Men's vs Women's tennis prize money debate - GOOD VIDEO

[Bobby Jr]

..It's a matter of marketing. The men's game has been promoted more aggressively for decades. This is why the men's big matches are in demand. Once the marketing catches up they'll be able to charge the same ticket price.

I very much doubt that. The men's product is lightyears better regardless of any marketing they've done.

I can tell you the un-promoted matches on the outer courts at the US Open have pretty much the same small crowds for men & women. There's no difference.

People who go to un-promoted/free seating matches are not the ticket buyers who make the difference, they're opportunists. The evidence of those matches having roughly the same crowds is pretty scant in terms of what it means in this argument.

 

[Nostradamus]

take 1/2 of women's prize money and put it into men's challenger tour.

 

[Bartelby]

The WTA would call that theft.

The ITF runs challengers and not the WTA or ATP so they are responsible for funding.

take 1/2 of women's prize money and put it into men's challenger tour.

 

[Manus Domini]

The WTA would call that theft.

Yeah, I guess women don't have rights anymore, though. :?

 

[heninfan99]

I very much doubt that. The men's product is lightyears better regardless of any marketing they've done.

NO WAY. So far the most entertaining matches of this Aussie have been on the women's side. It may change but so far the women have been more engaging.

People who go to un-promoted/free seating matches are not the ticket buyers who make the difference, they're opportunists. The evidence of those matches having roughly the same crowds is pretty scant in terms of what it means in this argument.

Well the mass of people that watch a men's final are mostly casual fans. They will watch whatever final is marketed well. In terms of entertainment on the outer courts it is a gauge of the informed fan. It also shows you what happens when you take marketing out of the equation.

 

[Bobby Jr]

NO WAY. So far the most entertaining matches of this Aussie have been on the women's side. It may change but so far the women have been more engaging.

That is pretty subjective and I doubt many tennis followers would agree with you. I've seen a couple of female matches and they were as batshit boring as always to me.

Well the mass of people that watch a men's final are mostly casual fans. They will watch whatever final is marketed well. In terms of entertainment on the outer courts it is a gauge of the informed fan.

Regardless if that was the case, which it isn't, they are prepared to pay the premium for that match far more than for the women's matches.

I completely disagree that the outer courts are a gauge of the informed tennis fan and, even if it were the case, it's still irrelevant as the people who chose to buy the more expensive men's match tickets still represent where the demand is in commercial terms.

 

[heninfan99]

Your arguments of "I doubt this" "I doubt that" are the essence of subjectivity. You have failed to refute the power of marketing.

As far as the women at the Aussie go the only big headlines have been the Venus match and the Sharapova match so far. Both were great and Ivanovic vs. Bouchard, on right now, is excellent.

That is pretty subjective and I doubt many tennis followers would agree with you. I've seen a couple of female matches and they were as batshit boring as always to me.


Regardless if that was the case, which it isn't, they are prepared to pay the premium for that match far more than for the women's matches.

I completely disagree that the outer courts are a gauge of the informed tennis fan and, even if it were the case, it's still irrelevant as the people who chose to buy the more expensive men's match tickets still represent where the demand is in commercial terms.

 

[jussumman]

Pay women 2/3 of the money or have them play 5 sets in majors. Those are your fair options. It went from one extreme of getting way underpaid, to going too far. They can't get it on target.

 

[Bobby Jr]

Your arguments of "I doubt this" "I doubt that" are the essence of subjectivity. You have failed to refute the power of marketing.

As are your ones of marketing and back-courts being the pulse of tennis popularity. I don't need to refute anything you made up on the spot. I know the power of marketing and the marketing men's tennis has had to become so much bigger than women's is for the most part the quality, consistency and famous rivalries of men's tennis - all of which has been generally pitiful in women's tennis in the past decade or more.

s far as the women at the Aussie go the only big headlines have been the Venus match and the Sharapova match so far. Both were great and Ivanovic vs. Bouchard, on right now, is excellent.

You're watching the wrong matches imo. Or are you saying that women's tennis finally has something worth reporting in the media which isn't mostly related to the appearance of the players? Marketing?

 

[TERRASTAR18]

Don't mean to argue with you, but do you know what "What the market demands" means?

It means if the market (Fans), pay less for women, then the market values their matches less, less money is generated for their matches, and they should be paid according to what revenue comes in.

They are taking money from men who bring in the majority of the money and give it to women in the interest of "Equality". As I say, if they want equality, play 5 setters, generate interest and actually earn it, I'd be ashamed being paid more or equal just based on my gender.

just like the real market, it's simply about demand and it's not completely free. it is based on not the public per say but on the tournament directors and the stakeholders. and let's be honest we aren't talking about the small/regular tournaments we are talking about the grand slams. like the us open. it's not a coincedence that it happens during the open. in the media who do you want maria or berdych? that's the reason more female players are millionaires vs the men.

 

[TERRASTAR18]

Idiotic video. Atrocious logic. A complete and total failure to understand the entertainment business, which tennis is now a part of, and the needs of global advertisers. Pay? Comparing the amount of work? What on earth does that have to do with the way sports performance is remunerated? I cannot wait for his next video slamming sprinters for being "paid" more than marathon runners even though the former 'work' for under 10 seconds while the latter 'work' for more than two hours. :roll: What an idiot!

I posted this last year but it is just as valid to this stupid debate which sadly keeps rearing its ugly head:

Why do the women tennis players get the same prize money as the men at the slams.?

Because the WTA has the commercial clout to get it. Put it another way, the slams would have lost far more in revenue from the women boycotting the tournaments than they lost by agreeing to equalise the prize money. If mens doubles or wheelchair players had the same commercial power as the WTA they would have
Can you imagine if a man and a woman worked for the same company but the woman had to work 3 times as long, sell much more product, and be much better at the job to get the same pay. Surely we would all say this was wrong.

Neither the men nor the women are PAID anything at the slams. They compete for PRIZES for winning rounds. It would be absurd of John Isner to think that he was somehow being treated unfairly for getting the same first round prize for winning 70 – 68 in the fifth set as another man got for winning with a walkover. The prize is for the win, not for the amount of time, effort, sets etc, so equal pay legislation/theory is totally irrelevant here.

The men's game is more popular and brings in the most money and it's not even close. The women's game is riding on the men's.

No it isn’t. You are aware that apart from the slams, the WTA has its own totally independent tour and that it is very successful?

From the WTA site:

The WTA is the global leader in women's professional sport, with more than 2,500 players representing 92 nations competing for a record $118 million in prize money at the WTA's 54 events and four Grand Slams in 33 countries. Close to 5.4 million people attended women's tennis events in 2013, with millions more watching on television and digital channels around the world.

http://www.wtatennis.com/scontent/article/2951989/title/about-the-wta#sthash.LpcZlVOt.dpuf​

Did you know that at the best of three set joint event in Miami in 2013, the women’s champion received a larger prize than the man?

ATP Winner: Andy Murray $719,160
WTA Winner: Serena Williams $724,000

Obviously the WTA must be doing very well if it can afford to reward its winners with a bigger cheque than the ATP.

Now if you are a top woman and on your own tour you can get prize money more or less the same as the top men all year around, why would you come to a Slam and agree to play for less? The women had had enough and were on the verge of boycotting the dinosaur slams (Wimbledon & French) which would have cost them millions of dollars compared to the thousands of dollars that it took to equalise the prizes.

Popularity? You do know that 116 million people in China alone watched Li Na become French Open champion. Find me a men’s match that has received anything close to those ratings.

You might not care but the slams surely do care about the sales of TV rights and corporate sponsors do care about being able to gain access to emerging markets in Asia and the Middle East where women’s tennis is much more popular than men’s. This makes the WTA a powerful player in the international sports sector.

You might not like or respect women’s tennis but around the world there are plenty of people who do and more than enough of them to make the WTA tour very strong and successful and give it the corporate clout to get what it wants in business.

Deal with it.

great post...... could not have said it better myself.

 

[Bartelby]

The star system or celebrity culture increases the marketability of men over women and increases their commercial value.

- i meant women over men.

 

[bluescreen]

Let me see if I can summarize the pro-equal pay argument, as I used to be very much against it.

--the "women should pay 5 sets" argument is invalid because money earned in tournaments is based on results, not effort or time spent. Players are awarded prize money in tournaments, not paid a salary or hourly wage. Do customers not show up to a women's match because it's "only" best of 3? No.

--Tennis is an entertainment business, hence players are awarded money based the market demand for this entertainment. The WTA is a standalone tour outside of the slams and a few combined Masters event, which proves they have similar earning power to the men's tour. I believe it was pointed out somewhere else that Sharapova receives more endorsement money than any of the men, also indicating that women have just as much--if not more--"celebrity/star power."


On a side note, it seems to me that most anti-equal pay arguments are actually arguing for pay based on time spent on court (the whole "women should play 5 sets" thing). If we go down this road, we're opening up a can of worms in terms of match fixing. You'd essentially be punishing players for playing too well. You'd be penalizing those that work hard and, thus, frequently beat their opponents with ease. Progression of the sport would come to a halt.

 

[firepanda]

Let me see if I can summarize the pro-equal pay argument, as I used to be very much against it.

--the "women should pay 5 sets" argument is invalid because money earned in tournaments is based on results, not effort or time spent. Players are awarded prize money in tournaments, not paid a salary or hourly wage. Do customers not show up to a women's match because it's "only" best of 3? No.

--Tennis is an entertainment business, hence players are awarded money based the market demand for this entertainment. The WTA is a standalone tour outside of the slams and a few combined Masters event, which proves they have similar earning power to the men's tour. I believe it was pointed out somewhere else that Sharapova receives more endorsement money than any of the men, also indicating that women have just as much--if not more--"celebrity/star power."


On a side note, it seems to me that most anti-equal pay arguments are actually arguing for pay based on time spent on court (the whole "women should play 5 sets" thing). If we go down this road, we're opening up a can of worms in terms of match fixing. You'd essentially be punishing players for playing too well. You'd be penalizing those that work hard and, thus, frequently beat their opponents with ease. Progression of the sport would come to a halt.

Do they have similar earning power? Sure Masha earns more than world 100 man, but that's to be expected -- no-one denies women have SOME earning power. Surely Federer earns more than Masha and Nadal more than Williams. (When I say earn, take your pick. Endorsements, attendance etc.) Likewise, the number 50 man earns more than number 50 woman.

 

[bluescreen]

Do they have similar earning power? Sure Masha earns more than world 100 man, but that's to be expected -- no-one denies women have SOME earning power. Surely Federer earns more than Masha and Nadal more than Williams. (When I say earn, take your pick. Endorsements, attendance etc.) Likewise, the number 50 man earns more than number 50 woman.

By "surely," do you mean "probably"? I get the feeling you don't have data to back up these assertions.

Somebody needs to post some hard stats--namely attendance at ATP only and WTA only events, or else we're going to keep arguing over guesses.

And besides, comparing money earned on a player-by-player basis doesn't help any argument unless you're suggesting players should be payed based on their ranking instead of their performance.

So let me update my summary of this thread. We have 4--not 2--arguments.

1. Women and men should be payed equally because entertainers are payed based on their power to draw a paying crowd, not level of or duration of performance.

2. Men should be payed more than women because they can a) potentially play 2 more sets in a match at slams, or b) have more earning power (b. is an unsubstantiated claim so far).

3. Players should be payed based on their ranking, regardless of gender.

4. Players should be payed based on their level of performance, regardless of gender (either duration of the match or "quality" of play, although the latter is very subjective).

 

[TERRASTAR18]

Do they have similar earning power? Sure Masha earns more than world 100 man, but that's to be expected -- no-one denies women have SOME earning power. Surely Federer earns more than Masha and Nadal more than Williams. (When I say earn, take your pick. Endorsements, attendance etc.) Likewise, the number 50 man earns more than number 50 woman.

nope, try again and just because they earn more in endorsements doesn't mean they generate more money for companies which is the whole impetus for payscale. attendance is insignificant. add to that it's not about serena vs nadal. it's wta vs atp. and at gs like ny, they care about the beautiful wta players over the atp.

 

[firepanda]

By "surely," do you mean "probably"? I get the feeling you don't have data to back up these assertions.

Somebody needs to post some hard stats--namely attendance at ATP only and WTA only events, or else we're going to keep arguing over guesses.

And besides, comparing money earned on a player-by-player basis doesn't help any argument unless you're suggesting players should be payed based on their ranking instead of their performance.

So let me update my summary of this thread. We have 4--not 2--arguments.

1. Women and men should be payed equally because entertainers are payed based on their power to draw a paying crowd, not level of or duration of performance.

2. Men should be payed more than women because they can a) potentially play 2 more sets in a match at slams, or b) have more earning power (b. is an unsubstantiated claim so far).

3. Players should be payed based on their ranking, regardless of gender.

4. Players should be payed based on their level of performance, regardless of gender (either duration of the match or "quality" of play, although the latter is very subjective).

By surely, I mean 'a very strong assumption'. I don't have hard stats, but I'll try a Google after I've written this post.

You misinterpreted what I meant when I compared number 50 man and woman. I didn't mean that there should be performance pay differing between individual players or anything--that wouldn't work for a variety of reasons, and wouldn't really constitute prize money.

I was just comparing equivalently ranked players. You mentioned Sharapova beating most men for endorsements. What I was trying to say is that since we are comparing men and women as a whole, it would be unfair to cherry pick individuals and compare Joe Bloggs on the challenger's tour with Sharapova.

 

[bluescreen]

nope, try again and just because they earn more in endorsements doesn't mean they generate more money for companies which is the whole impetus for payscale. attendance is insignificant. add to that it's not about serena vs nadal. it's wta vs atp. and at gs like ny, they care about the beautiful wta players over the atp.

Well hold on. Player endorsements are a form of indirect marketing. It's nearly impossible to quantify how much money these endorsements generate. Tell me how to answer this: how much money has Lindt made by endorsing Roger Federer? It's hard to say because no one's going around yelling "I bought Lindt chocolate because of Roger Federer!"

Attendance IS significant because seats sold at a tournament are one of the only products you can immediately and irrefutably contribute to the players. In that regard, you are correct that it's a matter of wta vs. atp and not one player vs. one player.

Other than attendance, I don't see how else you could quantify how much money a player makes for anyone, unless it's a signature racket or something exclusively tethered to that player.

 

[firepanda]

nope, try again and just because they earn more in endorsements doesn't mean they generate more money for companies which is the whole impetus for payscale. attendance is insignificant. add to that it's not about serena vs nadal. it's wta vs atp. and at gs like ny, they care about the beautiful wta players over the atp.

Attendance is very significant. How do you think the Grand Slams earn their money?

Endorsements will correlate with how much the player brings in. If Federer earns more in endorsements than Sharapova (hypothetically), saying that he rakes in more cash is a reasonable conclusion. Why else would he get more endorsements and/or endorsements worth more money?

I would refrain from the suggesting the WTA players are valued for their beauty. It might be misconstrued as misogynistic. :twisted:

 

[bluescreen]

I think this thread has deviated from an equal pay argument and has morphed into a debate of endorsements as an effective marketing strategy.

We might as well throw an argument about distribution of prize money into the mix too.

 

[firepanda]

Stats time. Forbes gives us the endorsements for the top players in 2013.

MEN
1. Roger Federer $65M (10x prize money)
2. Rafael Nadal $21M (4x prize money)
3. Novak Djokovic $14M (1.1x prize money)
4. Kei Nishikori $9M (6x prize money)
5. Andy Murray $8M (1.2x prize money)

WOMEN
1. Guess who $23M (4x prize money)
2. Li Na $15M (5x prize money)
3. Serena Williams $12M (1.5x prize money)
4. Caroline Wozniacki $11M (4x prize money)
5. Victoria Azarenka $9M (1.4x prize money)

It's not quite as clear cut as I imagined apparently. The men lead overall, but not at positions 4 and 5. It would be good to see how much endorsements for the middle ranked players are worth, but that's not easy to find.

 

[bluescreen]

Stats time. Forbes gives us the endorsements for the top players in 2013.

MEN
1. Roger Federer $65M (10x prize money)
2. Rafael Nadal $21M (4x prize money)
3. Novak Djokovic $14M (1.1x prize money)
4. Kei Nishikori $9M (6x prize money)
5. Andy Murray $8M (1.2x prize money)

WOMEN
1. Guess who $23M (4x prize money)
2. Li Na $15M (5x prize money)
3. Serena Williams $12M (1.5x prize money)
4. Caroline Wozniacki $11M (4x prize money)
5. Victoria Azarenka $9M (1.4x prize money)

It's not quite as clear cut as I imagined apparently. The men lead overall, but not at positions 4 and 5. It would be good to see how much endorsements for the middle ranked players are worth, but that's not easy to find.

Wow. Great stuff. Nishikori in the #4 spot surprised me.

And of course, why am I even shocked at Mr. Federer's numbers. I think I've lost the script on this one though. What were we trying to show here? Aside from Federer, who's more or less an outlier with how much he beats the rest of the field on this, the endorsement numbers are very competitive between men and women.

 

[dParis]

Don't mean to argue with you, but do you know what "What the market demands" means?

No, he doesn't. He thinks it has something to do with putting people on trains and sending them to gas chambers.

The bottom line of this thread, and all the "equal pay" threads which have come before on Talk Tennis, is political clout. The WTA has the political clout to extort the tournaments for more money. Everything else are the circuses.

 

[Thriller]

Attendance is very significant. How do you think the Grand Slams earn their money?

Sales of global TV rights and corporate sponsorship are just as significant. Are the Chinese really going to be willing to pay top dollar to cover the slams live if there is no Li Na?

One of the key turning points in the debate was Wimbledon 2005 where the women's final was longer, more competitive, the tennis was of higher quality and attracted a million more TV viewers in the UK than the men's final the following day.

Returning to attendance, what do you think would happen to the attendance at a Grand Slam if at a stroke, the number of matches is reduced by more than 50%?

No ladies at the slams equals no singles, doubles, mixed doubles, girls, legends, wheelchair players. It also equals fewer highly lucrative corporate hospitality sales. Is it really worth losing all of that revenue rather than coughing up the relatively tiny sum needed to provide parity?

No one in business ever relinquishes power voluntarily. Women have equal prize money because they have the economic power, which gave them the political influence to change the situation.

@TERRASTAR18: Thank you.

 

[firepanda]

Sales of global TV rights and corporate sponsorship are just as significant. Are the Chinese really going to be willing to pay top dollar to cover the slams live if there is no Li Na?

One of the key turning points in the debate was Wimbledon 2005 where the women's final was longer, more competitive, the tennis was of higher quality and attracted a million more TV viewers in the UK than the men's final the following day.

Returning to attendance, what do you think would happen to the attendance at a Grand Slam if at a stroke, the number of matches is reduced by more than 50%?

No ladies at the slams equals no singles, doubles, mixed doubles, girls, legends, wheelchair players. It also equals fewer highly lucrative corporate hospitality sales. Is it really worth losing all of that revenue rather than coughing up the relatively tiny sum needed to provide parity?

No one in business ever relinquishes power voluntarily. Women have equal prize money because they have the economic power, which gave them the political influence to change the situation.

@TERRASTAR18: Thank you.

Sponsorship and TV rights are practically equivalent to attendance. More attendance translates to more viewers.

I'm not arguing women's singles shouldn't exist. I'm just saying men's is more valuable to the tournament. What would happen if the men disappeared? No Rafa, Federer, Novak, Andy.

Long term, men contribute more, whether in match time, sponsorship value, attendance, TV ratings etc. I have absolutely no stats to back these up, apart from the occasional Nielsen rating (which is limited to America) and too few in number to draw any conclusion and the Forbes list I posted above, which is once again too limited.

 

[Thriller]

Sponsorship and TV rights are practically equivalent to attendance. More attendance translates to more viewers.

Thousands watch live. Millions watch on TV. A captive audience of millions is gold dust for sponsors and advertisers.

I'm not arguing women's singles shouldn't exist. I'm just saying men's is more valuable to the tournament. What would happen if the men disappeared? No Rafa, Federer, Novak, Andy.

Their loss would be just as devastating. If the men feel so strongly that they 'deserve' a larger prize fund than the women, maybe they should offer to boycott the slams and see where it gets them.

Long term, men contribute more, whether in match time, sponsorship value, attendance, TV ratings etc. I have absolutely no stats to back these up, apart from the occasional Nielsen rating (which is limited to America) and too few in number to draw any conclusion and the Forbes list I posted above, which is once again too limited.

Recent evidence to the contrary:

http://www.tennis.com/pro-game/2013...res-better-tv-ratings-men/49130/#.Ut5SFn_fWSM

 

[firepanda]

Thousands watch live. Millions watch on TV. A captive audience of millions is gold dust for sponsors and advertisers.



Their loss would be just as devastating. If the men feel so strongly that they 'deserve' a larger prize fund than the women, maybe they should offer to boycott the slams and see where it gets them.



Recent evidence to the contrary:

http://www.tennis.com/pro-game/2013...res-better-tv-ratings-men/49130/#.Ut5SFn_fWSM

Like I said, I'm not disputing the value of women's tennis. It is fantastic that tennis has done so much to equalise the two genders, more than any other sport. If grand slams were to segregate, ruining years of tradition, the sport would be devastated. I just hold the view that having equal prize money is equality for its own sake, with no thought put into it.

I have not been quoting what evidence I have found because they are taken from a handful of matches and constitute woefully insufficient evidence. One single women's final is even worse when we are looking at all matches across all slams.

Regardless, the mens final is held the day after the womens final (as is done in all slams for no particular reason). Because the US Open organisers wouldn't know good scheduling if it hit them in the face, the mens final was on a Monday. Furthermore, the women's final featured an American and Nielsen ratings are American. That should explain the discrepancy methinks.

 

[SQA333]

Sales of global TV rights and corporate sponsorship are just as significant. Are the Chinese really going to be willing to pay top dollar to cover the slams live if there is no Li Na?

One of the key turning points in the debate was Wimbledon 2005 where the women's final was longer, more competitive, the tennis was of higher quality and attracted a million more TV viewers in the UK than the men's final the following day.

Returning to attendance, what do you think would happen to the attendance at a Grand Slam if at a stroke, the number of matches is reduced by more than 50%?

No ladies at the slams equals no singles, doubles, mixed doubles, girls, legends, wheelchair players. It also equals fewer highly lucrative corporate hospitality sales. Is it really worth losing all of that revenue rather than coughing up the relatively tiny sum needed to provide parity?

No one in business ever relinquishes power voluntarily. Women have equal prize money because they have the economic power, which gave them the political influence to change the situation.

@TERRASTAR18: Thank you.

Here's the thing. The previous generation of WTA tennis deserved equal prize money and they didn't have it. The current era doesn't deserve it, and they have it.

 

[dParis]

Women have equal prize money because they have the economic power, which gave them the political influence to change the situation.

You've got it backwards, but the end results are the same.

 

[sarmpas]

Until a 3-setter loser in the mens draw gets less than a man losing in a tough 5-setter, same round, the point about pay relative to court time or equality lacks credibility. That is, the argument must apply between the men as well, otherwise cries of discrimination have a valid basis.

 

[Thriller]

You've got it backwards, but the end results are the same.

I don't think so. When you make money, people listen to you. If you have nothing to put on the table, you are stuffed.

The economic success of the independent WTA tour is crucial to the maintenance of equal prize money. If interest in the women's game collapses then their prizes will too. It has happened before:

A few weeks ago, the Australian Open announced it was increasing the men's prize money by 17%, but the women's by only 6%. Officials explained the change as economically driven, saying the men's matches consistently earned higher television ratings.​

http://articles.latimes.com/1995-11-12/sports/sp-2415_1_australian-open

Bart McGuire, chief executive of the WTA tour, said the decision (to reinstate equal prize money) was important move to recognize the strength and appeal of the women's tour.

"Equalizing prize money at the Grand Slams is a major goal," said McGuire. "It is a goal that we have preferred to approach through persuasion and diplomacy rather than through more aggressive means.

"Tennis Australia has responded very positively to our approach, and to the fact that women's tennis has generated record attendance and extraordinary worldwide publicity, as well as dramatically increased television coverage and television ratings."​

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/tennis/equal-prize-money-at-australian-open-637129.html


It nothing to do with PC, and feminist conspiracies ... it is all about economics.

 

[TERRASTAR18]

Well hold on. Player endorsements are a form of indirect marketing. It's nearly impossible to quantify how much money these endorsements generate. Tell me how to answer this: how much money has Lindt made by endorsing Roger Federer? It's hard to say because no one's going around yelling "I bought Lindt chocolate because of Roger Federer!"

Attendance IS significant because seats sold at a tournament are one of the only products you can immediately and irrefutably contribute to the players. In that regard, you are correct that it's a matter of wta vs. atp and not one player vs. one player.

Other than attendance, I don't see how else you could quantify how much money a player makes for anyone, unless it's a signature racket or something exclusively tethered to that player.

yes you can quantify it. again you can check it by web hits, how many endosrements all the players have. again this has nothing to o with regular tour stops. this is about the slams. wimbledon doesn't make most of it's money off of ticket sales. it makes it off merchandising, renting the courts in the other 50 weeks that they don't have a slam. what makes it money is that it's an event. the tenns is probably the least important part of it. the tourney is one big market event like the olympics or world cup.
and you can quantify how much money by checking by what ppl sell and how much they sell- just look at maria and dresses.

 

[TERRASTAR18]

I don't think so. When you make money, people listen to you. If you have nothing to put on the table, you are stuffed.

The economic success of the independent WTA tour is crucial to the maintenance of equal prize money. If interest in the women's game collapses then their prizes will too. It has happened before:

A few weeks ago, the Australian Open announced it was increasing the men's prize money by 17%, but the women's by only 6%. Officials explained the change as economically driven, saying the men's matches consistently earned higher television ratings.​

http://articles.latimes.com/1995-11-12/sports/sp-2415_1_australian-open

Bart McGuire, chief executive of the WTA tour, said the decision (to reinstate equal prize money) was important move to recognize the strength and appeal of the women's tour.

"Equalizing prize money at the Grand Slams is a major goal," said McGuire. "It is a goal that we have preferred to approach through persuasion and diplomacy rather than through more aggressive means.

"Tennis Australia has responded very positively to our approach, and to the fact that women's tennis has generated record attendance and extraordinary worldwide publicity, as well as dramatically increased television coverage and television ratings."​

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/tennis/equal-prize-money-at-australian-open-637129.html


It nothing to do with PC, and feminist conspiracies ... it is all about economics.

nice articles from 1995 and 2000. it's 2014. love how bring up obsolete information that ignores modern day sports marketing.

 

[Thriller]

nice articles from 1995 and 2000. it's 2014. love how bring up obsolete information that ignores modern day sports marketing.

Er ... excuse me? It is not 'obsolete information'.

It is information that demonstrates that the Australian Open stopped offering equal prize money in 1995 when it viewed women's tennis as no longer having the same audience appeal as men's but reinstated it in 2000 when a new generation came along and revived its fortunes.

This is information that suggests that the decision to award equal prize money (which I approve of, as you will see if you read all of my posts in this thread carefully) was an economic decision and had nothing whatsoever to do with PC or feminism and all the other nonsense arguments put up by those who feel that men deserve the lion's share, purely for the 'achievement' of being born male.

 

[Chanwan]

Just a few comments -
first off, actual time on court is a baseless argument in this discussion. Usain Bolt is not worth less than Wilson Kipsang, the current record holder in marathon.
In terms of time spent getting to that level, one would presume that both professional men and women tennis players train more or less as much as their bodies allow them to.
However, as the video points out, there's the doubles thing though - men's tennis is too taxing for the top players to play both doubles and singles in a GS, women's tennis is not and as a result a fair amount of top players are playing both, adding prize money from doubles. Is that a fair situation? Not so sure. Would best of 5 be better for the women? I don't think many would prefer it, but it would shut up a lot of people, if they had it.

Secondly, it's a show and players are awarded for how much they contribute to it. Though not completely. Fed gets the same for losing in the first round as some unknown qualifier does.
Does male tennis bring in a lot more revenue? It seems many thinks it does, but we haven't seen solid arguments in this thread to prove it yet.
But that would be a main point.

Even if that's the case though, there's still an argument for equal prize money, namely that the advertising value of a sport like tennis is increased by being perceived as a sport, where women are treated equally. And that it would be detrimental to the sport, if the women players actually boycotted the slams or so.

Finally, other sports where they do have equal prize money is Badminton (at least in quite a few tournaments) and in track and field (again, in quite a few meetings).

 

[TERRASTAR18]

I think this thread has deviated from an equal pay argument and has morphed into a debate of endorsements as an effective marketing strategy.

We might as well throw an argument about distribution of prize money into the mix too.

Er ... excuse me? It is not 'obsolete information'.

It is information that demonstrates that the Australian Open stopped offering equal prize money in 1995 when it viewed women's tennis as no longer having the same audience appeal as men's but reinstated it in 2000 when a new generation came along and revived its fortunes.

This is information that suggests that the decision to award equal prize money (which I approve of, as you will see if you read all of my posts in this thread carefully) was an economic decision and had nothing whatsoever to do with PC or feminism and all the other nonsense arguments put up by those who feel that men deserve the lion's share, purely for the 'achievement' of being born male.

my apologies i misread, so many mysogonists that i can get defensive. alot of them don't realize that even if all the wta players sucked they bring value beyon tennis with publicity and mainstream fame.

 

[dParis]

Er ... excuse me? It is not 'obsolete information'.

It's hardly "information" at all. It's little more than the WTA saying they are glad the prize money is equal because they think it should be equal.

Just a few comments -
first off, actual time on court is a baseless argument in this discussion. Usain Bolt is not worth less than Wilson Kipsang, the current record holder in marathon.

While I agree that court time is a bad argument, your analogy is probably the worst analogy of 2014. But don't fret, it's still early.

...there's still an argument for equal prize money, namely that the advertising value of a sport like tennis is increased by being perceived as a sport, where women are treated equally. And that it would be detrimental to the sport, if the women players actually boycotted the slams or so.

= the aforementioned extortion.

 

[firepanda]

Just a few comments -
first off, actual time on court is a baseless argument in this discussion. Usain Bolt is not worth less than Wilson Kipsang, the current record holder in marathon.
In terms of time spent getting to that level, one would presume that both professional men and women tennis players train more or less as much as their bodies allow them to.
However, as the video points out, there's the doubles thing though - men's tennis is too taxing for the top players to play both doubles and singles in a GS, women's tennis is not and as a result a fair amount of top players are playing both, adding prize money from doubles. Is that a fair situation? Not so sure. Would best of 5 be better for the women? I don't think many would prefer it, but it would shut up a lot of people, if they had it.

Secondly, it's a show and players are awarded for how much they contribute to it. Though not completely. Fed gets the same for losing in the first round as some unknown qualifier does.
Does male tennis bring in a lot more revenue? It seems many thinks it does, but we haven't seen solid arguments in this thread to prove it yet.
But that would be a main point.

Even if that's the case though, there's still an argument for equal prize money, namely that the advertising value of a sport like tennis is increased by being perceived as a sport, where women are treated equally. And that it would be detrimental to the sport, if the women players actually boycotted the slams or so.

Finally, other sports where they do have equal prize money is Badminton (at least in quite a few tournaments) and in track and field (again, in quite a few meetings).

Court time is not baseless. 100m sprint and marathon are different sports with different skill sets and different popularities. Men and women's tennis is not. Overall, men work more than women on court. Personally, this isn't my preferred argument, although it is a valid one.

Since it's prize money, players are awarded for winning. However, the idea is that this correlates with entertainment, skill and popularity, so in essence you are right. There is not much evidence for this. The basis of our claims is largely as follows.
1) Popular opinion. If you ask someone on this forum whether mens or womens gets higher ratings, I imagine 90% would say mens.
2) Widespread anecdotal evidence for emptier seats at tournaments when women are playing.
3) Subtle scheduling practices. Putting the mens match on in the night session before the womens usually to get the crowd in. Playing the mens SF/F after the womens.

This is the most information that I could find on ratings:
http://observer.com/2010/09/tennis-television-ratings-tumble/

Keep in mind that this is for finals only and is not representative. It is also American, so Williams' finals are inflated.

Your final point is a good one. Image is everything and I think this is the main reason why the slams have equal prize money. Tennis has done a lot for women in sport and this is an image it wants to cultivate.

 

[Manus Domini]

Until a 3-setter loser in the mens draw gets less than a man losing in a tough 5-setter, same round, the point about pay relative to court time or equality lacks credibility. That is, the argument must apply between the men as well, otherwise cries of discrimination have a valid basis.

Exactly. Your determination of pay has to be universalizable; you can't just compare tour to tour, but individual to individual.

 

[Thriller]

my apologies i misread, so many mysogonists that i can get defensive. alot of them don't realize that even if all the wta players sucked they bring value beyon tennis with publicity and mainstream fame.

No problem.

 

[tennisisgood]

Fognini certainly didn't play 5 against Novak. Federer hasn't played even a 4-setter yet. Should the checks reflect this?

They should get paid per minute. Punch the clock arriving and leaving. : )

 

[tennisisgood]

OK, so you're arguing that tennis players should be paid exclusively on the revenue they bring in via physical occupations of seats?

If so, shouldn't they determine prize money afterwards? After all, you can't say for sure what each player will bring in per match. In addition, do players get paid for winning rounds via walk-overs if their opponents don't show?

Rather than determining prize money afterwards they should determine money brought in (viewership + crowds + other) over x years (perhaps 4 past years) - comparing men to women (and perhaps junior, senior, doubles, wheelchair) . That would be just.

 

[tennisisgood]

That video in the op panders mostly to the simplistic arguments along the lines of effort vs reward etc and trying to equate time/number of sets etc to the situation. It misses the point that pay equality in terms of tennis is not like pay equality in, say, a corporate environment where the work is (in theory) equal but rather that the equality they have brought into tennis is despite those sort of reasons. It is a stand for the good of PR - avoiding the arguments and conflicts it would inevitably attract.

For tennis it's simply easier to avoid the issue by making the paying field level, regardless of the actual uneven nature of the playing field.

Well said! "it's simply easier to avoid the issue" is what has happened and what will likely continue to happen.

 

[tennisisgood]

NO WAY. So far the most entertaining matches of this Aussie have been on the women's side. It may change but so far the women have been more engaging.

Well the mass of people that watch a men's final are mostly casual fans. They will watch whatever final is marketed well. In terms of entertainment on the outer courts it is a gauge of the informed fan. It also shows you what happens when you take marketing out of the equation.

People please! 1) Please stop committing the anecdotal logical fallacy. That is: you use one anecdote (Aussie women's matches were more entertaining) to generalize. 2) Please don't equate one tournaments' entertainment in the women's draw with how much revenue is generated. Revenue is the issue here. Please bring statistics to the discussion. I.e. 2x spectators for women's matches than men's matches etc. But that is not true except for a single Serena match perhaps.

 

[tennisisgood]

my apologies i misread, so many mysogonists that i can get defensive. alot of them don't realize that even if all the wta players sucked they bring value beyon tennis with publicity and mainstream fame.

The value they bring should be accounted for and women should be rewarded accordingly.

 

[tennisisgood]

By "surely," do you mean "probably"? I get the feeling you don't have data to back up these assertions.

Somebody needs to post some hard stats--namely attendance at ATP only and WTA only events, or else we're going to keep arguing over guesses.

And besides, comparing money earned on a player-by-player basis doesn't help any argument unless you're suggesting players should be payed based on their ranking instead of their performance.

So let me update my summary of this thread. We have 4--not 2--arguments.

1. Women and men should be payed equally because entertainers are payed based on their power to draw a paying crowd, not level of or duration of performance.

2. Men should be payed more than women because they can a) potentially play 2 more sets in a match at slams, or b) have more earning power (b. is an unsubstantiated claim so far).

3. Players should be payed based on their ranking, regardless of gender.

4. Players should be payed based on their level of performance, regardless of gender (either duration of the match or "quality" of play, although the latter is very subjective).

Finally some logic and structure! Keep on.

 

[3point0]

Unequal pay for unequal work is not going to work in today’s climate, period. Let’s say women start getting less than men. Do you guys realize what kind of outrage it will cause? ITF and tournament organizers will be fired and cancelled right away.
The only solution is to completely separate. Some will have NBA, others WNBA, and whatever the inequality, not even the most ferocious progressive activist will dare ”call you out” on twitter.