Rogers Cup raises questions about push for equal prize money

[bjsnider]

Warning: unpleasant facts follow.

Comparisons can be made two ways: One, ticket prices, two, television coverage/ratings.

It should be noted that this tournament doesn't offer equal prize money. The men get more money. Rogers has already given away its own views of the popularity/market value of both tours in comparison in the following ways:

I checked ticket prices for today (Tues Aug 6 2013) -- the day session on both center courts (Montreal, men, Toronto, women). Here's the disparity I noticed. All level 100 (best) seats in Montreal are more expensive for the day session than the Platinum Plus (front row) are for the same session at Rexall in Toronto. The cheapest seat at Rexall is $35, the cheapest in Montreal is $40. Also checked the prices for the finals. They are also very far apart, skewed towards more expensive men's tickets. Additionally, Rexall CC has 3k fewer seats than Montreal CC. Don't take my word for it, look it up:

https://tickets.rogerscup.com/Toronto/sessionticket.html
https://tickets.rogerscup.com/Montreal/sessionticket.html

Then, there's the matter of Rogers' choices for TV coverage. The men's sessions are being shown on Rogers' four regional "Sportsnet" stations, which gives just about everybody in the country access on just basic cable or better. Rogers has chosen to broadcast the women only on "Sportsnet One", a newer station which is not carried everywhere on just basic cable, so has less viewers. Rogers often shows tennis on SN1, but it's mostly ATP tennis.

One would think that the higher population numbers and slightly higher median income levels in the GTA would allow Rogers to charge more for the women's event than the men's event this year.

In sum, the facts are clear that Rogers views the ATP as more profitable in Canada than the WTA. This doesn't mean that's true worldwide, or that equal prize money should be immediately rejected because of this evidence. However, I don't personally believe that either tour should be subsidizing the other.

I'd be interested in a followup at some point about what the TV ratings and ticket revenue ended up being after the end of the tournament.

 

[jones101]

1. Are you losing money by women being paid this level of prize money - NO?

2. Can the tournament afford to pay them at this rate, whilst turn over a profit - YES.

3. Do women play the same amounts of sets at these events as men - YES.

4. Do both tours have separate TV deals for this event, which generate their own revenue - YES.

I don't really understand the problem, except maybe you don't like women's tennis.

I have no problem with equal prize money, and will be interested what people think in 5 years when the ATP top 5 will be retired. This conversation will REALLY get interesting.

 

[tennisaddict]

1. Are you losing money by women being paid this level of prize money - NO?
.

By 'you', what do you mean ?

If the sponsors /organizers had a choice, they will pay more to men and less to women. But because they need to be politically right, the equal pay bs happens.

 

[Jeffrey573639]

If we were talking slams you might have a point but like jones101 said, at the MS1000's everyone plays 3 sets so there's no real argument against equal pay.

 

[Bobby Jr]

If we were talking slams you might have a point but like jones101 said, at the MS1000's everyone plays 3 sets so there's no real argument against equal pay.

Well there are plenty of arguments against it. All that matters is how politically correct you want the world to be or how in-denial people are about the disparity in revenue/appeal/attraction the men's and women's games have.

The equal pay movement progress gained worldwide was primarily driven by the "equal pay for equal work" reasoning. But that doesn't apply in sports because of physical disparities. So, other reasons were argued for it such as the level of commercial appeal. But then that argument showed just a big a disparity between the two tours. Eventually tennis decided they would basically become the posterchild for equal pay despite tennis having huge gaps in the most significant aspects which you don't see nearly as comprehensively in most sports.

Bringing in pay equality in tennis just happened to be the most practical, hassle-free way to avoid a potentially very public argument which would have otherwise attracted both public sympathy and negative news for tennis - regardless of their actual merits.

 

[Bartelby]

It's always been equal pay for work of equal value so the commercial value of female tennis is what counts.

Once a sport moves to having both male and female events at the one event, and they do so for commercial reasons, equal pay is reasonable.

Tournaments mostly want joint competitions and how are we to second guess their commercial decisions?

In fact, this is one of tennis' relatively unique selling points in the market place and it benefits from it immensely.


.

 

[Bobby Jr]

Tournaments mostly want joint competitions and how are we to second guess their commercial decisions?

That's not quite true.

They want men's events or joint events. They want the later primarily so the losses of holding a women's only event are mitigated, not because a joint event is better than a men's event - rather that it's less risky than a women's only event.

 

[tennis_badger]

not this ***** again

 

[Bartelby]

This is pure speculation on your behalf.

That's not quite true.

They want men's events or joint events. They want the later primarily so the losses of holding a women's only event are mitigated, not because a joint event is better than a men's event - rather that it's less risky than a women's only event.

 

[Bartelby]

A separate women's event may be less commercially valuable than a separate men's event and there is evidence for this,

... but once there is a joint event then the joint commercial value of the event is far greater than the trivial savings involved with say paying women twenty percentage less for whatever reason.

In fact, the commercial value of the joint event would be partially destroyed by differential payments and that's why they don't happen.

 

[Bobby Jr]

This is pure speculation on your behalf.

In financial terms it is not even close to speculation. Men's tournaments world over do better than women's ones - especially where same-venue comparisons can be made. The year-on-year changes at women's tournaments in terms of attendance are greater too making forecasting harder and the financial risk much greater.

 

[Bartelby]

... but we're talking about joint events and these are not compulsory.

Joint events happen because the commercial value is there and the female competition is considered to have enough commercial value to render any prize money differential inadvisable.

In financial terms it is not even close to speculation. Men's tournaments world over do better than women's ones - especially where same-venue comparisons can be made. The year-on-year changes at women's tournaments in terms of attendance are greater too making forecasting harder and the financial risk much greater.

 

[Bartelby]

... Moreover there are tournaments where women are paid more as the event level is set higher by organisers wanting to emphasize the market potential of the female competition.

Masters events aren't usually joint events and this one doesn't pay women equally probably because the event categorisation is at a level far higher than the female competition.

At Grand Slams the event level is of equal classification.

 

[HunterST]

Why doesn't everyone get ****ed that WNBA players aren't getting paid as much as NBA players?

 

[Bartelby]

... because tennis is a uniquely unisex sport and that is one of its huge marketing advantages.

 

[FrontHeadlock]

Let's have true tennis equality and place everyone in the same draw. Women could be earning MORE than the men, but they aren't getting that opportunity.

 

[TheCanadian]

One can also mention the depth of men's tennis versus women's tennis. The difference between 500 and 50 in men's tennis is on the margins (for example, Kubot defeated Chvokja at Rogers 6-4, 7-5). A woman ranked 50 in the world will bagel a woman ranked 500. It's going to be a ridiculous and boring 30 minutes massacre. Somehow it's only an issue in tennis. Nobody goes bananas because women hockey players don't make nearly as much as men. The reality is that nobody cares about women sports. They're not really commercially viable. Men are stronger, faster, mentally tougher, completely dedicated, don't get injured as often, and far more skilled, so why settle for women's slow motion awkward exertions? If we took out liberal, feminist politics out tennis and just let the free market decide, women would get paid 10% of what men get. So the WTA has to fall back on sex appeal and the like to get any attention and women playing in almost nothing. It's sad and pathetic and still not working.

 

[Roddick85]

One can also mention the depth of men's tennis versus women's tennis. The difference between 500 and 50 in men's tennis is on the margins (for example, Kubot defeated Chvokja at Rogers 6-4, 7-5). A woman ranked 50 in the world will bagel a woman ranked 500. It's going to be a ridiculous and boring 30 minutes massacre. Somehow it's only an issue in tennis. Nobody goes bananas because women hockey players don't make nearly as much as men. The reality is that nobody cares about women sports. They're not really commercially viable. Men are stronger, faster, mentally tougher, completely dedicated, don't get injured as often, and far more skilled, so why settle for women's slow motion awkward exertions? If we took out liberal, feminist politics out tennis and just let the free market decide, women would get paid 10% of what men get. So the WTA has to fall back on sex appeal and the like to get any attention and women playing in almost nothing. It's sad and pathetic and still not working.

I think that perfectly summarizes what I and many people think of women's tennis.

 

[sureshs]

Why doesn't everyone get ****ed that WNBA players aren't getting paid as much as NBA players?

Because it did not have a person like BJK to push for it and the sport is completely dictated by business interests.

Tennis is for intellectually superior and idealistic people who are open to change.

 

[Bartelby]

What many men think about women's tennis is not something that affects its commercial potential.

American baseball is a mind-numbingly boring sport, but that doesn't affect its commercial potential.

American football is so boring that virtually no other country in the world plays it, but that doesn't affect its commercial potential.

 

[TheCanadian]

What many men think about women's tennis is not something that affects its commercial potential.

American baseball is a mind-numbingly boring sport, but that doesn't affect its commercial potential.

American football is so boring that virtually no other country in the world plays it, but that doesn't affect its commercial potential.

Tell us about the commercial appeal of women's tennis versus men's tennis. We don't need to speculate. We have some hard data. As well, tell us about the commercial appeal of other female sporting events like, for example, women's basketball and how its professional foray was a complete joke. Or how about female hockey being played in completely empty stadiums. Ditto for baseball. You can either have equality or justice. If you insist for dogmatic reasons that women tennis players should be paid the same money as men, then that's unfair and unjust for men. The fact is that even women don't care about women sports.

 

[OrangePower]

In sum, the facts are clear that Rogers views the ATP as more profitable in Canada than the WTA. This doesn't mean that's true worldwide, or that equal prize money should be immediately rejected because of this evidence. However, I don't personally believe that either tour should be subsidizing the other.

Very interesting. My own belief is that tennis is an entertainment product, and that players should then be paid as entertainers. Which in turn means they should be paid according to the viewership and revenue they generate, and not based on how much work or effort they expend.

It seems that in this case the ATP event generates more revenue than the WTA event, and also it is paying out more in prize money. So that is all good.

Interesting though whether the ratio of prize money paid out to tournament revenue is the same in both cases or not.

 

[ollinger]

thanks, "bj" snider, for that enlightening post, but what exactly was your point about TV ratings? You indicate that far fewer people will have access to the women's broadcasts, so obviously ratings will be lower. Your point about populations of the two cities being a factor in ticket prices made little sense to me as well. Oslo, for example is relatively small as major cities go but has perhaps the highest cost of living of any place in the world presently. Size doesn't always matter.

 

[clayqueen]

In every other work of life, women are unfairly treated by earning less than men for doing the same job. Men now know what it feels like by getting less for doing more.

It's still laughable that Djokovic and Errani got the same prize money for losing in the FO13 semi final.

 

[Bartelby]

The Head of the USTA got paid 19 million one year and the Head of the MLB gets 22 million and his other major claim to fame was to get an American state government to build a baseball stadium that he later sold for a profit.

As did George W Bush with regard to a football stadium.

There is no real commercial interest in footaball or baseball stadia so the government has had to build them.

 

[TheCanadian]

In every other work of life, women are unfairly treated by earning less than men for doing the same job. Men now know what it feels like by getting less for doing more.

It's still laughable that Djokovic and Errani got the same prize money for losing in the FO13 semi final.

This is one of these feminist myths that can't seem to die even when presented with tons of facts debunking it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwogDPh-Sow

And even if true, one doesn't rectify one injustice by creating a new one.

 

[Bartelby]

I may be wrong about this but the only events where equal pay is an issue is at the Slams because the Slams are one event put on, usually, by one national association.

Most tennis events with women and men competing are actually two different events put on by two different associations so the issue of equal pay doesn't arise.

 

[Bartelby]

Tons of fact? Perhaps you meant an avalanche of propaganda?

This is one of these feminist myths that can't seem to die even when presented with tons of facts debunking it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwogDPh-Sow

And even if true, one doesn't rectify one injustice by creating a new one.

 

[TheCanadian]

Tons of fact? Perhaps you meant an avalanche of propaganda?

I find your argumentation style very persuasive. You could start by pointing out where that video, for example, went wrong, instead of just giving pointless knee-jerk reactions because you don't like the facts. You should try to argue on the merits without name-calling. I know it's hard.

 

[Bartelby]

You are the one who introduced a propaganda video and baldly declared it to be the facts without the slightest argument by you.

You have made no argument based on merits but merely violated forum rules against politics by introducing right wing propaganda videos.

 

[Magnetite]

I had box seats (for free) last year.

I had box seats (for free) this year, but I'm not going. I mean, I love girls in skirts, but it's the summer, and they are everywhere.

 

[Bartelby]

Box seats bought by corporations which don't use them are probably the bane of most tennis tournaments.

 

[TheCanadian]

You are the one who introduced a propaganda video and baldly declared it to be the facts without the slightest argument by you.

The fact that you don't like reality, doesn't make something "propaganda."

You have made no argument based on merits but merely violated forum rules against politics by introducing right wing propaganda videos.

Yawn. Yes, I know, facts can be very sexist.

It's kind of useless talking to fanatics.

 

[clayqueen]

Tons of fact? Perhaps you meant an avalanche of propaganda?

Thanks for the link. Sadly the premise on which the case is made does not address the fact that when all other things are equal and men and women are doing the same job at any level, men do earn more than women.

The fact that they feel the need to tackle the subject shows that many people feel that's the case.

 

[bluetrain4]

Equal prize money is really only a "thing" at the Slams. Maybe it's extended to a few combined events, but generally WTA players make far less than their ATP counterparts for everyday tournaments

 

[TennisCJC]

I think the fact that fans are willing to pay more to see men's matches is important and is a logical argument that men should receive more pay as they generate more revenue. Sales people who sell more stuff earn more money than sales people who sell less stuff. Simple and fair economics.

I 100% support equal pay for equal positions in most jobs but tennis and sports in general are different. A players salary should be in line with how much revenue they bring into the event.

Now, I will admit that coming up with a fair system based on revenue is extremely difficult and impractical. Given the complexity of developing a fair system for different pay and the lost good will for the men if they argue for higher pay at combined events; I think the issue should be closed and just go with equal pay.

But, at independent events; I think pay should be tied to revenue generated.

 

[West Coast Ace]

Warning: unpleasant facts follow....
In sum, the facts are clear that Rogers views the ATP as more profitable in Canada than the WTA....

Great post.

Watching how the PC crowd deals with facts is always amusing.

 

[merwy]

One can also mention the depth of men's tennis versus women's tennis. The difference between 500 and 50 in men's tennis is on the margins (for example, Kubot defeated Chvokja at Rogers 6-4, 7-5). A woman ranked 50 in the world will bagel a woman ranked 500. It's going to be a ridiculous and boring 30 minutes massacre. Somehow it's only an issue in tennis. Nobody goes bananas because women hockey players don't make nearly as much as men. The reality is that nobody cares about women sports. They're not really commercially viable. Men are stronger, faster, mentally tougher, completely dedicated, don't get injured as often, and far more skilled, so why settle for women's slow motion awkward exertions? If we took out liberal, feminist politics out tennis and just let the free market decide, women would get paid 10% of what men get. So the WTA has to fall back on sex appeal and the like to get any attention and women playing in almost nothing. It's sad and pathetic and still not working.

Excellent post!

Men's tennis also brings in more money. Have you taken a look at the stands at an average women's match and men's match? There are much more people watching the men's game. Bringing in more revenue should imo mean that the players get paid more in return.

Imagine an art museum with only two paintings in it. One painted by Van Gogh and the other painted by me. People would have to pay $50 entrance fee, but they all go there to watch Van Gogh's painting, not mine. And that's fair, because Van Gogh's painting is just a lot better, has more artistic value, and is just of a "higher level" than mine. I think Van Gogh should be paid more than me (if he was alive).

Get my point? It's not about being "fair" to the other sex. It's about the men being better at the sport and thus making the sport more attractive to watch. Why don't we give the Junior players equal pay as well? I mean, they are also just another group of people, who are playing tennis the best they can, right? Why don't they get as much as the ATP players? I mean, you can't blame them for not playing as good. They are just physically not as strong and athletic as the adult guys. Doesn't mean they don't deserve equal pay.

 

[Ace of Aces]

The Head of the USTA got paid 19 million one year and the Head of the MLB gets 22 million and his other major claim to fame was to get an American state government to build a baseball stadium that he later sold for a profit.

As did George W Bush with regard to a football stadium.

There is no real commercial interest in footaball or baseball stadia so the government has had to build them.

Tennis is no where near as popular as baseball in America, much less football. The government is willing to build these stadiums because they want the teams to come to there state on account of the huge popularity. The teams make more than enough to build one on their own, but why if the government will build one for you. I enjoy playing/watching tennis but just look at the Super Bowl vs Men's Singles Final US Open and it is clear which is more popular.

 

[norbac]

Toronto has to bring in the men tonight to sell night session tickets?

 

[1477aces]

pornstars don't get equal pay. Or models. Why do tennis players?

 

[Devilito]

I think the entire issue could be solved by not splitting everything into "male / female". That's very sexist.

You should just have a "Professional Tennis Tour" and anybody can play be it male or female. Then there would be no issues in regards to pay or discrimination etc.

 

[FrontHeadlock]

I think the entire issue could be solved by not splitting everything into "male / female". That's very sexist.

You should just have a "Professional Tennis Tour" and anybody can play be it male or female. Then there would be no issues in regards to pay or discrimination etc.

I agree with this. Women could potentially earn more than the men. Not to mention they are being denied the prestige of the men's tour as well.

Let's make a push for TRUE tennis equality.

 

[quencheu96]

But then the women might not be able to make a lot either.... I remember some people on here saying that the top 1-2 in women's tennis would only at most be able to match someone of the top 200-300. If this is true...most of the women would be relegated to challenger tournaments for most of their careers. (I don't know if it this true, but I only saw that on a thread before so please don't flame me )

 

[Devilito]

But then the women might not be able to make a lot either.... I remember some people on here saying that the top 1-2 in women's tennis would only at most be able to match someone of the top 200-300. If this is true...most of the women would be relegated to challenger tournaments for most of their careers. (I don't know if it this true, but I only saw that on a thread before so please don't flame me )

too bad? nobody has a right to be better than someone else at something. I'm not mad that I don't make the same amount playing tennis as Federer. Why? because i'm not as good as him, simple math. I'm not sexist at all. I would have no problem if the top 10 players in the world were all female. All I want to do is watch the best tennis whether they happen to be male or female. True equality

 

[tacou]

One thing I will point out is the size of stadiums is irrelevant, as they switch every year

 

[Kalin]

pornstars don't get equal pay

That's news to me. Maybe I should re-think my future career plans then...

 

[Bartelby]

The government gets bribed and blackmailed into doing this and it is a massive redistribution of wealth to the already well off, as you have pointed out.

Tennis is no where near as popular as baseball in America, much less football. The government is willing to build these stadiums because they want the teams to come to there state on account of the huge popularity. The teams make more than enough to build one on their own, but why if the government will build one for you. I enjoy playing/watching tennis but just look at the Super Bowl vs Men's Singles Final US Open and it is clear which is more popular.

 

[Bartelby]

Tennis players don't get equal pay because they are split into two different tours, which pay differently as with the Rogers Cup.

The whole thread is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of fact.

pornstars don't get equal pay. Or models. Why do tennis players?