don't change the amount of money you make, the placement you get in the tournament does, therefore it needs to be based on salary. And what you are saying is that the salary's should be the same for men and women, even though the ratios are different.

Jukka

 

[Benefactor]

I don't claim to know whether or not a 3 set match is as hard for a woman as a 5 set match is for a man, but that's really missing the point. The reason the men should get paid more is because they generate more interest for the sport and more money for the sport. Why do you think that female golfers (let's just take their majors, where they play 4 rounds - the same as the men) make so much less than the men do? It's because nobody gives a **** about them and so they don't generate as much money via ticket sales, merchandising, TV deals, etc. The higher purses for men are really (should be) only a just "reward" for the extra revenue that the men create. All the tournament organizers are doing is passing along the money to the players that generated it. The women are piggy backing on the men's success/hard work just like a remora does to a shark. Just for the sake of comedy, I wish they'd split the tournaments just for one year to see the disparity in revenues. Then everybody would shut the hell up about equal pay.

 

[oranges]

Because it's not a question of hours, it's a question of playing the same amount of winning X sets out of Y sets.

If the women are going to play 2 out of 3, and the men 3 out of 5, the fair way in my opinion to divide it, is simply this. Take the minimal amount of sets needed to win, and divide. The minimum for women is 2, the minimum for men is 3, which gives us 2/3.

You're confusing the issue by trying to turn the job into hourly, when in fact is actually salary. Hours don't change the amount of money you make, the placement you get in the tournament does, therefore it needs to be based on salary. And what you are saying is that the salary's should be the same for men and women, even though the ratios are different.

Jukka

You need to take a class in logic. Sets played is effectively time played and I still don't see why they should be paid according to time spent on court. They spend their entire lives training to get where they are and staying in form to achieve the results they have. Just becuase you say so, they should now be paid just for court time.
You simply cannot disregard where the money comes from because it suits you. It's part of the equation. Again, simply because you say so, women should be paid less, even though they probably contribute just as much to getting that the prize money? Why?
Finally, salary? What on earth are you talking about. Salary is a fixed income. Do you have any idea how many men and women spend years training without ever making any money to speak of? They are paid for their area of expertise, according to results they achieve, that's it. Sets are absolutely irrelevant. Is the price for a ticket for women's matches lower because they play best of three? Broadcast rights are cheaper because of it?

 

[jukka1970]

You need to take a class in logic. Sets played is effectively time played and I still don't see why they should be paid according to time spent on court. They spend their entire lives training to get where they are and staying in form to achieve the results they have. Just becuase you say so, they should now be paid just for court time.
You simply cannot disregard where the money comes from because it suits you. It's part of the equation. Again, simply because you say so, women should be paid less, even though they probably contribute just as much to getting that the prize money? Why?
Finally, salary? What on earth are you talking about. Salary is a fixed income. Do you have any idea how many men and women spend years training without ever making any money to speak of? They are paid for their area of expertise, according to results they achieve, that's it. Sets are absolutely irrelevant. Is the price for a ticket for women's matches lower because they play best of three? Broadcast rights are cheaper because of it?

No, sets played is not effectively time played. You don't know if a set is 5 minutes or 50 minutes, and for your statement to be true, the time would need to be equal each set. So stop trying to make this out to be the amount of time spent on court.

Plain and simple, I mean I really can't make this any more basic. The men play 3 out of 5 sets, the women 2 out of 3. Either the women need to have the same criteria, or they need to be paid a %. And again, it's not about time on court, it's starting with the same criteria.

And while we're on the subject of equality. Please tell me, why women are allowed 10 minutes off between sets, when the umpire deems it to be to hot, and men don't get this. Yet another example of inequality.

And stop trying to make it sound like I'm prejudice, and start focusing on the points made. As I said, I'm for women's rights and equality. So it's about time they fullfill all the parts of equality.

Jukka

 

[oranges]

Stop being prejudiced and focus on the points made You haven't answered any of my questions. Running around in circles there, enjoy. BTW, each slam has contact info, I'm sure they'll be thrilled and enlightened hearing your views.

 

[NamRanger]

I'm sure slam organizers are eager to hear some of the opinions expressed here The one on Verdasco getting more money than Roddick because he played more sets in the semi is particularly bright.
Is it difficult to understand that pay involves more than hours spent on court? No awareness that most players (both men and women) train hard from a very early age to get where they are? You think doctors' pay is higher than a secretary's because he/she works longer hours, or because you need to invest years in education to be able to do it at all? You're certain women do not attract as much or more advertisers/sponsors as men and this is where a large part of the prize money comes from? I wouldn't bet much on Federer or Nadal being more attractive to them than Sharapova. I also think they couldn't care less if Verdasco played five sets or three. Tennis players are not cashiers to be paid by the hour. Try thinking broader, what it involves to become a top player in both ATP and WTA, as well as how the finances of both function.

Your doctor/secretary analogy is a pretty bad one. It goes more something along the lines of this :


Man and woman go through the same hardships to become a doctor. However, since women are inherently physically weaker than men, they get a free pass and do not have to be on call (which cuts about 8 hours of work per every week you are on call) while men do. Also, women still get paid the same amount of money.



That is a more accurate description of the ATP vs WTA arguments on equal pay.

 

[jukka1970]

Stop being prejudiced and focus on the points made You haven't answered any of my questions. Running around in circles there, enjoy. BTW, each slam has contact info, I'm sure they'll be thrilled and enlightened hearing your views.

I've answered all of your questions. The point on the advertisers. Advertisements are seen longer when men play then women. I've explained why sets played is not equivalent to time played on court. I've explained why it's closer to salary then it is to being paid by the hour.

Exactly what questions haven't I answered? And again, what's your answer to why the women can't play 3 out of 5 sets for the slams?

Jukka

 

[jukka1970]

Your doctor/secretary analogy is a pretty bad one. It goes more something along the lines of this :


Man and woman go through the same hardships to become a doctor. However, since women are inherently physically weaker than men, they get a free pass and do not have to be on call (which cuts about 8 hours of work per every week you are on call) while men do. Also, women still get paid the same amount of money.



That is a more accurate description of the ATP vs WTA arguments on equal pay.

Right on target, and explains my point better then I could have.

Jukka

 

[NamRanger]

You need to take a class in logic. Sets played is effectively time played and I still don't see why they should be paid according to time spent on court. They spend their entire lives training to get where they are and staying in form to achieve the results they have. Just becuase you say so, they should now be paid just for court time.
You simply cannot disregard where the money comes from because it suits you. It's part of the equation. Again, simply because you say so, women should be paid less, even though they probably contribute just as much to getting that the prize money? Why?
Finally, salary? What on earth are you talking about. Salary is a fixed income. Do you have any idea how many men and women spend years training without ever making any money to speak of? They are paid for their area of expertise, according to results they achieve, that's it. Sets are absolutely irrelevant. Is the price for a ticket for women's matches lower because they play best of three? Broadcast rights are cheaper because of it?

Sets are not irrelevant. Sets are what matters. Men are asked to produce on average more tennis, while women are asked to produce less tennis. However, they are paid equally. This is not equality. Whether or not a woman's match can last longer than a man's match is irrelevant; Men's matches on average as a whole last longer than women's matches, which means men are putting more work onto the court.



It would be something like this. Me and you are both teachers, but since I'm a gal, I only have to teach 4 hours out of the day, while you teach 8 because you are a man. However, we get paid equal amount of money. Wouldn't you find that unfair? We went through the same training, the same rigors, etc. Yet I'm asked to produce less based on my gender.



I'm all for equality for women. If they want to be equal, so be it. But don't throw around double standards and not expect to catch some flak for it.

 

[oranges]

Your doctor/secretary analogy is a pretty bad one.

The analogy was not meant as illustrative of men/women, but of ridiculous notion that sets/time played on court is somehow the be all and end all of pay for tennis players. If it were true, then they'd actually be paid by sets, games or points played. I won't bother with the rest.

 

[OrangePower]

You need to take a class in logic. Sets played is effectively time played and I still don't see why they should be paid according to time spent on court. They spend their entire lives training to get where they are and staying in form to achieve the results they have. Just becuase you say so, they should now be paid just for court time.
You simply cannot disregard where the money comes from because it suits you. It's part of the equation. Again, simply because you say so, women should be paid less, even though they probably contribute just as much to getting that the prize money? Why?
Finally, salary? What on earth are you talking about. Salary is a fixed income. Do you have any idea how many men and women spend years training without ever making any money to speak of? They are paid for their area of expertise, according to results they achieve, that's it. Sets are absolutely irrelevant. Is the price for a ticket for women's matches lower because they play best of three? Broadcast rights are cheaper because of it?

Let's face it, that's really the only relevant thing, isn't it? Despite what we might think of the relative quality of the women's game, and that they spend less time on court than the men, professional tennis is an entertainment product. And so players are and should be paid based on how much revenue they help generate.

We (tennis fans) determine this by buying tickets and/or tuning in to watch the games on tv and/or buying the products that players endorse. So if we don't agree with the status quo, we have only ourselves to blame.

The solution? If you feel strongly that the women don't deserve to be paid the same as the men, then refuse to buy tickets to women's events when you can get tickets to see the men for the same price, don't watch the women's matches on tv, and don't buy the products they endorse. If enough people do this, then the ticket prices will eventually adjust to reflect the actual demand, and player pay will also adjust accordingly.

 

[NamRanger]

The analogy was not meant as illustrative of men/women, but of ridiculous notion that sets/time played on court is somehow the be all and end all of pay for tennis players. If it were true, then they'd actually be paid by sets, games or points played. I won't bother with the rest.

It is not; there are many factors into going into it. The only reason why I can find that women should get equal pay is because they are much easier to market than men tennis players. Find an Anna Kournikova, Maria Sharapova, or Ana Ivanovic, and you got insta bucks right there.

 

[oranges]

It would be something like this. Me and you are both teachers, but since I'm a gal, I only have to teach 4 hours out of the day, while you teach 8 because you are a man. However, we get paid equal amount of money. Wouldn't you find that unfair? We went through the same training, the same rigors, etc. Yet I'm asked to produce less based on my gender.

That is a very bad analogy Care to give an example of a comparable profession or do we need to stick to those paid by hours worked so that you and Jukka can have a point.

I'm all for equality for women. If they want to be equal, so be it. But don't throw around double standards and not expect to catch some flak for it.

Evidently.

Once again, if women contribute to the profits of a tournament as much as men, why should they receive less money? Why tickets or anything else generating profits from a match are not cheaper? There are no double standards, there are only a few guys who have nothing better to do then whine that organizers are getting less money than they used to so as to pay all equally.

Ciao from me, utterly boring topic.

 

[NamRanger]

That is a very bad analogy Care to give an example of a comparable profession or do we need to stick to those paid by hours worked so that you and Jukka can have a point.



Evidently.

Once again, if women contribute to the profits of a tournament as much as men, why should they receive less money? Why tickets or anything else generating profits form a match not cheaper? There are no double standards, there are only a few guys who have nothing better to do then whine that organizers are getting less money than they used to so as to pay all equally.

Ciao from me, utterly boring topic.

Because men on average produce more and higher quality tennis. I don't think that's arguable. If women's tennis reverted back to the Graf/Seles era, I would have no problem with equal pay for women, as although they did not play as much, they produced very high quality matches in those days. Seriously, who's providing us with high quality women's matches these days?



Here's another analogy that is based on the end product and skill sets. We're both carpenters. I produce something of higher quality, and I spent more time on my product. However, you didn't spend nearly as much time on yours, and your product is of lower quality. But, since you're a woman, your product is bought at the same value as mine, solely based on your gender.


Payment is based on the skills and the end product. I think that is something similar to what tennis players are paid for. I believe men draw in more crowds, as Roger Federer and Nadal are much bigger names than Sharapova, Jankovic, etc.



Oh, and I forgot to add, the WNBA does not pay women players NEARLY as much as NBA players. Not even close.