Minor spin on the equal pay debate

T

TonyB

Hall of Fame
I'm watching Tennis Channel's Best of Five "Turning Points" show and they're talking about equal pay for men and women. Novak Djokovic is against equal pay due to the women playing fewer sets. An age-old argument.

Some people believe that even though women only have to play best of 3 sets, they still deserve equal pay. Personally, I don't see it. I've always been brought up to reward "equal pay for equal work". Haven't women been saying that for the past 40 years?? But not in tennis, for some reason.

Anyway, my thought is: What if women just played 1 set? Would that deserve equal pay? Why not? Where do we draw the "equality" line?

Should men just go to best of 3 sets as well? Would that be more "equal"?

Think of all the matches (including Tsonga's comeback 5-set win against Federer this year at Wimbledon) that would have been reversed if the match were over after the first 2 sets?

As I said, my bias is towards "proportional" pay for "less work". But if there are people out there who really believe that best of 3 sets is EQUAL to best of 5 sets, then why not just have the men play best of 3? Why should the men be forced to play gruelling 4+ hour matches when women only have to play 1-2 hours at most?
 
I'd rather not see women's tennis be out of five sets at slams IMO. The quality of play is already garbage in the regular best of three set matches as it is. Just imagine how sloppy play would be by set #5, it'd be torture for the fans.
 
I agree with Hippos...but it does suck...i don't see how they're deserving in the slightest. It's not even up for debate that they're doing less work.
 
Minor league players play many more tournaments a year and yet get paid less. And that's because you don't get paid according to work put in, but according to output and marketing success. So the "equal work" argument never made sense to me. NBA players make much more than WNBA players, for an obvious reason. I think ATP should make more just because they're more popular.
 
Well, I really didn't want this to turn into a "women's tennis sucks" thread. I'm really just curious whether or not people (1) believe that 3 sets is equal to 5 sets and (2) if the pay is equal, why not reduce the men's game to 3 sets?

If men had to play best of 3, there would be more contenders in the mix and the level of play would increase, as the winner of a long match wouldn't be wiped out for the next one.
 
In other news.....

Federer should change to a 2-handed backhand

Djokovic will never lose another match

Murray will never win a slam
 
TonyB said:
Well, I really didn't want this to turn into a "women's tennis sucks" thread. I'm really just curious whether or not people (1) believe that 3 sets is equal to 5 sets and (2) if the pay is equal, why not reduce the men's game to 3 sets?
Click to expand...

Do men make less at Masters Series events now as compared to 2006 (when they were best of 5)?

Where does the excess money go? Maybe to the kids playing pickup 5 set matches in the park across the street.
 
TonyB said:
Well, I really didn't want this to turn into a "women's tennis sucks" thread. I'm really just curious whether or not people (1) believe that 3 sets is equal to 5 sets and (2) if the pay is equal, why not reduce the men's game to 3 sets?

If men had to play best of 3, there would be more contenders in the mix and the level of play would increase, as the winner of a long match wouldn't be wiped out for the next one.
Click to expand...

I disagree, popularity is directly correlated to this equal pay topic and is even more relevant today given the craptacular state of women's tennis.

And a resounding no to changing men's grand slam tennis to best of three. Grand slam matches are what separate the men from the boys, the true test of the elite on the tour. A player can get hot for a set or two and score an upset but being able to do it in three straight sets is a greater challege and makes for more compelling match. If we had three sets then Nadal would've gone out to Isner out of all people at the French!
 
Last edited:
I saw that episode. I cringed at the amount of lies that were being thrown around.

Women's tennis is apparently just as popular as Men's tennis.

What is worse is that they pretty much disrespected anyone who is not in favor of equal pay even if their arguments were cogent.
 
I have thought about this for quite some time and really don't see a justification for equal pay without best of 5 sets for tennis. The standard now says you can be a "worse athlete," worse player, but still get compared to the ATP level tour. No tennis spectators seriously hold the WTA above the ATP, but when these conversations emerge on TV or in Tennis magazines it seems everyone accepts that women can play less competitive tennis and fewer sets and still be just as rich if not relatively richer (because of endorsements and the ability to play doubles at tournaments) as players on the ATP.

How is this exemption fair. I remember looking at a tournament a year or two ago (I think it was Atlanta) where men were forced to play in 110+ degree heat, while women were given heat breaks and play suspensions for exhaustion. I mean come on...is the theory that men's bodies can take more extreme temperatures that women as well?

I am with Djokovic and Nadal...equal pay for equal play.
 
I think the quantity/# of sets justification does not serve to highlight the pay disparity between men and women in the tennis world correctly.

Like everything, I believe that free market forces more than justify pay disparity between men and women in terms of tournament purses, individual equipment & apparel endorsements, and advertising spend from multinational corporations (which ultimately support all the tournaments). To better understand this argument you should take a look at the economics of men's sports vs. women's sports in general, in terms of advertising spend and corporate sponsorship rates to see why there is such a disparity. If you find it too demanding or in-depth to find these numbers, just take a quick glance at the difference in ticket prices between men only vs. women only events.

Furthermore, I think you should know that women's tennis is the most profitable sport for women to engage in, followed by golf, and it is my belief that the reason for this is due in large part to the fact of the Open's in which men and women's competition runs together.

I like watching women's tennis as much as men's, sometimes even more so depending on the players, but their pay is more than justified by forces levied on and within the industry.
 
Arthuro said:
How is this exemption fair. I remember looking at a tournament a year or two ago (I think it was Atlanta) where men were forced to play in 110+ degree heat, while women were given heat breaks and play suspensions for exhaustion. I mean come on...is the theory that men's bodies can take more extreme temperatures that women as well?

I am with Djokovic and Nadal...equal pay for equal play.
Click to expand...

Not only this, on-court coaching is still a really bad problem on the WTA
 
I do think women should play 5 sets, but I'm not entirely sure why SETS should be linked to pay in tennis. Pay should be linked to how much of a draw you are. If the tournament sells a lot of tickets, you get a lot of money. If no one comes to see you, you don't.

But yeah, women should absolutely, unequivocally play five sets. Back in the day, they thought a woman would just fall over and die if she ran a marathon. Now, the women's world record is just a little over ten minutes slower than the men's. Not too shabby for a gender that wasn't even supposed to be able to finish.

Women may not be built for the same power as men, but they sure as heck are built for similar levels of endurance. Five sets, ladies. We all know you can do it, and it'll be so much more fun.
 
Zakquis said:
I think the quantity/# of sets justification does not serve to highlight the pay disparity between men and women in the tennis world correctly.

Like everything, I believe that free market forces more than justify pay disparity between men and women in terms of tournament purses, individual equipment & apparel endorsements, and advertising spend from multinational corporations (which ultimately support all the tournaments). To better understand this argument you should take a look at the economics of men's sports vs. women's sports in general, in terms of advertising spend and corporate sponsorship rates to see why there is such a disparity. If you find it too demanding or in-depth to find these numbers, just take a quick glance at the difference in ticket prices between men only vs. women only events.

Furthermore, I think you should know that women's tennis is the most profitable sport for women to engage in, followed by golf, and it is my belief that the reason for this is due in large part to the fact of the Open's in which men and women's competition runs together.

I like watching women's tennis as much as men's, sometimes even more so depending on the players, but their pay is more than justified by forces levied on and within the industry.
Click to expand...


Honestly, I'm not following you at all with this post. You write rather well, yet you don't say much at all. There are no statistics, no concrete numbers, just generalities.

For instance, what are the "forces levied on and within the industry?" I don't understand that at all.

Also, what do "individual equipment and apparel endorsements" have to do with prize money payout? I don't see any connection here.

And finally, if "free market pay" were allowed to regulate itself, then the women's game wouldn't have had to beg for equal pay for decades before they actually got it. As far as I can tell, the tournaments were "bullied" into equal pay, lest they appear biased in the public eye. And this is a recent phenomenon -- Rolland Garros and Wimbledon only agreed to equal prize money in 2007. Clearly, this isn't a free market change. Rather, this is an attempt by these tournaments to "follow suit" in equal pay so that they don't appear "antiquated".
 
Last edited:
als47 said:
I do think women should play 5 sets, but I'm not entirely sure why SETS should be linked to pay in tennis. Pay should be linked to how much of a draw you are. If the tournament sells a lot of tickets, you get a lot of money. If no one comes to see you, you don't.

But yeah, women should absolutely, unequivocally play five sets. Back in the day, they thought a woman would just fall over and die if she ran a marathon. Now, the women's world record is just a little over ten minutes slower than the men's. Not too shabby for a gender that wasn't even supposed to be able to finish.

Women may not be built for the same power as men, but they sure as heck are built for similar levels of endurance. Five sets, ladies. We all know you can do it, and it'll be so much more fun.
Click to expand...


Good post. I agree. And to the people who say "I don't want to watch 5 sets of women's tennis", then DON'T! Watch the first set and the 3rd set if you want to reduce your exposure.
 
Women shouldn't be paid as much as men because the attendance of the WTA isn't as high as that of the ATP. Men's tennis is the bigger draw. Thus, for these "equal pay" tournaments (e.g. the Grand Slams), it's the men's that is subsidizing the women's.

That, and women play fewer sets.
 
als47 said:
I do think women should play 5 sets, but I'm not entirely sure why SETS should be linked to pay in tennis. Pay should be linked to how much of a draw you are. If the tournament sells a lot of tickets, you get a lot of money. If no one comes to see you, you don't.
Click to expand...


The problem is that the majority of the people who buy tickets are buying "general admission" tickets, especially at the Majors. Sure, people buy match-day tickets to specific events, but the majority are "grounds pass" tickets that allow people to watch any matches outside of the 1-2 main courts. It would be impossible to calculate how to split up the proceeds from those tickets for men/women prize money.
 
Outside of the majors and daviscup when do men play 5 sets nowadays anyway? The sets argument is obsolete for anything that is not a major. (since Davis Cup is an all male competition anyway and I'm not sure the prize money situation there.)

However women make less money as of now cause the quality of play is lower and they don't draw. When Navra and Evert were having their huge matches I am sure they got some nice appearance fees at times even over a good deal of men, but that also was because they played at a high level. However since 2007 the WTA match quality is a joke. With the exception of the ocassional good WS match or Clijsters match.

Hope is on Kvitova to raise the bar.
 
Applying equal pay for equal work standards to show business, and tennis is show business, is a bit moronic, if only because it's never applied to show business before, so why start now? Do the salaries paid to baseball, football, basketball and hockey players correspond to how much work they do in a game, a week, a season? No. They correspond to economic worth. Value to commercial sponsors.
 
El Diablo said:
Applying equal pay for equal work standards to show business, and tennis is show business, is a bit moronic, if only because it's never applied to show business before, so why start now? Do the salaries paid to baseball, football, basketball and hockey players correspond to how much work they do in a game, a week, a season? No. They correspond to economic worth. Value to commercial sponsors.
Click to expand...


I don't disagree with the "show business" part, but I have to take issue with your other points.

1) Baseball/football/basketball/hockey do NOT have single tournaments or events with both men and women. Their leagues are completely separate. For tennis, since they have both men and women playing at the same tournament at the same time, the ticket prices cannot be separated. It's impossible to determine which patrons are in attendance specifically to watch the men or women play.

2) Those other sports are TEAM sports and most (all?) of the players have managers to negotiate their pay. It is not an individual sport like tennis where the player gets paid based on performance (how many rounds you make it through the tournament).

So, in summary, you're not comparing apples to apples. A team sport where players negotiate contracts for multiple years in advance is completely different than an individual sport where how much you make depends entirely upon whether you win or lose the tournaments you play.
 
Popularity as the justification for equal pay

I really don't understand the conceptual thrust of this argument. Are we really saying that because x number of people come to see a tournament that this should or does determine prize money. So if James Blake is in the finals and less people come to see him should the prize money be less than originally projected.
Prize money is determined prior to the tournaments and tournaments that have men in them, and I am willing to bet even at the Challenger level, surpass women tournaments.

Should unpopular players get paid less than popular players despite their wins? Of course not, the system is set up to allow anyone who makes it to the finals to make what the top players make. So how then should women who are less popular, who are trained by 200 or below male ATP players, who can't physically endure 5 sets because they don't train as hard, get the same without this work ethic?
 
With the rules changes in the last decade this only applies to majors and maybe some master tourneys right.
 
I have a feeling that if the major tournaments (or any tournaments in which men and women share the same 2 weeks) decided to split up the men and women, and spread the tournament over 4 weeks, that you would see a considerable difference in attendance and revenue between the 2 "men's" weeks and the 2 "women's" weeks.

This would help justify a difference in prize money. And hey, I'm an equal-rights kind of guy, so if the women's game draws more revenue than the men's, then they would deserve MORE prize money! But I honestly just don't see that happening, as just about every tennis fan I know prefers to watch the men and can't stand watching the women play (even the women I know).
 
It is not that the tournaments print cash and distribute. It has to come from somewhere. If WTA/tournaments can sustain whatever pay, then it is their problem.
You can debate all day equality, fairness and justice.

(care to debate why talented, dedicated and hardworking school teachers get paid 100x less than analyst junkie doing a clerical work in an investment bank?)
 
Womens Tennis sucks. They do not deserve equal prize money. They are less popular, less talented, and play less. What is the justification here?
 
OTMPut said:
It is not that the tournaments print cash and distribute. It has to come from somewhere. If WTA/tournaments can sustain whatever pay, then it is their problem.
You can debate all day equality, fairness and justice.

(care to debate why talented, dedicated and hardworking school teachers get paid 100x less than analyst junkie doing a clerical work in an investment bank?)
Click to expand...

Soooooo........ I take it you're a school teacher?


I'll answer that for you: School teachers are on the public dole, while analyst junkies are getting paid by scam artist investment banks. Investment banks excel at scamming people out of their money. State and federal governments also excel at scamming people out of their money, but they simply cannot do it at the same high level as the investment banks because they're under public scrutiny. And in case you haven't been paying attention, most states, and especially the federal government, are flat broke, so school teacher pay suffers.

That is, if you consider a guaranteed 3-5% pay raise per year, tenure after 3 years, plus a pension plan that begins at age 55 "suffering".

-- End of thread derailment --
 
Last edited:
ChanceEncounter said:
Women shouldn't be paid as much as men because the attendance of the WTA isn't as high as that of the ATP. Men's tennis is the bigger draw. Thus, for these "equal pay" tournaments (e.g. the Grand Slams), it's the men's that is subsidizing the women's.

That, and women play fewer sets.
Click to expand...

this is exactly what a female pro told me. Guess her secret garden is revealed.
 
TonyB said:
Soooooo........ I take it you're a school teacher?


I'll answer that for you: School teachers are on the public dole, while analyst junkies are getting paid by scam artist investment banks. Investment banks excel at scamming people out of their money. State and federal governments also excel at scamming people out of their money, but they simply cannot do it at the same high level as the investment banks because they're under public scrutiny. And in case you haven't been paying attention, most states, and especially the federal government, are flat broke, so school teacher pay suffers.

That is, if you consider a guaranteed 3-5% pay raise per year, tenure after 3 years, plus a pension plan that begins at age 55 "suffering".

-- End of thread derailment --
Click to expand...

You fell for the stereotype.

Anyways, let me rephrase a simple fact of life. May be you will get it. Pay has nothing to do with how hard you work.
 
As ChanceEncounter says, the ATP is subsidising the WTA at the slams. Men generate more revenue, they deserve more pay.

I don't think the number of sets played has anything to do with this.
 
It's obvious that the women should not be paid the same as the men. Not only do they play 3 setters,but they don't draw nearly the cash the ATP does. Proof of that is the fact that have merged the WTA and ATP together this year at the masters when it used to be seperate. They need the ATP to carry them. That's the only reason I can think of as to why they would do that.

By the way these mixed tournaments suck. It's bad enough to have to deal with the ballbashing shreikers and screamers during the slams,but now they have also infiltrated the masters tournies. It's no fun I know that much.
 
Last edited:
Clarky21 said:
It's obvious that the women should not be paid the same as the men. Not only do they play 3 setters,but they don't draw nearly the cash the ATP does.
Click to expand...


Well, it's not quite so "obvious" to the fans and the tournament boards, unfortunately. There are politics and other financial considerations involved here. As I said in my initial post, both Rolland Garros and Wimbledon (after R.G. caved in) were finally pressured into giving equal prize money to women by both the public, other tournaments' influence, and advertising revenue. I'm sure there were plenty of advertisers who threatened to withdraw from those tournaments unless equal prize money was instituted. The way I see it, the tournament boards calculated the extra prize money for the women and compared it against the loss of advertising revenue and figured it was cheaper for them to just pay the women rather than lose the advertising dollars.

So while the WTA players may not be a "bigger draw" for fans than the men, the women viewers in general seem to be providing enough revenue to the tournament by succumbing to advertising during the events. Enough, anyway, for the advertisers to pressure the board.
 
Last edited:
OTMPut said:
You fell for the stereotype.

Anyways, let me rephrase a simple fact of life. May be you will get it. Pay has nothing to do with how hard you work.
Click to expand...


No, it has to do with finances and public pressure, as I said.

I'm really just curious as to how people perceive this. Do they think it's "fair" or not? And why not? How would they justify changing the men's game to best of 3 sets?

Yet nobody has actually discussed the main source of WTA/ATP revenue, which is from the advertisers, not viewership gender, work ethic, or fairness.
 
ledwix said:
NBA players make much more than WNBA players, for an obvious reason. I think ATP should make more just because they're more popular.
Click to expand...
I told my boss, who follows the NBA religiously and knows almost nada about tennis, about this and he could not believe it. Actually laughed out loud.

TonyB said:
Well, I really didn't want this to turn into a "women's tennis sucks" thread....
Click to expand...
Good luck with that. I want Kate Upton to show up wearing a bikini and a smile - I like my odds better. Reading hippo's mere mention of women playing 5 made me vomit in my mouth. The schedule at majors would be completely jacked - they'd need an extra 5 days (or 3 more courts holding at least 2k) to do it.
 
TonyB said:
I'm watching Tennis Channel's Best of Five "Turning Points" show and they're talking about equal pay for men and women. Novak Djokovic is against equal pay due to the women playing fewer sets. An age-old argument.
Click to expand...

It should be best of 5 sets in the majors for both men and women, and they should both get equal pay. These are the major championships, and should be the hardest of all to win. Why shouldn't the women play best of 5 sets in the majors like the men?

I don't find the concept of best of 5 sets women's matches enthralling in this present era, but I do think that's how it should be. Standards need to raised across the board, and winning a major should really be tough and have to be earned like it is on the men's side. They say in the men's game that the majors, with its best of 5 sets format seperates the men from the boys. I believe the same should happen in the women's game to seperate the women from the girls.
 
Last edited:
For me it's not the number of sets that defines the pay. It's the amount of money attracted by men's and women's tennis. And this can be seen from the public attandance. Just watch the stadiums during men's and women's matches: they are packed when the male stars are playing, they are half empty even when top 10 girls are on. Hence, more advertizing, televising, promotion and sponsorship is associated with the men's tennis.

I have to buy tickets for men's tournaments 4-5 months before they start, tickets for women's matches can be bought on the venue which demonstrates how much more popular men's tennis is.

If women bring in less money, their pay should be proportionally smaller.

But actually all this talking is a waste of time because the equal play principle is already effective, and since the prize money distribution is slightly diferent in ATP and WTA, the Indian Wells male winner gets 10 000 USD less than the Indian Wells female winner :???:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

srvnvly
BO5 vs. BO3
Replies
16
Views
4K
C_Urala
C
G
Equal money debate fallacy
2
Replies
59
Views
3K
Bartelby
Bartelby
B
  • Poll Poll
Men & Women: Equal Prize Money [Merged]
34 35 36
Replies
2K
Views
98K
Grass_for_cows
Grass_for_cows
rallyjunkie
If WTA wants Equal prize $ they should play five sets QF on
Replies
19
Views
2K
vince evert
vince evert
Federev
Why shouldn't there be equal pay for wheel-chair tennis players?
2 3
Replies
108
Views
3K
kaz1983
K
Back
Top