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 .
oranges said:
That is a very bad analogy :p 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 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.
Click to expand...

Boring, because you refuses to answer the question of why should the men play 3 out of 5, while the women play 2 out of 3

And you can **** off as far as trying to make this a sexism thing, especially since you can't give a reason why both genders shouldn't be playing 3 out of 5 without making the women sound unequal, then you're pretty screwed at trying to make your point.

Jukka
 
Last edited:
Benefactor said:
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.
Click to expand...

Totally agree. In fact as far as I heard it, this is precisely the reason why WTA are pushing for more combined events - because they do need the mens' game to carry the womens in these hard economic times, - especially in Europe. Last year the Rome Masters' ATP event was sold out months before - but you could buy womens' final tickets the following week on the day. Go figure?
 
WHY DO YOU GUYS CARE????

I mean you are not the ones that are getting paid? Women have been discriminated against everywhere.....what is the big deal if we finally obtain equality in something?
 
jukka1970 said:
Boring, because you refuses to answer the question of why should the men play 3 out of 5, while the women play 2 out of 3

And you can **** off as far as trying to make this a sexism thing, especially since you can't give a reason why both genders shouldn't be playing 3 out of 5 without making the women sound unequal, then you're pretty screwed at trying to make your point.

Jukka
Click to expand...

Boring because it attracts dimwits to vent their frustration and it's never a discussion. Nam at least tries to make it a discussion by addressing what the other side is saying, though I still have no desire to discuss it ad infinitum, I don't care enough. You're not, you're just repeating the only point you have like a parrot.
Go back to the question why should they receive less if they generate enough profits to warrant what they receive and let others know what you came up with. Again, contact those slam organizers, I'm sure they'll see the light when you speak to them.
 
jukka1970 said:
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
Click to expand...

Completely agree - why can't the women play best of 5, you don't see the womens endurance events at the olympics all half the distance :confused:
 
Holly said:
WHY DO YOU GUYS CARE????

I mean you are not the ones that are getting paid? Women have been discriminated against everywhere.....what is the big deal if we finally obtain equality in something?
Click to expand...

Because you don't deserve equality...because *gasp* you aren't equal. Not when it comes to tennis.
 
Ruzica said:
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 :oops: 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 :).
Click to expand...
Good observation. And I do think its the US PC syndrome that has driven this equality in pay but not play policy.
 
JeMar said:
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.
Click to expand...

you think she wants to look like a body builder? i dont think so. Women are imaged as unattractive with muscle. Shes already called a muscle man even with the 20 extra pounds.
 
well I believe the equal pay is something that the slams should pay based on statistical research-- if there are enough people paying to watch the womens tennis as compared to mens tennis it could be equal. How is the prize money for single WTA tournaments as compared to single ATP tourneys.

Otherwise please forgive me ladies ... i believe playing best of 3 sets by womens as opposed to best of 5 by mens doesnt advocate equal pay.. there should be some reduction in pay.

There was one masters tournament a few years back which witnessed best of 5 sets final.. Can the women in future play best of 5 set matches through all the rounds at Grand slams ? We could see that in future but there could be lesser quality matches if the players are not as fit for 5 setters.
 
wmoore said:
I'm not sure that any of the arguements FOR equal prize money hold water - logically speaking that is.
Click to expand...

On the contrary, the arguments for equal prize money ARE logically sound. It's when you begin to look at them emotionally that the problems begin.

Logically - the women undertake exactly the same training as the men, they play just as many matches as the men and they're subject to the same rules as the men. That's why they deserve equal prize money. Job is the same, training is the same, work environment is the same, work requirements are set by the same people = equal pay. True, the men play more sets. However, that IS NOT a decision made by the women so they can't be penalised for it. IF they were asked to play best of five and refused, then it would be a valid argument. Until then, it's just emotion talking.

If you want to talk Marquee Value then why didn't we pay Hingis, Venus Williams, Serena Williams, Davenport, Capriati, Henin, Kournikova, Cljisters and Hantchukova more than any of the men apart from Agassi and Becker. They, especially Kournikova, drew a significantly bigger crowd every time they played and generated more interest when they played each other.

Personally, I do believe the women deserve equal prize money BUT I don't think they earn it. How you go about making them earn it (5 sets will never happen and it won't be their choosing) I have absolutely no idea.
 
I prefer to watch men's tennis, but I'm in favour of equal or close to equal prize money assuming that the revenue reflects equality.

I believe that businesses act upon their interests and the move towards equal prize money is something that made financial sense.

This has nothing to do with whether the men's game is of better quality. If we go on quality, then, really, no athlete should make millions of dollars, because athletics is mere fun-and-games that mask the complexities of the real world.

Women's tennis is making a lot of money. If the players aren't the ones to get a large chunk of it, then who does?
 
AndrewD said:
On the contrary, the arguments for equal prize money ARE logically sound. It's when you begin to look at them emotionally that the problems begin.

Logically - the women undertake exactly the same training as the men, they play just as many matches as the men and they're subject to the same rules as the men. That's why they deserve equal prize money. Job is the same, training is the same, work environment is the same, work requirements are set by the same people = equal pay. True, the men play more sets. However, that IS NOT a decision made by the women so they can't be penalised for it. IF they were asked to play best of five and refused, then it would be a valid argument. Until then, it's just emotion talking.

If you want to talk Marquee Value then why didn't we pay Hingis, Venus Williams, Serena Williams, Davenport, Capriati, Henin, Kournikova, Cljisters and Hantchukova more than any of the men apart from Agassi and Becker. They, especially Kournikova, drew a significantly bigger crowd every time they played and generated more interest when they played each other.

Personally, I do believe the women deserve equal prize money BUT I don't think they earn it. How you go about making them earn it (5 sets will never happen and it won't be their choosing) I have absolutely no idea.
Click to expand...

Alright then, how would you feel about the women at your job, if you have a job, get paid the same as you for 20 hours per week to your 40 hours per week.
 
Slicendicer said:
Alright then, how would you feel about the women at your job, if you have a job, get paid the same as you for 20 hours per week to your 40 hours per week.
Click to expand...

Female tennis players do not have the same job as male tennis players. They play on a separate circuit.
 
Women actually were far more worthy of the equal prize money at the time King and co were compaigning for it. I wasnt alive then but everything I have ever read or found seems to indicate the 60s and 70s were the golden age of BOTH womens and mens tennis. So many capable stars with varied playing styles and interesting personalities. The men were in an incredible time with Laver, Rosewall, Connors, McEnroe, Borg, but the women were putting out an amazing product at that time too.

Such is not the case now. Now talking the years I have been alive to follow tennis the current gap between the quality between the men and womens product at this exact moment is by far the biggest I have ever seen it, and that is despite that the mens game is not exactly the strongest it has ever been as a whole either, still infinitely stronger than the womens. The product the women are putting out now is quite frankly garbage with a lack of top notch talent, so many out of shape women near the top, so many injuries, no intersting rivalries, lack of commitment, early retirements, poor quality games and play. The women simply do not deserve equal pay at this moment. For many years I would say they did, but not now.
 
if as many people watch womens tennis as men then give them equal prize. i think prizes should reflect revenue brought in by the players.
 
thalivest said:
I thought the WTA were losing money at the moment?
Click to expand...

No, that is just what lots of people on here like to post. Nobody has actually come up with any *facts* to back this up.

Certainly doesn't seem like the WTA is losing money, does it?

anointedone said:
As many people dont watch womens tennis as mens today.
Click to expand...

Really? Have you polled *every* single tennis fan in the world? Do you have any actual *facts* to back this up?
 
AndrewD said:
On the contrary, the arguments for equal prize money ARE logically sound. It's when you begin to look at them emotionally that the problems begin.

Logically - the women undertake exactly the same training as the men, they play just as many matches as the men and they're subject to the same rules as the men. That's why they deserve equal prize money. Job is the same, training is the same, work environment is the same, work requirements are set by the same people = equal pay. True, the men play more sets. However, that IS NOT a decision made by the women so they can't be penalised for it. IF they were asked to play best of five and refused, then it would be a valid argument. Until then, it's just emotion talking.

If you want to talk Marquee Value then why didn't we pay Hingis, Venus Williams, Serena Williams, Davenport, Capriati, Henin, Kournikova, Cljisters and Hantchukova more than any of the men apart from Agassi and Becker. They, especially Kournikova, drew a significantly bigger crowd every time they played and generated more interest when they played each other.

Personally, I do believe the women deserve equal prize money BUT I don't think they earn it. How you go about making them earn it (5 sets will never happen and it won't be their choosing) I have absolutely no idea.
Click to expand...

By your logic WNBA players should be paid the same as NBA players. Do WNBA games have the ticket sales and tv ratings to support million dollar contracts?

The most fair way to do it would be to make prize money a percentage of tournament profits.
 
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/tennis/article5634916.ece

Martina Navratilova calls women's final pathetic
Serena Williams strolls to title for loss of only three games as Dinara Safina makes mockery of equal prize-money status
Neil Harman, Tennis Correspondent, in Melbourne

“Pathetic” was Martina Navratilova's dismissal of an Australian Open women's final that lasted a minute under an hour and was a lesson in meek capitulation.

Enough of these wretched matches have been witnessed to question whether the grand-slam tournaments were not pandering to the equal rights lobby more than considering value for money when they all fell into line and offered the same prize-fund for the women as the men.

Dinara Safina won three games in the final against Serena Williams, earned $1,000,000 (about £685,000) and did not look the slightest bit miffed about it. So did Roger Federer, for winning 25 games in the men's climax.

Give Williams her due, for she annihilated Safina, the world No 3 from Russia, and thoroughly merited her tenth grand-slam title. At 27, Williams has earned more money than any female athlete in the world, so there was plenty of reason for her to dance a jig of joy.

One has to wonder who is around who might challenge Serena - and her sister Venus - in the other three grand-slam events this year. Maria Sharapova's right shoulder cannot heal quickly enough, Elena Dementieva has to show her pedigree finally at this level and Jelena Jankovic must start to play in these championships as she does in the lesser events.

Until that happens, more finals such as this will have to be endured, as well as the rows of empty seats that greeted the participants, a lot more of which were without occupants at its end.
Click to expand...
 
anointedone said:
As many people dont watch womens tennis as mens today.
Click to expand...

well that's why they shouldn't really be paid equally if they're not.

people forget that this is entertainment. if they don't draw in just as big of crowd as men's tennis does than they don't DESERVE to be paid equally.

Look at the Japanese baseball player who got PAID because of the fans who he would draw in.

also they really should make it 5 sets for womens if they want equal pay just so it's "fair".
 
Last edited:
I've always been a big supporter of equal pay for equal work. That being said, the WTA must be making $ or they wouldn't be able to have these big payouts for the girls.
 
Equal Pay? No Way!!!

I'm sure this is an old debate, but I'm not up to speed with the latest. Do the women get payed the same as the men in all the Grand Slams?? Because, I'm watching the guys play for hours in 35+ temperatures over 5 sets wondering if the boys need a pay raise!! The current crop on the women's tour need a pay cut, maybe then we will see some passion out there!!! COME ON girls!!!!
 
They get the same pay. I know they're trying to be fair and all, but the guys DO play a best out of 5...there should be something accounted for that.
 
I agree, it's getting more and more redicuolus.
Women's final at AO, for example, it took less than the first set of men's final between Nadal and Fed. Equal prize money? BS.
This is a blatant discrimination against men.
 
If Graf, Evret, and Navratilova were still on tour--I'd be all for equal pay. And a year or two ago--I was for it as well. But right now with the horrid display of tennis pouring from the WTA--I'm not so certain I'm for it. I understand that they devote their lives to the game just as much as men--but I'm wondering why the sudden decline in quality of tennis in the WTA. We need Kim and Justine back so darn badly....
 
richied said:
I'm sure this is an old debate, but I'm not up to speed with the latest. Do the women get payed the same as the men in all the Grand Slams?? Because, I'm watching the guys play for hours in 35+ temperatures over 5 sets wondering if the boys need a pay raise!! The current crop on the women's tour need a pay cut, maybe then we will see some passion out there!!! COME ON girls!!!!
Click to expand...

Are you Australian by any chance? I've noticed that the Aussies refer to women as "girls" and tennis matches as "games."
 
Simple. Don't hold the mens and womens events together. Host their GS events separately. I'm sure that if they don't have to play in the shadow of the men, they would be paid much more. :)
 
richied said:
I'm sure this is an old debate, but I'm not up to speed with the latest. Do the women get payed the same as the men in all the Grand Slams?? Because, I'm watching the guys play for hours in 35+ temperatures over 5 sets wondering if the boys need a pay raise!! The current crop on the women's tour need a pay cut, maybe then we will see some passion out there!!! COME ON girls!!!!
Click to expand...

Tournaments like the US Open are almost forced to pay the same amount in prize money for men and women. Otherwise, too many of the top women would enter the men's tournament in the hope of winning more money.
 
The women deserve more pay. The current womens field is the toughest and deepest in history, something people dont admit since they hate the Williams. The mens field is getting alot better but still not as tough as the womens.
 
As a test, they should split the female and male slam events on different dates. Then they examine the ticket and related revenue and television ratings. Whichever event (female or male) does better (financially) should determine the prize money allocation. The market is the ultimate barometer of fairness.
 
Regardless of the length of time spent playing on the court, men do deserve more as they play best of 5. Similarly women deserve equal pay at events where both genders play best of 3.
 
Women should definitely get paid more than the men. They have so many more expenses, --- such as make-up, facials, hair stylings, waxings, bigger wardrobe, body lotions, tampons, bobby pins, jewelry bling, tennis panties, birth control pills, bellboy tips, plastic surgery, body guards, traveling mother, and just general maintenance. Kind of obvious, isn't it?
 
bobbynorwich said:
Women should definitely get paid more than the men. They have so many more expenses, --- such as make-up, facials, hair stylings, waxings, bigger wardrobe, body lotions, tampons, bobby pins, jewelry bling, tennis panties, birth control pills, bellboy tips, plastic surgery, body guards, traveling mother, and just general maintenance. Kind of obvious, isn't it?
Click to expand...

I'm a woman and I actually agree that men deserve higher pay than women at events where the men have to play best of 5, but there is no need for sexist comments here.
 
If someone would argue, women trains as hard as men. Why don't make it the best of 5 game to see how equal the quality of the game is.
 
1970CRBase said:
Simple. Don't hold the mens and womens events together. Host their GS events separately. I'm sure that if they don't have to play in the shadow of the men, they would be paid much more. :)
Click to expand...

Actually it would be much more likely that the womens GS would struggle to even exist because there would be no interest in it. The women are lucky as is because millions of viewers are forced to watch their televised matches instead of the more entertaining mens matches.
 
bobbynorwich said:
Hey, it's a joke, lighten up a little. :)

P. S. Forgot perfume, manicures and electrolysis.
Click to expand...

I knew you were joking/being sarcastic, but I felt it came off as sexist. I apologize for the misunderstanding.


It is ridiculous to me that a woman that spends 1 hour on the court gets paid the same as a man that spends 4 hours on the court.

I wouldn't want somebody to be paid the same amount that I make for doing 1/4 of the work that I do (although it's rampant around here).
 
cknobman said:
Actually it would be much more likely that the womens GS would struggle to even exist because there would be no interest in it. The women are lucky as is because millions of viewers are forced to watch their televised matches instead of the more entertaining mens matches.
Click to expand...

That would be an interesting experiment, although I think tennis is a sport that is equally entertaining whether a man or a woman is playing. Even at the club level you enjoy watching a good match regardless who's playing.
It's the nature of the sport, like volleyball or track and field.


Cavaleer
 
Exactamundo!!!

pennc94 said:
As a test, they should split the female and male slam events on different dates. Then they examine the ticket and related revenue and television ratings. Whichever event (female or male) does better (financially) should determine the prize money allocation. The market is the ultimate barometer of fairness.
Click to expand...

That would be a very interesting experiment and it would get us a lot closer to the true value of each.

I think the viewing public has been watching women's tennis for so long, however, that the difference wouldn't be nearly as great as say women's and men's college basketball, where women's bball is actually LOSING MONEY, but the men's is at an all-time high.

Also, tennis is a good spectator sport regardless who's playing.

If the women started playing best of five and maybe showed some true grit it might improve their ratings. Then again, they might just tank in the 4th.
 
cokebottle said:
The women deserve more pay. The current womens field is the toughest and deepest in history, something people dont admit since they hate the Williams. The mens field is getting alot better but still not as tough as the womens.
Click to expand...
So true. The women don't quit matches for sore throats, stubbed toenails, feeling hot etc. They dont take injury timeouts like the men do, and throw on court fits. They don't bawl upon losing (well rarely, if you count Hingis).

They should be paid more.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

rallyjunkie
If WTA wants Equal prize $ they should play five sets QF on
Replies
19
Views
2K
vince evert
vince evert
RafaIsBack
  • Poll Poll
Should Men and Women have the same prize money in the Grand Slams ?
Replies
17
Views
2K
Manus Domini
M
srvnvly
BO5 vs. BO3
Replies
16
Views
4K
C_Urala
C
B
The achievement theory of equal prize money.
Replies
4
Views
2K
sdont
sdont
B
Murray suggest Men play 3 or Women play 5 due to prize money in GS.
Replies
21
Views
3K
Finesse4sum
F
Back
Top