Eviscerator
Banned
If true it is only due to whiners who insisted the women should make equal prize money as part of the PC culture run amok.
Men & Women: Equal Prize Money [Merged]
- Thread starter barry
- Start date
If true it is only due to whiners who insisted the women should make equal prize money as part of the PC culture run amok.
Thanks for your timely and original contribution to this debate.
I think that there are good reasons why men are paid more than women, and I think it's silly (and insulting to the men) to pay the women as much as men.
However, unlike some of the socialists here (who are mostly the bleeding-heart types who want women to get "equal pay" for less work / talent / crowd-draw), I have absolute respect for private property rights. Wimbledon has the right to set whatever compensation they like, and whatever rules they like. They have the absolute right to pay the women 10 times as much as the men for no reason at all; and vica-versa, they have the absolute right to pay the men 10 times as much as the women for no reason at all.
However, unlike some of the socialists here (who are mostly the bleeding-heart types who want women to get "equal pay" for less work / talent / crowd-draw), I have absolute respect for private property rights. Wimbledon has the right to set whatever compensation they like, and whatever rules they like. They have the absolute right to pay the women 10 times as much as the men for no reason at all; and vica-versa, they have the absolute right to pay the men 10 times as much as the women for no reason at all.
tennissavy
Hall of Fame
Reality check- the wta has far great depth than the atp. Anyone can win a title on the wta and that is not the case with the atp. It's all federer and nadal or whichever top seed is in the event.- no depth in the atp at all.
Capitalism, not socialism, is why women should get equal pay here, as I explained in post #58 and others have pointed out as well.
I think we should change the old refrain of "do a search before starting a new thread, this has already been covered!" to a new one: "Actually read the thread you're posting in before you throw in your two cents!" (The fact that I sometimes ignore this advice myself in no way detracts from its merit.)
Last edited:
Tennis_Nickmo
Rookie
One thing that is strange is that the change has been put down to public pressure. However, this board shows is that hardly anyone believes that women should be paid the same, and as one of the largest forums on the internet, is it not likely to have the most diverse rules. This is just catering to politics, the rest of society, and the morons at Wimbledon who take up seats, watching just one tournament a year, and complaining that women are unfairly paid, when they know nothing.
What absolute garbage this is.
What absolute garbage this is.
You actually think tennis players should be paid according to their ability to serve fast or the number of sets they play?
Communist.
Last edited:
heycal,
Fair enough, I'm not subscribing to any labor theory of value.
But I don't think the women bring in as much money as the men. I don't think it would be financially justified, if not for the politically correct pressure generating bad press for Wimbledon for paying women less.
That said, again, I support Wimbledon's absolute right of private property. No-one wants to be seen as "the bad guy", and I can't blame Wimbledon for not wanting that.
Fair enough, I'm not subscribing to any labor theory of value.
But I don't think the women bring in as much money as the men. I don't think it would be financially justified, if not for the politically correct pressure generating bad press for Wimbledon for paying women less.
That said, again, I support Wimbledon's absolute right of private property. No-one wants to be seen as "the bad guy", and I can't blame Wimbledon for not wanting that.
scineram
Professional
You do not get it. There is no such thing as should get pay on the market.
I totally agree with dh003i.
N
ne1410is
Guest
yes in an ideal market economy, there is no "should get" unless you are referring to deviations from the intersection of supply and demand. this type of deviation occurs in an imperfect market economy. i believe there is no perfect market economy. there are always other forces at play, in this case the most obvious to me is the social hegemony that males hold over females historically and arguably, still at present time. therefore, with the imperfect economies that we exist in, there are "should gets".
Can you provide some evidence that men generate more revenue? Because I suspect Maria Sharapova and Serena Williams generate more cash and interest than do top guys like Ivan Llubjic and Nicholas Davydenko.
Fine. How's "do get" and "will get" get work for ya?
35ft6
Legend
Just curious, why did you pick the top names in women's tennis, but then NOT choose the top names of men's tennis for this comparison. As in Federer and Nadal.
deucecourt
Rookie
Does the CEO OF Goldman Sachs earn the same as the CEO of UBS? No does the CEO of Burger King earn the same as Mcdonalds? They all do the same job right? One generated more revenue than the other. Just like in Tennis. No matter how hard you try you cannot justify equal pay for both sexes. Take away men's tennis and there would no longer be a sport. I am not a sexist I am just telling the truth. Let the women play five sets after all they are now getting paid the same wage for less hours worked.
TV ratings? Ground attendances?
Well, let's not focus on the 'what-ifs'....when they're unlikely to happen.
Why is it people struggle so much on these boards to differentiate 'opinion' from 'truth'?
....there you're saying that for the same money, people should work the same hours? Do you really believe that?
Should Federer get less money for playing 12 or so hours when he wins a slam, compared to other players who play 15+ and only make the semis?
Spectator sport does not pay it's athletes in by-the-hour rates, it just doesn't. (Hell, most ultra-high-paying jobs don't - even your own burger example - most of those CEOs would work the same ludicrous hours and get different money).
To make my argument stronger, why do you think?... Besides, Ivan Lubricant and Nicholas Davydunkindonutko are both top 5 or top 10 players, not obscure journeymen ranked in the 2OO's or something.
Besides, I would guess Serena and Maria could take on Fed and Nadal in the interest and revenue generating department anyway. Bring it on!
GOD_BLESS_RAFA
Semi-Pro
Well it should indeed be equal pay with equal play then! that is fairer! (go for 5 set win for all! hey!!)
We are dealing with pro tennis here!
Let me put it bluntly !! If Mauresmo or Henin can beat Federer once lol lol then maybe maybe maybe those ladies may get the possibilities of consideration for deserving the "equal pay" !! Sorry this is what pro tennis is IMO!!
Well they already have made up their mind so it is frustrating not fair at all!
We are dealing with pro tennis here!
Let me put it bluntly !! If Mauresmo or Henin can beat Federer once lol lol then maybe maybe maybe those ladies may get the possibilities of consideration for deserving the "equal pay" !! Sorry this is what pro tennis is IMO!!
Well they already have made up their mind so it is frustrating not fair at all!
Last edited:
stormholloway
Legend
Ironic though that we talk of equality in pay, yet the main reason the girls bring in so much is because of sex appeal.
Honestly, if the girls played 5 setters, I'd say give them equal pay. Equal pay for equal PLAY. Men risk more being out there longer. Plain and simple.
How old are you two posters? I'm guessing you're pretty young, and that's fine. But if either of you are over 21, let me know and I'll come back and smack you around some for you silly remarks.
I don't know what role sex appeal plays in the women's ability to bring in revenue, or what role men's sex appeal plays in generating revenue on that side of things as well. But I don't know how or why this issue would have any relevance to the issue of how much prize money players should make.
About 20 different posters have already demolished the ridiculous "equal pay for equal play" argument, so I won't bother doing it again here. But the 3 sets versus 5 difference brings up an interesting question that someone here may know the answer to:
How did it come to be that women's matches consist of best of 3 and men's best of 5? Now I can speculate as to the answers here, but I'd love it if someone could provide us with some actual background and information or links about this subject and how this issue may have evolved over the years.
GOD_BLESS_RAFA
Semi-Pro
Equal 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!
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!
Warriorroger
Hall of Fame
All the women today should give the extra money they get to Billy Jean king.
N
ne1410is
Guest
well i don't think the CEO of McDonald's and the CEO of Goldman Sachs have the exact same jobs. there are marked differences between the companies. nor do i think they work the same number of hours...
if you took away men's tennis, you'd have women's tennis, junior tennis, amateur tennis, and yes, all of those are considered sports.
i maintain that i am tired of hearing people bemoan how much more difficult it is and how much guys put on the line to play best of 5. if it sucks so much, change it to best of 3. guys don't always play best of 5. and personally i don't think any match is interesting enough for me to want to see best of 5, guys or women. if i went to a tourney, i'd prefer to see five best of 3 matches over three best of 5 matches. after all, the men's field is so deep, there are too many stars to see right?
if you took away men's tennis, you'd have women's tennis, junior tennis, amateur tennis, and yes, all of those are considered sports.
i maintain that i am tired of hearing people bemoan how much more difficult it is and how much guys put on the line to play best of 5. if it sucks so much, change it to best of 3. guys don't always play best of 5. and personally i don't think any match is interesting enough for me to want to see best of 5, guys or women. if i went to a tourney, i'd prefer to see five best of 3 matches over three best of 5 matches. after all, the men's field is so deep, there are too many stars to see right?
stormholloway
Legend
Did you think Sharapova was the biggest draw because of her graceful style of play? One of the top arguments is that girls should get equal pay because they are a bigger draw than the men. We all know why they're a big draw. The WTA has so little diversity in its game play.
Oh have they? You're right. What an absurd idea. People should get paid equally regardless of the amount of work they do. Then we can all live in a brighter China.
Get real man. Show me this demolishing argument. These people are working. It's a job. You work more, get you more. Demolish that please.
stormholloway
Legend
If this is the demolition, then I challenge it.
Just because you don't get paid by the hour doesn't mean much. Hourly pay in major economies is virtually non-existent in all high paying jobs. This doesn't challenge the point that a best of 3 match is different than a best of 5 match. They're not playing the same game.
If someone is injured do you think they'd rather play best of 3 or 5? The bottom line is that to win girls only need two sets and guys need three. We all know how much things can change after two sets. Playing 5 sets is a whole lot more tennis than playing three.
First of all, it was my impression that Maria Sharapova was strictly average-to-below-average looking, so sex appeal would have nothing to do with her popularity...
Looks aside, she also happens to be a fantastic tennis player, the number 1 ranked player, and the defending US Open champion, things that just might have something to do with her drawing power. But I still don't understand what relevance sex appeal has to this debate, or why you confine that particular issue to the women's side of the game. You think Nadal's popularity among teenage girls and those who think they're teenage girls is based on his deft touch at the net?
If you'd like to see me personally demolish it, go back and read post #58. (I also dispel the "no diversity/depth in the WTA" myth.) I'm not going to re-write the whole thing for you again. But you seem the one advocating some sort of brighter China with your pinko ideas about fairness and equality and how people should be paid more if they work more. Federer goes out and plays a fun game for 2 hours and makes tens of thousands for that, but the guy who cleans up the stadium after him works three times as long and as hard but only gets paid minimum wage. Where is your outrage over that?
Pick a side here, Storm. You arguments are contradicting each other. (And please go back and read post #58 before you post something new here directed at my arguments.)
Last edited:
In a market economy, you don't get paid according to how much you work. You get paid according to what you negotiated with your employer. There, demolished.
Economics studies what happens in the economy; we can figure out different things depending on whether or not there is harmful government intervention in the free market.
"Perfect markets" by neoclassical definitions mean absurd things, like infinite firms, and no firm having a large % of the market, otherwise there's "monopoly".
By a reasonable standard, the market is fine so-long as there is not initiation of aggression, and the market isn't intervened with; e.g., the government doesn't prohibit competition, our outlaw jobs. When there are problems with the market, the government is usually to blame. And when not -- e.g., occurences of crime, dishonesty, etc -- the government isn't going to make things any better.
What is absolutely fundamental is a respect for private property rights, and a person's right of self-ownership. There are many people who would like to force Wimbledon to pay women equal pay. These people are scum; effectively, they're advocating criminal transgression against other's property. I bet they'd object to someone trying to regulate who they could / couldn't let in their house.
scinearm is right, on the market, there's no such thing as "should get" pay. There is the pay that you can get someone to voluntarily give you, provided the services you provide. That is the just pay.
"Perfect markets" by neoclassical definitions mean absurd things, like infinite firms, and no firm having a large % of the market, otherwise there's "monopoly".
By a reasonable standard, the market is fine so-long as there is not initiation of aggression, and the market isn't intervened with; e.g., the government doesn't prohibit competition, our outlaw jobs. When there are problems with the market, the government is usually to blame. And when not -- e.g., occurences of crime, dishonesty, etc -- the government isn't going to make things any better.
What is absolutely fundamental is a respect for private property rights, and a person's right of self-ownership. There are many people who would like to force Wimbledon to pay women equal pay. These people are scum; effectively, they're advocating criminal transgression against other's property. I bet they'd object to someone trying to regulate who they could / couldn't let in their house.
scinearm is right, on the market, there's no such thing as "should get" pay. There is the pay that you can get someone to voluntarily give you, provided the services you provide. That is the just pay.
Women -vs- Men: The (Huge) Equal Prize Money Thread
as far as i know, women tennis had been battling to get equal prize money as the men for many years, n now i think US open n Australia open give out equal prize money for both men n women... n now i just read on the tsn site that wimbledon is now giving equal prize money to both men n women... from first round to finals
For me i think this is very unfair.. because women tennis r asking for equal pay as the men but they are getting it for less work... men 5 set n women 3 set... how does that balance out??
Some men may have to stay on the court with high humidy for 4 - 4 1/2 hour while women @ most could stay for 3 hours n get a longer break time if the weather is outragiously hot.. the intensity level is different.. for what i see the intensity between men tennis n women tennis r different for men's tennis have much more faster pace in the game than women's tennis... n fan wise, i think most ppl enjoy watching men's tennis rather than women's tennis (i think??.. hopefully i didnt offend anyone there)
so i want to know your opinion on this, do u think its fair for women to get equal prize money n why??
as far as i know, women tennis had been battling to get equal prize money as the men for many years, n now i think US open n Australia open give out equal prize money for both men n women... n now i just read on the tsn site that wimbledon is now giving equal prize money to both men n women... from first round to finals
For me i think this is very unfair.. because women tennis r asking for equal pay as the men but they are getting it for less work... men 5 set n women 3 set... how does that balance out??
Some men may have to stay on the court with high humidy for 4 - 4 1/2 hour while women @ most could stay for 3 hours n get a longer break time if the weather is outragiously hot.. the intensity level is different.. for what i see the intensity between men tennis n women tennis r different for men's tennis have much more faster pace in the game than women's tennis... n fan wise, i think most ppl enjoy watching men's tennis rather than women's tennis (i think??.. hopefully i didnt offend anyone there)
so i want to know your opinion on this, do u think its fair for women to get equal prize money n why??
krprunitennis2
Professional
I think it's fair for women to get equal prize money, and I want them to play 5 sets. I don't think that endurance has any difference between men and women so yeah.
ollinger
G.O.A.T.
Athletes are in the entertainment industry; posters here seem to think they punch in like welders or fast-food employees and should similarly get paid by the hour. Are you people brain dead?? Does Celine Dion get paid less than the warm-up act if the warm-up is on stage longer? I think not. That's because Celine Dion generates more revenue, as people seem to be paying to see her, not the other performer. Female tennis players probably bring in more revenue than males, as they have higher TV ratings and better attended matches in recent years. Did you notice the most prominent billboard ad in the stadiums at the AO? It was for a cosmetics company.
umm... singing n tennis r two different things??? let's keep it not so offensive.. tennis n music r definitely two different genres n i dont think it can be compared.. tennis is physical n singing is... well.. not so physical lol.. there r good singers n not so good singers out there so the number of viewers r based on taste of their music... n where did u get the information about female tennis have more tv rating than men?? i dont think that is true unless u can show some proof..
N
ne1410is
Guest
i think you are advocating a laissez faire approach. its fine if you can say that respect for private property is essential yet, who is going to enforce this? unfortunately there IS a need for government and if left to our own devices, we wouldn't all believe the same thing, i.e. we wouldn't all respect each other's private property. on the individual level and on the aggregate business level, this type of behavior outside the "rules" would occur. so when crimes do occur, who would you suggest to enforce the "law" if government can't help? and who establishes what the law is?
czech09
Rookie
stormholloway
Legend
That's a terrible comparison.
It's about time somebody around here brought this issue up! It's ridiculous to think women should be paid as much as men. Andy Roddick serves 140 miles an hour and is sometimes out there for 5 sets and 3-4 hours at a time, yet Martina Hingis can barely serve 90 mph and can finish a 2 set match in 45 minutes, and if they were to play each other Roddick would wipe her out 6-0,6-0. And yet you people think they are entitled to earn the SAME amount of money for their tennis playing?
Last edited:
tennisfreak
Semi-Pro
By your reasoning marathoners and triathletes should be making about twice as much as Andy Roddick, since marathoners exert more effort.
It is all about supply and demand. Since the demand for women's tennis is about equal to mens tennis, and the supply of top women players is exactly equal to the men, it follows that the price the public would be willing to pay to watch them are about equal. Thus, pay for women in tennis should be approximately equal to men.
If you don't want women payed as much as men, tell your sister or aunt to boycott women's tennis! See what kind of reaction you get.
Last edited:
You show me a marathoner who can serve as fast as Roddick and I'll support equal pay for women. As for supply and demand, just watch how Federer and the ball kids interact -- he demands a ball, and the ball kids supply it as quickly as possible. You think the ball kids move that fast for Nadia Petrova? Not likely.
im not too sure if the demand for women tennis is the same as men but i have a feeling most people will prefer to watch men's tennis over women's tennis because men's tennis is just on a whole different level than women's tennis
So we give the women equal prize money.. but they get the same amount of money for less work.. men may have to entertain 1 - 2 hours more than the women but yet the prize money is the same?? How will the male tennis players react?? If i were them i would argue that what the association is doing now is obviously discriminating because women get off work earlier than men but yet they earn the exact same money!! Why not make the Grand Slams now to best of 3 sets for the men??? Now that will be fair
So we give the women equal prize money.. but they get the same amount of money for less work.. men may have to entertain 1 - 2 hours more than the women but yet the prize money is the same?? How will the male tennis players react?? If i were them i would argue that what the association is doing now is obviously discriminating because women get off work earlier than men but yet they earn the exact same money!! Why not make the Grand Slams now to best of 3 sets for the men??? Now that will be fair
ollinger
G.O.A.T.
It's interesting to me that this issue of wanting to see the women paid less has come up on this board a number of times, yet now that men's doubles has been shortened (super-tiebreaker instead of a third set in non-Slams, no-ad scoring in some tournaments), we've not seen anyone demanding that prize money be reduced for doubles in most tour events. Hmmmm. Equal pay for less work? The women-bashers always lurk. As for statistics I referred to, my daughter works for one of the 3 major TV networks and has seen the in-house data -- women's tennis is a bigger draw than men's in recent years. All those long-legged blonds perhaps?
I think the number of sets played is not a valid way to determine pay. Because if women played the same number of sets, the quality of their play would drastically decrease because they don't have the endurance that men have. Not to mention, injuries would skyrocket. Also in most jobs, people don't get the same hourly rate, it is dependent upon skill level, seniority, how the market was when you got hired, etc. Why should tennis be a communist sport?
I doubt that women's tennis generates as much revenue as men's because it is at a lower level and is not the same quality as men's. Too many people think the sex appeal of the women's players and the money earned from their modeling careers and commercials counts in this, but it shouldn't. It should be based on what percentage of the fans who attend tennis events or watch tennis events on TV are more interested in the men's or women's game (and not based on the gender of the spectators, because women fans might be there for the men's game and vice versa).
I think they made pay equal for the wrong reason (ie. there is no proof that women generate as much revenue as men). It was all part of some lefty feminism crap.
I doubt that women's tennis generates as much revenue as men's because it is at a lower level and is not the same quality as men's. Too many people think the sex appeal of the women's players and the money earned from their modeling careers and commercials counts in this, but it shouldn't. It should be based on what percentage of the fans who attend tennis events or watch tennis events on TV are more interested in the men's or women's game (and not based on the gender of the spectators, because women fans might be there for the men's game and vice versa).
I think they made pay equal for the wrong reason (ie. there is no proof that women generate as much revenue as men). It was all part of some lefty feminism crap.
ollinger
G.O.A.T.
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"?? 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.
chess9
Hall of Fame
Reasons why women should be paid MORE than men:
1. They wear skimpier clothing.
2. They are much nicer to look at than sweaty men, for the most part.
3. The post match interviews are always more interesting. "Did you see the adam's apple on that Rusky?"
4. Women have been paid less for eons. Pay back is due.
5. Huge industries rely on women's tennis to provide customers for cosmetics, clothing, shoes, jewelry, cars. Guys will play in sweats and old tennis shoe and smell like French *****s. Women, on the other hand....
Quit yer' whining you male chauvinist pigs.
-Robert
1. They wear skimpier clothing.
2. They are much nicer to look at than sweaty men, for the most part.
3. The post match interviews are always more interesting. "Did you see the adam's apple on that Rusky?"
4. Women have been paid less for eons. Pay back is due.
5. Huge industries rely on women's tennis to provide customers for cosmetics, clothing, shoes, jewelry, cars. Guys will play in sweats and old tennis shoe and smell like French *****s. Women, on the other hand....
Quit yer' whining you male chauvinist pigs.
-Robert
forzainter
Semi-Pro
women getting paid the same as men is ridiculous, id like to see how sharapova fares playing 5 sets at roland garros.
Wrong. This is the first time this subject has ever been mentioned at Talk Tennis.
She probably monkeyed with the data. She works for the TV networks you say? Yeah, right -- more like Ms. Magazine!
Exactly! What's next, giving guys who play Federer a two set lead before the start of a match to make it more "fair"?
Excellent point. Sharapova almost died in her opening round match at the AO when it went three long sets. The idea of women being able to remain on their feet for five sets is ridiculous -- plus they'd probably smell like French *****s afterwards.
Last edited:
ollinger
G.O.A.T.
First time? "Why the hell are women getting equal pay" posted 1/25/07, several other threads about it last year if you care to check. Don't understand why people make things up as they go along on this board. Even denigrating my daughter in your confabulation? She works for ABC-TV in New York. You've got to get yourself some health insurance already, man; an underlying disorder may be clouding your thought processes
chess9
Hall of Fame
Cal was being way too subtle...for this board, at any rate. Cal, please move to a board discussing Kierkegaard. Thank you....
-Robert
Similar threads
- Poll
