bluetrain4
G.O.A.T.
I don't really care about equal prize money one way or the other. There's legitimate arguments on both sides, IMO. I fail to see why it gets some people so riled up.
If you believe that prize money is simply payment for work, then equal prize money probably seems crazy and/or unjust to you. The minimum number of sets a woman can play in a match is 2, which is 66.67 percent of the minimum sets a man can play. The maximum number of sets a woman can play is 3, which is 60% of what a man can play. So, under the "payment for work" view, women should receive prize about 63% of men (averaging 66.67 and 60%) and are being vastly overpaid. Of course, you could argue that under the "payment for work" view, men who win in straight sets should be paid less than men who win in 4 or 5 sets. But, obviously breaking down prize money by time played or sets played for every match would be unworkable.
The reason equal prize money has never bothered me is that it is, after all, "prize" money, a prize just like the trophy. In my view, it's not payment for work, it's a prize for acheiving something - a major championship, a QF appearance, etc.
Under this theory, it's basically accepted that men and women are inherently different - there's no use comparing them. They don't compete against each other. It's two entirely separate spheres. And, they Slams choose to award the incredible achievement of being the best in the world (at least for that tournament), of winning a major title, of making a certain round, equally -- reflecting the value of the achievement or reaching the pinnacle of their respective spheres.
If my son and daughter both win Olympic gold in the 400m run, do I view my daughter as not having the same incredible achievement just because she finished in a slower time. Is she not an Olympic champion because all male Olympians are faster. No, that would never enter into anyone's thinking because we accept the inherent differences in men and women. Should my hypothetical dughter be awarded a gold medal, like her male counterpart, or something-other-than gold medal to reflect that while she's the best amongst her gender, she's not the best overall human?
This is what I think the Slams are doing in equalizing prize money - recognizing supreme achievement in mens' and womens' respective spheres.
I get all of the "men work more" arguments, and like I said, I can completely understand the arguments for unequal prize money. But, I simply don't think the money is payment for work, which a lot of people do.
If you believe that prize money is simply payment for work, then equal prize money probably seems crazy and/or unjust to you. The minimum number of sets a woman can play in a match is 2, which is 66.67 percent of the minimum sets a man can play. The maximum number of sets a woman can play is 3, which is 60% of what a man can play. So, under the "payment for work" view, women should receive prize about 63% of men (averaging 66.67 and 60%) and are being vastly overpaid. Of course, you could argue that under the "payment for work" view, men who win in straight sets should be paid less than men who win in 4 or 5 sets. But, obviously breaking down prize money by time played or sets played for every match would be unworkable.
The reason equal prize money has never bothered me is that it is, after all, "prize" money, a prize just like the trophy. In my view, it's not payment for work, it's a prize for acheiving something - a major championship, a QF appearance, etc.
Under this theory, it's basically accepted that men and women are inherently different - there's no use comparing them. They don't compete against each other. It's two entirely separate spheres. And, they Slams choose to award the incredible achievement of being the best in the world (at least for that tournament), of winning a major title, of making a certain round, equally -- reflecting the value of the achievement or reaching the pinnacle of their respective spheres.
If my son and daughter both win Olympic gold in the 400m run, do I view my daughter as not having the same incredible achievement just because she finished in a slower time. Is she not an Olympic champion because all male Olympians are faster. No, that would never enter into anyone's thinking because we accept the inherent differences in men and women. Should my hypothetical dughter be awarded a gold medal, like her male counterpart, or something-other-than gold medal to reflect that while she's the best amongst her gender, she's not the best overall human?
This is what I think the Slams are doing in equalizing prize money - recognizing supreme achievement in mens' and womens' respective spheres.
I get all of the "men work more" arguments, and like I said, I can completely understand the arguments for unequal prize money. But, I simply don't think the money is payment for work, which a lot of people do.
