Why shouldn't there be equal pay for wheel-chair tennis players?

[Federev]

Why shouldn't they have equal access to prime time slots and center courts; to TV coverage and corporate promotion?

Obviously, this is a question related to the threads on women's pay vs men's on the tour.

I see one good argument for equal pay for women in what is essentially an entertainment business: when the ratings and revenue justify it.

Otherwise - for those who are arguing on other grounds - why aren't you advocating for equal pay/ equal exposure/ equal promotion/ equal coverage for wheel-chair athletes?

If the ratings and revenue don't produce the return investors desire, then what right do people who don't pay for the stadiums, TV coverage, facility & tour management have to dictate or demand to those who do what they should do with their money?

Also, FEDR.

 

[McLovin]

That’s a false-equivalency. Doubles teams aren’t paid the same as singles players, and mixed doubles teams are paid less than same-gender doubles teams. Equal pay in wheelchair tennis between men and women is the correct comparison.

 

[Federev]

That’s a false-equivalency. Doubles teams aren’t paid the same as singles players, and mixed doubles teams are paid less than same-gender doubles teams. Equal pay in wheelchair tennis between men and women is the correct comparison.

You're begging the question by asserting a questionable prior premise.

Can you answer this question:

Why shouldn't singles tennis wheelchair players be granted equal pay with singles tennis played by fully-able-bodied players?

 

[TTMR]

Why shouldn't they have equal access to prime time slots and center courts; to TV coverage and corporate promotion?

Obviously, this is a question related to the threads on women's pay vs men's on the tour.

I see one good argument for equal pay for women in what is essentially an entertainment business: when the ratings and revenue justify it.

Otherwise - for those who are arguing on other grounds - why aren't you advocating for equal pay/ equal exposure/ equal promotion/ equal coverage for wheel-chair athletes?

If the ratings and revenue don't produce the return investors desire, then what right do people who don't pay for the stadiums, TV coverage, facility & tour management have to dictate or demand to those who do what they should do with their money?

Also, FEDR.

Assumption is that women's tennis isn't profitable and is akin to wheelchair tennis, despite the fact that ticket sales and ratings suggest it's much closer to the ATP monetarily (and sometimes surpasses it as far as ratings go).

Slagging women's tennis seems to be third most common pastime here, the first being hypotheticals and the second being head to heads.

 

[jimmy8]

Why shouldn't they have equal access to prime time slots and center courts; to TV coverage and corporate promotion?

Obviously, this is a question related to the threads on women's pay vs men's on the tour.

I see one good argument for equal pay for women in what is essentially an entertainment business: when the ratings and revenue justify it.

Otherwise - for those who are arguing on other grounds - why aren't you advocating for equal pay/ equal exposure/ equal promotion/ equal coverage for wheel-chair athletes?

If the ratings and revenue don't produce the return investors desire, then what right do people who don't pay for the stadiums, TV coverage, facility & tour management have to dictate or demand to those who do what they should do with their money?

Also, FEDR.

Yes, and pay me too.

 

[Federev]

Assumption is that women's tennis isn't profitable and is akin to wheelchair tennis, despite the fact that ticket sales and ratings suggest it's much closer to the ATP monetarily (and sometimes surpasses it as far as ratings go).

If the women produce the same revenue then they should get the same pay. I'm all for it.

If they don't, then you and I have no right to tell private investors what they have to do with their money.

Also - can you answer the question: Why shouldn't wheel chair tennis players get the same pay and prime-time court slots as Serena and Rafa?

 

[Azure]

You're begging the question by asserting a questionable prior premise.

Can you answer this question:

Why shouldn't singles tennis wheelchair players be granted equal pay with fully singles tennis fully-able-bodied players?

I see what you are trying to say but see a false equivalence too. There was a time when women were the mega crowd pullers in tennis. The USO women’s final was always prime time slot and the men’s final was not, clearly indicating that the women’s matches were more lucrative even from a sponsorship perspective. Yet the women were paid less historically. It was this correction that was required. It was conveniently assumed that women can be paid less even when they were drawing the crowds. I have never seen wheelchair tennis drawing more crowds than the regular tennis.

This interest will always ebb and fall. Lets consider two scenarios. Imagine Tommy Paul playing Hurkacz in the finals of a slam versus Raducanu playing Osaka on the women’s side. Now the following slam has Alcaraz playing Rune and the women’s side has Kontaveit playing Badosa. The viewings of the finals will be polar opposites. What is the solution then? Make every match a function of number of viewers on screen? So then you have a bunch of accountants calculating eyeballs on every match and preparing paystubs per match? Does this even make practical sense?

Comparing wnba, women’s cricket etc with the men’s sport is absurd. Of course the answer is clear as to the popularity of the sport. In tennis the answer is not that clear and that is the privilege of this sport that it has managed to keep the women’s game this important, so much so that the best athletic talent on the women’s side takes up tennis while the men seek other sports.

 

[Federev]

There was a time when women were the mega crowd pullers in tennis. The USO women’s final was always prime time slot and the men’s final was not, clearly indicating that the women’s matches were more lucrative even from a sponsorship perspective. Yet the women were paid less historically. It was this correction that was required. It was conveniently assumed that women can be paid less even when they were drawing the crowds. I have never seen wheelchair tennis drawing more crowds than the regular tennis.

...Of course the answer is clear as to the popularity of the sport.

This is the best answer I've seen for anyone arguing for equal pay, and its essentially in agreement with mine above:

"I see one good argument for equal pay for women in what is essentially an entertainment business: when the ratings and revenue justify it."

 

[Azure]

This is the best answer I've seen for anyone arguing for equal pay, and its essentially in agreement with mine above:

"I see one good argument for equal pay for women in what is essentially an entertainment business: when the ratings and revenue justify it."

Sure it is a function of sponsorship and revenue but its so dynamic that you can’t keep changing the prize money every match basis the attendance that it gets. I guess that is where a structure is required and a prize money is set before the start of the tournament. One could otherwise argue that if Rafa does not feature in the finals, lets cut the prize money by 25%.

If this was a corporate structure its a no brainer that your salary is a function of your productivity for the company regardless of who or what you are. In an entertainment industry (which all big sports essentially are) it should be a function of what investors want - a big movie star gets the biggest paycheck. The complexity arises in sport because you have a factor of uncertainty in who you will be entertained by. To me, a parity in prize money is not a major problem as it avoids daily corrections basis the matches being played.

 

[Clay lover]

I think this is all an exercise to show us that categories do exist and sometimes have to exist in the name of welfare. If we removed all categories and made every capitalistic endeavor a pure meritocracy involving all human beings - a very small group of people is going to be rewarded again and again due to their biological advantage. Assuming every one works as hard, this makes the situation unfair (can I call it unfair?) or at least dire for those who work equally hard but are limited biologically. To me that's why we can't just look at every market and endeavor as a pure, category-free, meritocracy. Some form of categorization is necessary even in this post-modern world that sometimes rejects categories, in order for people to earn a decent living. E.g different weight classes for boxing, gender categories, three trophies for different tiers in rugby competitions, two tiers of UEFA leagues, league divisions etc. This mentality of rewarding the "best of the rest" is an important sort of welfare to have for society to have enough of a hope.

I know I'm grossly over-simplifying this, but I hope you see the overall point. While I admit equal pay can sometimes be a form of "social welfare", it's a worthy cause. But at the same time, the welfare can't be ridiculous to a point where you pay people for a sport nobody watches - there has to be a balance, thus the difference between wheelchair and women's tennis.

Also of course, utility in entertainment is sometimes not based on pure merit as there are other factors (aesthetics, intensity of competition etc.) and one of the reasons why for example women's volleyball is a more popular viewer sport than men's because the men, despite obviously being stronger and better, spike too hard to sustain long rallies. So if wheelchair tennis can provide the better experience overall sure.

 

[mika1979]

Why shouldn't they have equal access to prime time slots and center courts; to TV coverage and corporate promotion?

Obviously, this is a question related to the threads on women's pay vs men's on the tour.

I see one good argument for equal pay for women in what is essentially an entertainment business: when the ratings and revenue justify it.

Otherwise - for those who are arguing on other grounds - why aren't you advocating for equal pay/ equal exposure/ equal promotion/ equal coverage for wheel-chair athletes?

If the ratings and revenue don't produce the return investors desire, then what right do people who don't pay for the stadiums, TV coverage, facility & tour management have to dictate or demand to those who do what they should do with their money?

Also, FEDR.

It is a waste of time debating how's and why's. Ultimately the revenue and sponsorship the tournament brings in dictates. In terms of % of revenue they are overpaid. It is like the WNBA, like Bill Burr said, if they were paid equally each player would owe 80k as the league loses money. From a market forces perspective, they are being subsidies, which is really good and should be supported, however equal pay is stupid.

 

[Silverbullet96]

But at the same time, the welfare can't be ridiculous to a point where you pay people for a sport nobody watches - there has to be a balance, thus the difference between wheelchair and women's tennis.

We're arguing the exact same thing as you. You say it's "ridiculous" if wheelchair players got equal pay as able men's players even though they don't generate as much revenue, similarly we're also saying that it's "ridiculous" if women's players got equal pay as men's players even though they don't generate as much revenue*. It's the same logic.

*Of course, this is assuming that women's Tennis generates lesser revenue than the men. Which is also assuming that revenue generated is the only factor which decides how much they are paid.

 

[Silverbullet96]

That’s a false-equivalency. Doubles teams aren’t paid the same as singles players, and mixed doubles teams are paid less than same-gender doubles teams. Equal pay in wheelchair tennis between men and women is the correct comparison.

Why not give equal pay to all of them ? Why is this discrimination okay ? Able bodied women deserve the same as able bodied men but disabled people don't deserve the same as able bodied men ?

 

[Silverbullet96]

As for OP, I don't think we're going to get much discussion on this topic, since that illogical section of feminists have run into a wall with your argument and will pretend they never read this.
Only women singles players deserve "equality", the rest can go F themselves, got it.

 

[Clay lover]

We're arguing the exact same thing as you. You say it's "ridiculous" if wheelchair players got equal pay as able men's players even though they don't generate as much revenue, similarly we're also saying that it's "ridiculous" if women's players got equal pay as men's players even though they don't generate as much revenue*. It's the same logic.

*Of course, this is assuming that women's Tennis generates lesser revenue than the men. Which is also assuming that revenue generated is the only factor which decides how much they are paid.

I see your point, but consider there to be a bit of a "threshold" to pass. If the interest gets to a certain point (a certain percentage of the more popular counterpart), maybe the humanitarian effort would be considered justified. But I agree if we applied the same standards of meritocracy strictly there shouldn't be "thresholds" and people should just be paid in proportion to the interest they generate, and favouring one group over the other when choosing the recipient of welfare is simply unfair, just like you said.

 

[Ombelibable]

OP is giving off strong libertarian cyrpto Bro vibes.

 

[mwym]

Extreme positions prove lack of mental capacity neccessary to hold 2 or more opposing or contradictory ideas in one mind at the same and then create a balance as a stable solution

Stable as in ever balancing - dynamic, not static.

Example:

Football / soccer female vs male world championships compared.

Female players got 100 millions.
Male players got 360 millions.

Revenue of female WC was 400 millions.
Revenue of male WC was 6000 milions.

Hence,
Female players got 20% of total revenue.
Male players got 6% of total revenue.

BY ABSOLUTE numbers female players got 3.6 times LESS.

By RELATIVE numbers female players got 3.33 times MORE.

Therefore,
All the problems WE create can be solved without destruction and death. Just keep all the stupidity contained and away from having a go at solving it.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Ar

Extreme positions prove lack of mental capacity neccessary to hold 2 or more opposing or contradictory ideas in one mind at the same and then create a balance as a stable solution

Stable as in ever balancing - dynamic, not static.

Example:

Football / soccer female vs male world championships compared.

Female players got 100 millions.
Male players got 360 millions.

Revenue of female WC was 400 millions.
Revenue of male WC was 6000 milions.

Hence,
Female players got 20% of total revenue.
Male players got 6% of total revenue.

BY ABSOLUTE numbers female players got 3.6 times LESS.

By RELATIVE numbers female players got 3.33 times MORE.

Therefore,
All the problems WE create can be solved without destruction and death. Just keep all the stupidity contained and away from having a go at solving it.

Are those football numbers true?

 

[Crocodile]

Well it would be great for them if wheel chair athletes could enjoy prosperity equivalent to able bodied athletes if there was a way to do it. It’s all about coming up with solutions to things like that, you know, and how would you would go about achieving that,
On the other hand some would say you can’t equalise everything. For example if you are going for a tennis lesson and the coach is Darren Cahill you would definitely pay more for his services than a university student coaching part time at the local council courts. Another example is would you pay the same price for a Toyota Corolla as you would for an Aston Martin Vantage and why not,
There are a variety of metrics people use to judge value including scarcity, competence and expertise, quality, prestige and beauty, reputation and even prejudice and indoctrinated thinking. It’s a multi varied thing. Sometimes the decisions are Nobel and moral other times they can be seen as unfair and immoral. In the end we weigh things up according to our value system. That’s the best I can offer on all the topics people have raised with regards to how we pay people.

 

[wangs78]

This interest will always ebb and fall.

If there was in fact an ebb and flow between the popularity/viewership and resulting revenue and profitability of men’s tennis vs women’s tennis, then equal pay is absolutely justified. But the last time that has been the case in a given year was 30-40 years ago. To say that one gender should subsidize the other for that long makes no sense to me.

What’s funny to me is this equal pay debate only really exists with tennis. No one is crying for WNBA players to have equal pay with NBA players. And I think this is largely due to the men and women sharing the same venue at many and especially the big tournaments. The joint venue factor is what makes most casual observers think that the men and women are doing the same thing, when in fact they are not on multiple levels (Bo3 vs Bo5, quality of play, and most importantly, audience draw and revenue generation). In the 20 years that I’ve been attending the USO, I can’t remember once when secondary market tickets for women’s matches were selling for anything close to those for men’s tickets, especially for the marquee matchups.

In the end, it’s the visibility of women’s tennis (again because they share a venue with men’s tennis) that makes the issue of equality such a huge flashpoint from the perspective of sponsors and activists. It’s too easy for the general public to view unequal prize money as discriminatory because it’s simply not obvious enough to the casual observer that men’s tennis merits more pay than women’s. And it’s this viewpoint of the masses (public opinion, basically) that actually drives the behind the scenes decision making on pay. Not considerations of fairness.

 

[10nispro]

for those who are arguing on other grounds - why aren't you advocating for equal pay/ equal exposure/ equal promotion/ equal coverage for wheel-chair athletes?

Also, FEDR.

Valid question, and I really appreciate the thought to create a thread for this topic.
The answer in plain simple unpolitical words is because we are living in a hypocrite world. So we (masses) only do those things that makes us look nice regardless of the thought behind it. And don’t do anything that makes us look bad. And since, so far labels like “misogynists” “begots” “haters” have not yet been coined for those who care less about people using wheel chairs, why even consider giving them an equal pay.
It is actually sad because whoever decided to untag the commercial aspect from payments when men and women’s was made equal, the first right should have been for the ones using the wheel chair. No?

 

[tex123]

It's a different form of tennis competition where players use wheelchairs. Able players are not allowed to use wheelchairs. This thread is silly.

 

[10nispro]

I see what you are trying to say but see a false equivalence too. There was a time when women were the mega crowd pullers in tennis.

I beg to differ here. I get complimentary tickets from my club for Wimbledon matches. Women’s matches are always always available and it’s extremely difficult to get tickets for men’s matches. I am talking about QF and ahead. And it has always been like this. Even my father’s time. I purchase RG’s tickets very often since 1994 and the last one i got was last year. Every time, men’s ticket are significantly expensive and not available if not timely purchased and women’s are not only available but at 60% of the cost. It has always been like this.
never bought USO tickets myself but while I was based at NY for a year, a colleague offered me tickets and only women’s final option was available and men’s was not. So I watched the Sloan Stephen’s match.

 

[10nispro]

It's a different form of tennis competition where players use wheelchairs. Able players are not allowed to use wheelchairs. This thread is silly.

Frankly women’s tennis is also a different form of competition. I support equal pay for women but for diversity and inclusivity values, wheel chair users come first

 

[tex123]

Frankly women’s tennis is also a different form of competition. I support equal pay for women but for diversity and inclusivity values, wheel chair users come first

How?

Wheelchair tennis allows two bounces and they use a wheelchair. They don't run. It is fundamentally different.
Women's tennis is played the same way as men's except the slams where men play 5 sets. You can hardly call that fundamentally different.


I can see the argument coming that women football players are not paid the same. But that's because football was predominantly a man's game played for generations. Women's game is only starting and gaining popularity. Women's and men's tennis have been played for generations. There's no reason for the disparity if there is. Frankly speaking I don't understand what sort of problem men have with this equal pay. If you are getting what you think you should be, why do you care what the other person is getting? At the this point, it is just about ego of a man.
If we talk about popularity of men's and women's tennis, I was more interested in women's tennis when Steffi, Hingis, Henin and the lot were playing. It's just a moment in history where women's tennis is lacking in star power and men's tennis was filled with superstars like Fed, Nadal and Djokovic.

 

[Silverbullet96]

Wheelchair tennis allows two bounces and they use a wheelchair. They don't run. It is fundamentally different.

So ? This just seems like you conveniently making up rules. I can also argue Women's Tennis is "fundamentally different" than mens since they play against different genders. It's still called Tennis.
But even so let's entertain your argument. If we follow your "rules", then women wouldn't get equal pay at Grand Slams where they played less sets. And also the junior circuit should get equal pay as well, since they play with the same rules also, would you agree to these 2 things ?

If you are getting what you think you should be, why do you care what the other person is getting?

Lol, except what you're arguing for is a certain group of players (Women) should get what the other person (Men) is getting. Straight hypocrisy.

 

[The_Order]

Are those football numbers true?

I believe so.

 

[The_Order]

They should be paid proportionately to the revenue they generate...

Ronda Rousey was at one point highest paid in the UFC was she not? If not, would have been very close to.

 

[TTMR]

It is a waste of time debating how's and why's. Ultimately the revenue and sponsorship the tournament brings in dictates. In terms of % of revenue they are overpaid. It is like the WNBA, like Bill Burr said, if they were paid equally each player would owe 80k as the league loses money. From a market forces perspective, they are being subsidies, which is really good and should be supported, however equal pay is stupid.

Women's tennis is far more popular relative to men's tennis than the WNBA is relative to the NBA. The equivalency constantly being made in this thread is facile.

Males on this forum are always trying to demean the WTA, yet they never produce the evidence. Show me the ratings of men's vs women's finals over the last few decades. Show me the tournament revenue. There's only two reasons you never see it: 1. Laziness; 2. It disconfirms their "thesis", ie. the evidence shows women's tennis does very well in ratings and ticket sales, and occasionally even exceeds men's tennis.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

I believe so.

That is the problem I have with all this. I don’t object equal prize money at tennis slams because, as said by another poster, the numbers are close enough and Emma vs Osaka would generate more money than some next gen mugs like Shapo and Med.

However, this has all now started to be discussed in other sports as well. As for the example of football, there are people here in Germany who after the women Europe Cup last year try to push for equal salary. Given the ratings as posted above, this is absolutely ridiculous and can only be achieved by subsidies from the men’s side. The “argument” given here is that female footballers work as hard as men and deserve to be able to live from their sport, but there is no inherent human right to be able to make a living from doing what you like. Next to no sport here in Germany apart from men’s football and tennis pays enough to live well, completely regardless of how much they train. The only difference between football and all those other sports is that in football millions of dollars are generated on the men’s side so one can bring up discrimination and sexism with the intention to get some share of this.

If they want to make millions they need to be marketable. If people want female footballers to earn as much as men they need to buy tickets, watch games and buy merchandise articles.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Women's tennis is far more popular relative to men's tennis than the WNBA is relative to the NBA. The equivalency constantly being made in this thread is facile.

Males on this forum are always trying to demean the WTA, yet they never produce the evidence. Show me the ratings of men's vs women's finals over the last few decades. Show me the tournament revenue. There's only two reasons you never see it: 1. Laziness; 2. It disconfirms their "thesis", ie. the evidence shows women's tennis does very well in ratings and ticket sales, and occasionally even exceeds men's tennis.

Agree with this and up to my knowledge nobody ever seriously pushed for equal salaries in the WNBA. In Football though, such discussions have already started and as shown by the figures above, there are already some subsidies being made.

 

[tex123]

So ? This just seems like you conveniently making up rules. I can also argue Women's Tennis is "fundamentally different" than mens since they play against different genders. It's still called Tennis.
But even so let's entertain your argument. If we follow your "rules", then women wouldn't get equal pay at Grand Slams where they played less sets. And also the junior circuit should get equal pay as well, since they play with the same rules also, would you agree to these 2 things ?

Lol, except what you're arguing for is a certain group of players (Women) should get what the other person (Men) is getting. Straight hypocrisy.

Anyone who watches tennis will say that they are playing the same game. That's not a debate.

Regarding your hypocrisy point, women are paid less for historical reasons. Men have dominated ever since humans arrived on this planet. They dominate every aspect of life even to this day whether it is boardrooms or traffic signs or language or anywhere. A few years ago they were not even allowed to vote or go to work. Some countries even forbid women from going to work or even get education. Girls were just married off to men at a young age to serve their husbands. These things don't exist in western world but subconsciously deep rooted i.e. dominance of a man over a woman. Over time, many of these wrongs have been made right through active campaigning to uplift women. If you stack all the cards against them throughout history, how do you expect them to see them in boardrooms? The news readers - same job right? A man will be paid more - even on BBC. Why is that? Ask yourself. Same thing in tennis.

 

[The Fedfather]

Just make it the same % of the revenue that the events with specific groups of players bring in, whether the players are in wheel-chairs, male, female, doubles, singles. That's the practical way to grant rewards in a capitalistic system. Just imagine evens as a company, and a company can afford to pay their employees according to the revenue they make.

At the same time, it has been brought up often yet flies over some people's heads each time all the same, factually the prize money is not exactly a factor of how lucrative a player was for the tournament. Otherwise, they wouldn't be fixed at all, and would be changing to reflect the public interest in watching specific matches. Like trading of sorts.

Dying on the hill that more prize money is deserved by any ATP man as compared to any WTA woman because the ATP as a whole brings in more revenue than WTA is misguided. It very obviously goes against the core argument that's made for why it's fair for the ATP to have bigger prize money than WTA in the first place. I actually was rallying behind this market decides all idea in the past, but truly, you only need to dig a smidgen deeper than the surface to see that it doesn't add up.

Capitalism in general doesn't work with the concept of fair btw. That's the part that people seem to be missing when arguing about these things. Players get paid based on some businessmen behind the scenes deciding how much and in what way they want to share the profit the players make for them. If you're specifically only bothered by the unfairness of those people possibly deciding that women in pro tennis would get equal prize money to men, either you're not grasping all the ways the system as a whole isn't what we typically understand as fair, or you're sexist.

 

[NAS]

I see what you are trying to say but see a false equivalence too. There was a time when women were the mega crowd pullers in tennis. The USO women’s final was always prime time slot and the men’s final was not, clearly indicating that the women’s matches were more lucrative even from a sponsorship perspective. Yet the women were paid less historically. It was this correction that was required. It was conveniently assumed that women can be paid less even when they were drawing the crowds. I have never seen wheelchair tennis drawing more crowds than the regular tennis.

This interest will always ebb and fall. Lets consider two scenarios. Imagine Tommy Paul playing Hurkacz in the finals of a slam versus Raducanu playing Osaka on the women’s side. Now the following slam has Alcaraz playing Rune and the women’s side has Kontaveit playing Badosa. The viewings of the finals will be polar opposites. What is the solution then? Make every match a function of number of viewers on screen? So then you have a bunch of accountants calculating eyeballs on every match and preparing paystubs per match? Does this even make practical sense?

Comparing wnba, women’s cricket etc with the men’s sport is absurd. Of course the answer is clear as to the popularity of the sport. In tennis the answer is not that clear and that is the privilege of this sport that it has managed to keep the women’s game this important, so much so that the best athletic talent on the women’s side takes up tennis while the men seek other sports.

I like your point but I think female players has to draw more and it is coming from a person who is more on equal pay side.
Now a days because of misogynist people and extreme feminist it is really difficult to put any point before being called hater.
People talk of women slam final numbers but slam in general draw big.
Just see this year Wta yec , compare it to atp yec and you will straightaway see the difference.
Same is for small tournament, wta tournament don't draw that much, their second most important tournament after slam, yec was really bad to get necessary attention.
Wta needs to take some actions or do enough advertising to get more views and attention.

 

[Silverbullet96]

Regarding your hypocrisy point, women are paid less for historical reasons. Men have dominated ever since humans arrived on this planet. They dominate every aspect of life even to this day whether it is boardrooms or traffic signs or language or anywhere. A few years ago they were not even allowed to vote or go to work. Some countries even forbid women from going to work or even get education. Girls were just married off to men at a young age to serve their husbands. These things don't exist in western world but subconsciously deep rooted i.e. dominance of a man over a woman. Over time, many of these wrongs have been made right through active campaigning to uplift women. If you stack all the cards against them throughout history, how do you expect them to see them in boardrooms? The news readers - same job right? A man will be paid more - even on BBC. Why is that? Ask yourself. Same thing in tennis.

Looks like that's just a theory. Do you have any proof that this is the reason why Women's Tennis players are paid less than men ? There are fields where women make more money than men, like modelling, or Ronda Rousey being the most paid UFC athlete at one point, if what you're saying is foolproof fact, how did these women do it ? Do they wear male disguise when they come to collect their cheque ? So you see your theory is not a universal fact and doesn't prove the WTA pay thing at all. I do agree that it's a somewhat male-dominated world, but it might or might not be the reason for comparatively less pay in Women's Tennis. It's just a theory "It's a historically male dominated world, so by that alone I conclude that this is 100% the reason why WTA players are getting paid less" you can't just say that without any evidence.
Hypothetically if we assume that revenue generated is the only factor which determines the prize pool, then you need to present evidence that the ATP and WTA generate the same amount of revenue before accusing organisations of sexism.
Having same pay for no reason is obviously not practical. Different sections of a company (WTA, Wheelchair, ATP) should get what they systematically deserve, not the same as the highest paid section gets just because you feel like it.

I see you dodged my point about Juniors players, and whether Women should receive lesser pay at Slams. Neither did you disprove your hypocritical statement at all, but whatever, there are too many things to keep track of. But you are losing your credibility in my eyes a little.

 

[Aussie Darcy]

Really awful bait thread.

For a freaking start, The Indian Wells tournament happening now? Doesn't even have a wheelchair tournament. Nor does Miami. Nor does pretty much EVERY tournament. SO what the hell are you on about?

The tournaments that do have the comps are slams. And guess what? They play three matches. So when you say you want equal pay. What do you want? $3 million dollar prize money for the champ for playing three matches?

How about when you post these stupid threads you actually think it through.

 

[Silverbullet96]

Really awful bait thread.

For a freaking start, The Indian Wells tournament happening now? Doesn't even have a wheelchair tournament. Nor does Miami. Nor does pretty much EVERY tournament. SO what the hell are you on about?

The tournaments that do have the comps are slams. And guess what? They play three matches. So when you say you want equal pay. What do you want? $3 million dollar prize money for the champ for playing three matches?

How about when you post these stupid threads you actually think it through.

So since you are discriminating based on effort put, do you agree that women should be paid lesser than men at slams ?

 

[Aussie Darcy]

So since you are discriminating based on effort put, do you agree that women should be paid lesser than men at slams ?

How am I discriminating bub? Where did I discriminate?

Now tell me, what tournaments have wheelchair events where you want to give equal prize money? Since you seem so passionate, give me a list. Since you sincerely care so much, inform me. Do you actually have ANY information or are you just using this as a reason to kick women and want to pay them less?

 

[Silverbullet96]

How am I discriminating bub? Where did I discriminate?

Here:

The tournaments that do have the comps are slams. And guess what? They play three matches. So when you say you want equal pay. What do you want? $3 million dollar prize money for the champ for playing three matches?

Now tell me, what tournaments have wheelchair events where you want to give equal prize money? Since you seem so passionate, give me a list.

You just mentioned some of those tournaments yourself: the Slams.

 

[Aussie Darcy]

Here:




You just mentioned some of those tournaments yourself: the Slams.

I didn't say they don't deserve it. I asked if that's what you want? Do you want that? Cause go right ahead and fight for it then. If you want it. Fight for it. Fight for the wheelchair players to get 3 million for 3 matches.

Oh and for the love of god, stop attacking the women's tour and acting like you care about the wheelchair tennis players. Because you couldn't even name a SINGLE TOURNAMENT that has a competition for them. You don't care, you're just using it to attack women and saying they should be paid less. It's disgusting and you should take a hard look at yourself and educate yourself on what players like Dylan Alcott have done for tennis and society. Educate yourself.

 

[Grafil Injection]

Wheelchair tennis is a highly skilled sport, and watching Alfie Hewett a number of times I see groundstrokes of serious power and control. However, the prize money for all sports is linked to primarily the demand from the public to attend or view on TV/Internet. If millions of people wanted to watch wheelchair tournaments, the prize money would increase because the event holders would receive $Ms from the public and media, and the players would demand their share. But there aren't millions of people who want to watch wheelchair tennis, no matter how good the players are, the overall game isn't as exciting for most people to watch either live or on TV as non-wheelchair tennis is. Same for Real Tennis, Rackets, Squash and Badminton outside of Asia.

 

[Silverbullet96]

I didn't say they don't deserve it.

Yes you did imply it, this is what you called the thread which questioned why they couldn't get equal pay:

Really awful bait thread.

How about when you post these stupid threads you actually think it through.

_ _ _ _ _ _

Do you want that? Cause go right ahead and fight for it then babe. If you want it. Fight for it. Fight for the wheelchair players to get 3 million for 3 matches and for the love of god, stop attacking the women's tour and acting like you care about the wheelchair tennis players. Because you couldn't even name a SINGLE TOURNAMENT that has a competition for them. You don't care, you're just using it to attack women and trying to say women should be paid less. It's disgusting.

I never said I wanted equal pay for Wheelchair players. You are the ones who want "equality", why are you not fighting for them ? Looks what you want is not actual "equality", just "equality" for one group of people, for your own selfish reasons.
Regardless you've already been caught in a lie in the first part of my comment, you resorted to lying when you got caught in your hypocrisy and realised you had no argument, so it's pointless to converse with a liar like you on top of someone who loves being offended over being reasonable.

 

[Aussie Darcy]

Yes you did imply it, this is what you called the thread which questioned why they couldn't get equal pay:


_ _ _ _ _ _



I never said I wanted equal pay for Wheelchair players. You are the ones who want "equality", why are you not fighting for them ? Looks what you want is not "equality", you just want one group of people to be favoured for your own selfish reasons.
Regardless you've already been caught in a lie in the first part of my comment, you resorted to lying when you got caught in your hypocrisy and realised you had no argument, so it's pointless to converse with a liar like you on top of someone who loves being offended over being reasonable.

You mean like you with the men? Yeah, that's what I thought. Keep hating women as you've clearly proven in this thread, it's disgusting and you've tried to use wheelchair athletes to further your hatred of women. Take a hard look at yourself. Oh and while you're at it, educate yourself on the amazing work that wheelchair and quad athletes do and who they are and also learn the tournaments that showcase them because you really embarrassed yourself by failing to answer any of my questions or show any knowledge of their competitions. It was really sad to see that you discussed them yet knew nothing about them? Why you did that i'll never know

See ya.

 

[Slicehand]

i also should be paid the same than people with hair

 

[weakera]

So many ableist users. Very sad.

 

[Aussie Darcy]

So many ableist users. Very sad.

Yeah it's awful to see. These people can't even name a single tournament that feature wheelchair and quad competitions (despite being asked multiple times) and they also can't discuss the incredible things they do for the sport. Instead they just use these athletes to attack the women's tour and demand women get paid less. It's awful right? Like who does that?!?

 

[weakera]

Yeah it's awful to see. These people can't even name a single tournament that feature wheelchair and quad competitions (despite being asked multiple times) and they also can't discuss the incredible things they do for the sport. Instead they just use these athletes to attack the women's tour and demand women get paid less. It's awful right? Like who does that?!?

 

[Keizer]

This is a pointless debate without solid evidence on ratings and viewership anyway. We don’t have access to a full set of that data and until we do it is impossible to make anything other than the argument that the current distribution already reflects the economic value of each tour to the sponsor plus the economic value they place on avoiding bad publicity from a large pay gap. This argument has been made a million times, on here and elsewhere. What does this thread add exactly?

 

[Federev]

OP is giving off strong libertarian cyrpto Bro vibes.

Thanks.

I was really confused about all this, but this clears it up for me.

 

[Federev]

I see your point, but consider there to be a bit of a "threshold" to pass. If the interest gets to a certain point (a certain percentage of the more popular counterpart), maybe the humanitarian effort would be considered justified. But I agree if we applied the same standards of meritocracy strictly there shouldn't be "thresholds" and people should just be paid in proportion to the interest they generate, and favouring one group over the other when choosing the recipient of welfare is simply unfair, just like you said.

You’re kind of “sane”.

Leave this place and never come back.