I know there has been a lot of discussion lately reguarding equal pay for women. I was just curious what people thought about equal play for women. I think at a joint event, like the grand slams, they should use the same format. Either make the women play best of 5 or cut the men's back to best of 3, but I do not like the discrepency. They could also change both formats so that they play best of 3 through the first 4 rounds and then best of 5. I cannot see how the women can demand equal pay at the grand slams unless one of these options is taken. I personally think they should have the women play best of 5. I just don't buy the argument that women are too weak to last best of 5 set matches. Surely it would be difficult for some, but it should be difficult, it is a grand slam. I think a big reason that throughout history the top women have been able to dominate much more than the top men is because they play best of 3 at grand slams. The best of 5 adds a new element. I think it would be a much tougher feat for Graf to have won 22 or whatever number she won if she had to play all best of 5 matches. When I think about the best matches I've seen, they are almost always 5 setters. You cannot match the suspense of a tight 5 setter if the format is only best of 3. Let's see what everyone else thinks.
Should women play the same format at grand slams?
- Thread starter jhhachamp
- Start date
cadfael_tex
Professional
I agree. I certainly don't think the men should be taken to best of three in the slams but why not let the ladies play the marathon matches.
Does anyone know if Billie Jean King petitioned and argued for women to play five set matches the way she pushed for the other issues?
Just for reasons of respect and parity, professional, supposedly world-class female tennis players should WANT to compete at exactly the same level as men, just like women do in every other sport. That's like women marathoners only having to run 15 miles. The outrage would never stop.
It's a little embarassing actually, especially considering they make almost as much as the men in the Slams but play far less tennis.
Just for reasons of respect and parity, professional, supposedly world-class female tennis players should WANT to compete at exactly the same level as men, just like women do in every other sport. That's like women marathoners only having to run 15 miles. The outrage would never stop.
It's a little embarassing actually, especially considering they make almost as much as the men in the Slams but play far less tennis.
S
splink779
Guest
I think it outrageous in any situation where party A who claims to be striving for total equality actually only pushes for equality in one aspect (money) and not another (work). Equality means exactly that, you cant just pick in which aspects you want to be treated the same. It is hypocritical and I applaud Wimbledon for not changing the rule.
obackvalobasha
Banned
Thats women.. they have been doing this for so long.. I mean,damn, so many things they get away with its mind blowing. Because we (men) feel sorry for them.
ThunderServe
Rookie
There is no reason why women shouldnt be as fit as men strongers different so why not let them play best of 5
LendlFan
Semi-Pro
If the quality of tennis in the early rounds were as good as the men, then I would be the first to say bring on the 5 setters. But having to watch some of these girls ranked below 20 drives me crazy.
I think far too many forget they are not practicing with their Trainers while in a match. I see far too many times when a girl will get an opening and hit the ball right back to her opponent or fail to follow a good corner ball by coming to the net and putting away the volley.
There's just a vast display of bad tennis on the women's side out there and TV ratings would dive if people had to watch five sets of that. I know that makes me sound sexest but really I'm not and I don't just watch women's tennis for the eye candy. I truly want to see if one day, some young girl is going to step up and play like they want to win the damn match !!!!
I think far too many forget they are not practicing with their Trainers while in a match. I see far too many times when a girl will get an opening and hit the ball right back to her opponent or fail to follow a good corner ball by coming to the net and putting away the volley.
There's just a vast display of bad tennis on the women's side out there and TV ratings would dive if people had to watch five sets of that. I know that makes me sound sexest but really I'm not and I don't just watch women's tennis for the eye candy. I truly want to see if one day, some young girl is going to step up and play like they want to win the damn match !!!!
I would leave it as it is and let them play the best of three sets.
As far as equal pay is concerned. I'm usually all for equal pay but I'm not so sure about this one.
I know that the prize money is not calculated on a rate per game or per set but still, when I look at the statistics:
Australian Open
Safin: 26 sets - $ 916.911
Serena Williams: 17 sets - prize money?
French Open
Nadal: 27 sets - € 880.000
Henin-Hardenne: 17 sets - € 867.000
Wimbledon
Federer: 22 sets - € 933.500
Venus Williams: 15 sets - € 890.000
USO
Federer: 24 sets - $ 1.100.000
Clijsters: 15 sets - $ 2.200.000 (= double prize money)
The earnings of the women are not too shabby, all things considering.
As far as equal pay is concerned. I'm usually all for equal pay but I'm not so sure about this one.
I know that the prize money is not calculated on a rate per game or per set but still, when I look at the statistics:
Australian Open
Safin: 26 sets - $ 916.911
Serena Williams: 17 sets - prize money?
French Open
Nadal: 27 sets - € 880.000
Henin-Hardenne: 17 sets - € 867.000
Wimbledon
Federer: 22 sets - € 933.500
Venus Williams: 15 sets - € 890.000
USO
Federer: 24 sets - $ 1.100.000
Clijsters: 15 sets - $ 2.200.000 (= double prize money)
The earnings of the women are not too shabby, all things considering.
StraightSets
Semi-Pro
The only bad thing about 5-set women matches is that there will be more of it on TV...
nswelshman
Rookie
I think the format is fine how it is.
There is more work to being a professional athlete than how many hours you slog it out on court. Anybody who equates sets on court as the only factor in determining pay falls short in comprehending the total scale of what the term 'professional athlete' encompasses.
Women through promotion and marketing (such as non-tennis magazine articles; Maria Sharapova on the cover of Forbes, advertising campaigns; Daniela Hantuchova for Nike advertisements in Vogue, Elle, Cosmopolitan and Cleo magazines, Alicia Molik for Garnier Cosmetics and TV shows; Serena and Venus For Real) increase the public profile of tennis which draws in more spectators. As is obvious, there are already hard-core fans who will watch the slams as a matter of order. But there is a lack of extra effort by the ATP top players in promoting tennis to a wider audience.
You may laugh at the idea of Sharapova selling shampoo or toothpaste, or Venus williams selling Big Macs, but each time their face is shown on tv ads, billboards and magazine pages, they are reminding everyone of tennis.
Without the viewers, the players get nothing, regardless of how hard they physically play. And that is what prize money is about. Rewarding the players for how many spectators they could bring to the tournament to see the sponsors logos.
There is more work to being a professional athlete than how many hours you slog it out on court. Anybody who equates sets on court as the only factor in determining pay falls short in comprehending the total scale of what the term 'professional athlete' encompasses.
Women through promotion and marketing (such as non-tennis magazine articles; Maria Sharapova on the cover of Forbes, advertising campaigns; Daniela Hantuchova for Nike advertisements in Vogue, Elle, Cosmopolitan and Cleo magazines, Alicia Molik for Garnier Cosmetics and TV shows; Serena and Venus For Real) increase the public profile of tennis which draws in more spectators. As is obvious, there are already hard-core fans who will watch the slams as a matter of order. But there is a lack of extra effort by the ATP top players in promoting tennis to a wider audience.
You may laugh at the idea of Sharapova selling shampoo or toothpaste, or Venus williams selling Big Macs, but each time their face is shown on tv ads, billboards and magazine pages, they are reminding everyone of tennis.
Without the viewers, the players get nothing, regardless of how hard they physically play. And that is what prize money is about. Rewarding the players for how many spectators they could bring to the tournament to see the sponsors logos.
LendlFan said:
Actually its pretty even just going by people who want change versus people who dont. That third option is also a change to the format and I think most people who pick that would choose to make the women play best of 5 rather than leave it as is. I could be wrong about that though.
LendlFan
Semi-Pro
So this question basically spawns from the money issue I guess. As modern thinkers we'd like to see all things equal and having the WTA negotiate the same pay as the ATP would be nice I suppose but what are we getting for compensation? The women are not playing the same kind of ball as the men are playing. There are only a handful of women that can really hit the ball and play at what appears to be Professional Level Tennis.
The others are nothing but Draw Fillers and seem to be satisfied with making a very comfortable living doing just that.
The others are nothing but Draw Fillers and seem to be satisfied with making a very comfortable living doing just that.
VamosRafa
Hall of Fame
I just don't see the relevance of the same-time-on-court argument. IF the women's tour brings in the sponsors and the viewers to support their pay for what they do, why does it matter if they are on court as long?
To put it another way, wouldn't you be angry if in your job, you were selling just as much as another sales person in your office, but getting paid less even though you are generating the same income? Maybe your methods are different, but if they are yielding the same result in terms of economics, you should get the same compensation.
The only way I would disagree is if we find out the ATP is subsidizing the women's equal pay -- in other words, money that should be going to the ATP players for their "added" time on court is instead being funneled to the WTA. But I haven't heard that argument being made, and in prior events, we've seen that the rankings for the women's matches have been higher for the men's.
If I took a poll in my office, I bet everyone there would know who Vernus and Serena are. Certainly Anna and Maria. And probably Jennifer as well. Most would not know Roger Federer, or even Andy Roddick (let alone know them by their first names). They would know Andre. Women's tennis has the bigger "stars," and that's the difference.
To put it another way, wouldn't you be angry if in your job, you were selling just as much as another sales person in your office, but getting paid less even though you are generating the same income? Maybe your methods are different, but if they are yielding the same result in terms of economics, you should get the same compensation.
The only way I would disagree is if we find out the ATP is subsidizing the women's equal pay -- in other words, money that should be going to the ATP players for their "added" time on court is instead being funneled to the WTA. But I haven't heard that argument being made, and in prior events, we've seen that the rankings for the women's matches have been higher for the men's.
If I took a poll in my office, I bet everyone there would know who Vernus and Serena are. Certainly Anna and Maria. And probably Jennifer as well. Most would not know Roger Federer, or even Andy Roddick (let alone know them by their first names). They would know Andre. Women's tennis has the bigger "stars," and that's the difference.
kabob
Hall of Fame
COMPLETELY AGREE!LendlFan said:
The disparity in variety and skill between the men and women are astounding. You rarely, if ever, see the women approach the net and while it's rather uncommon for the men to do so, as well, but you still see much more of that with them. Spins, serves, accuracy... below the top 10 on the WTA, you see none of that and it's discouraging to watch.
kabob
Hall of Fame
The women are only better known because the media and sponsors jam them down our throats. Granted, in our sexist, sex-driven society this is just a natural byproduct but another byproduct is that names like Roger Federer and anybody but Andre Agassi get no press. If press were derivative of talent rather than appeal, all sports players and fans would truly benefit. But, instead, media panders to the starlets in order to garner a wider following.VamosRafa said:
nswelshman
Rookie
VamosRafa said:
So true.
People want to see celebrities, whatever they do. Forbes list Sharapova, Venus and Serena Williams, and Davenport in their list of 100 most powerful celebrities. The only male tennis player in the list is Agassi. Mens tennis lacks stars. It is the stars that pulls in crowds (outside of the hard-core fans), and its the women who are doing a better job of it.
Maria Sharapova is a better 'professional athlete' than Roger Federer.
Marius_Hancu
Talk Tennis Guru
nswelshman said:
you make me laugh.
a good looking lady, yes, but not a better athlete. not even in the same class. perhaps Martina Navratilova or Graf would fit on the same level with Fed.
nswelshman
Rookie
kabob said:
How long did it take Federer to sign an agent?? Federers lack of press in comparison to his results is a product of his own actions.
Press will never be a simple derivative of talent rather than appeal. That is why Britney Spears pregnancy and Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitts relationship makes headlines because the greater majority of people are interested in reading that than of an in depth analysis of the void left after the deaths of Victoria De Los Angeles or Maria Callas... even though the last two are infinitely more talented than the first three. BUT, Callas and De Los Angeles can be reveered by true fans of talent just as Federers can be done by true fans of talent at places like this forum.
bluegrasser
Hall of Fame
Equal prize money = same amount of sets played....
nswelshman
Rookie
Marius_Hancu said:
That is certainly my point!! She is NOT even close in tennis talent. But she is still the better professional athlete.
Marius_Hancu
Talk Tennis Guru
VamosRafa said:
I thought you're in the Web business. You disappoint me. I thought you'd be giving some better researched facts:
Celebrities? Do a search at Yahoo for hits on:
Results 1 - 10 of about 12,900,000 for nadal
Results 1 - 10 of about 12,700,000 for federer
Results 1 - 10 of about 12,000,000 for agassi
Results 1 - 10 of about 4,060,000 for roddick
Results 1 - 10 of about 9,500,000 for kournikova
Results 1 - 10 of about 7,040,000 for sharapova
Results 1 - 10 of about 6,070,000 for serena williams
Results 1 - 10 of about 5,480,000 for venus williams
Results 1 - 10 of about 2,790,000 for davenport lindsay
Results 1 - 10 of about 1,510,000 for capriati
nswelshman
Rookie
Marius_Hancu said:
Yahoo webhits are hardly researched facts...
Celebrity encompasses more than just Yahoo webhits including press, television, radio and as noted the web.
nswelshman
Rookie
Yahoo webhits for their FULL names:
(The first 10 hits for 'Nadal' brought up 8 hits not related to 'Rafael Nadal'....)
Rafael Nadal: 1,690,000
Andy Roddick: 2,410,000
Roger Federer: 4,070,000
Andre Agassi: 4,550,000
Jennifer Capriati: 906,000
Lindsay Davenport: 2,800,000
Maria Sharapova: 5,050,000
Venus Williams: 5,520,000
Serena Williams: 6,140,000
Anna Kournikova: 8,140,000
All this is pointing out the higher celebrity level of women's players, which correlates to the viewers they pull in and the reasoning to pay them equal without demanding they aren't working as hard because they don't play 5 sets when they are working harder off the court.
(The first 10 hits for 'Nadal' brought up 8 hits not related to 'Rafael Nadal'....)
Rafael Nadal: 1,690,000
Andy Roddick: 2,410,000
Roger Federer: 4,070,000
Andre Agassi: 4,550,000
Jennifer Capriati: 906,000
Lindsay Davenport: 2,800,000
Maria Sharapova: 5,050,000
Venus Williams: 5,520,000
Serena Williams: 6,140,000
Anna Kournikova: 8,140,000
All this is pointing out the higher celebrity level of women's players, which correlates to the viewers they pull in and the reasoning to pay them equal without demanding they aren't working as hard because they don't play 5 sets when they are working harder off the court.
Marius_Hancu
Talk Tennis Guru
nswelshman said:
But all the first 10 hits on Federer refer to Roger Federer, which is beating by a mile your female "stars", as I've mentioned.
Explanation:
"Federer," "Sharapova," "Kournikova" are relatively rare/unique names, in order to get full generality of their coverage you shouldn't use the first names. And there Fed's domination was clear.
"Williams" unfortunately gives many collateral hits, as it's used a lot for un-related terms in the English-speaking world. Thus one must use the first names in this case.
nswelshman
Rookie
Marius_Hancu said:
Look at all the available evidence.
The first 10 hits for 'Federer', 1 is not for Roger. The first 10 hits for 'Sharapova' are all Maria. But this reflects the uniqueness of their surnames. That's why you have to search BOTH their first and surname...if I just searched 'Williams', i'd get 229,000,000 results...I don't claim these are ALL for Serena or Venus which is what you have done by only searching one name...
. Roger celebrity level is not beating the female stars by a mile.
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2005/53/Rank_3.html
Last edited:
Marius_Hancu
Talk Tennis Guru
Nothing to add to what I said above.
One of the little secrets about the womens game is that it probably easier for a top women player to win a slam than a tier 1 tournament. In a slam, women are expected to win 7 best of 3 set matches in 14 days. In a tier 1 tournament, they are expected to win 5 best of 3 set matches in 7 days. Given that the top women don't get tested till the quarter finals, the comparison becomes even more stark. In a slam they're expected to win the final 3 rounds over 5 days. In a tier 1 tournament, this shrinks to 3 days. So physically a slam is much easier on the body than a regular tournament.
nswelshman
Rookie
Marius_Hancu said:
You have lost the generality of the search by adding Serena and Venus. By adding the first naem for two people you have added a variable that makes your firt posting of web hits not reliable, and the conclusion that Fed is dominant by using unreliable data is not valid.
By further observartion:
Of the first 50 hits for 'Sharapova', 49 were for Maria.
Of the first 50 hits for 'Federer', 42 were for Roger.
Of the first 50 hits for 'Nadal', 10 were for Rafael.
Generality by identification of the wrong person does not reflect the general celebrity of that person. Identifying the person correctly by using their names gives a far better indicatio of their general celebrity. As you can from above of the first 50 hits, this generality does not accurately reflect the people in question. Therefore using their surnames alone and making claims off this basis is not valid.
H
Haka Boy
Guest
In this world of equal opportunity that some females demand can you imagine that if this rule ever became reality who would be complaining the loudest among the WTA players??bluegrasser said:
I think Serena has covered all bases with her excuses so far.
LendlFan
Semi-Pro
nswelshman said:
You have to explain this "She's (Maria Sharapova) a better athlete than Rodger Federer" thing to me. I am not getting your mean by that. at face value, are you suggesting she's :
a. In better physical condition
b. Stronger and more conditioned
c. More endurance
d. Better tactician on the court
e. More capable to leap tall buildings with a single bound
Because there is so much distance between FedEx's ability over Sharapova's that even listing them would be to dishonor Federer.
VamosRafa
Hall of Fame
Marius_Hancu said:
I can see why, although I understand your point. I'm more knowledgeable about what goes on around my office watercooler than I am on Yahoo! re all these players. (And with a Nadal Google search, there is the issue of his more famous Uncle, Miguel Angel.)
We recently had a silent auction to raise money for cancer research, and I put in a really nice Wimbledon item signed by Andy Roddick. No one bid on it, and I ended up buying it back myself. I think if I had something from Anna, Venus or Serena, someone would have bought it.
I'll find out later, as I'm donating some Andy and Rafa signed items to another silent auction -- although a much bigger one. But I still think they would get more on e-bay, from folks actually looking for their stuff.
Kaptain Karl
Hall Of Fame
LendlFan (#10) and spinbalz (#13) have it right. Please don't *kill* tennis by having the girls play 5 sets. A colosally idiotic idea...!
- KK
- KK
nswelshman
Rookie
LendlFan said:
I am not suggesting any of your options.
I said Sharapova is a better 'professional athlete' than Federer, not a better athlete. As I noted
nswelshman said:
L
laurie
Guest
I've said for a long time women should play best of five sets in each slam final. A lot of women players would like that and enjoyed the old Masters format of best of five set final.
I'm amazed its never happened.
I'm amazed its never happened.
35ft6
Legend
Just want to say that the "they work less so why should they get paid equal" argument is becoming a bit tiresome. I don't know what world you live in but in my world very often people who work LESS make more money than people who work MORE.
If women are to be paid less they should be paid less based on somebody being able to prove that people are less interested in them and that this disinterest translates to less sponsorship dollars, less tickets sold, and less TV viewers tuning in. That the WTA doesn't generate as much revenue for the Grand Slams as the ATP. Everything else is pretty irrelevant. I haven't heard anybody be consistent and say if a guy wins 6-0, 6-0, 6-0 he should be paid less on account of him having to work "less."
I personally think it would be cool if they at least played best of 5 for the finals, over even the semi's AND finals. But I'm not sure if the female body can withstand 7 rounds of best of 5.
If women are to be paid less they should be paid less based on somebody being able to prove that people are less interested in them and that this disinterest translates to less sponsorship dollars, less tickets sold, and less TV viewers tuning in. That the WTA doesn't generate as much revenue for the Grand Slams as the ATP. Everything else is pretty irrelevant. I haven't heard anybody be consistent and say if a guy wins 6-0, 6-0, 6-0 he should be paid less on account of him having to work "less."
I personally think it would be cool if they at least played best of 5 for the finals, over even the semi's AND finals. But I'm not sure if the female body can withstand 7 rounds of best of 5.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll
