Rafa4LifeEver
G.O.A.T.
Don't give the idiotic woke brigade another point lol.
Why shouldn't there be equal pay for wheel-chair tennis players?
- Thread starter Federev
- Start date
You need proof that the society is not a male dominated one? Or that men have dominated throughout the history of 'man'kind? Or that pay package is not related to that dominance? Heck. Our Met Police i.e. one who are supposed to protect is full of mysogynists who r ape and kill. Not interested in fringe cases or outliers. Come and see the real world of business.
Federev
G.O.A.T.
Well - they call it “tennis”.
By your reasoning one could argue It's a different form of tennis competition where players who are men are required to play best of 5 matches instead of best of 3 and must play against competitors who are - in general - much much faster and stronger and are at a completely different level of excellence altogether.
Silverbullet96
Hall of Fame
I said I do agree that males have a certain extent of power over women in this world, whether it's as bad as "dominating" that I'm not sure of, but regardless that is no proof that WTA players are getting paid less than ATP players because of sexism or men bullying them or whatever. Sexism doesn't exist in every single system or male individual.
Federev
G.O.A.T.
Honestly for me it’s about the injustice of one group of people who do not spend a dime on investment telling the people who pay for all the investment what they have to do with their money.
I’m not wealthy (relatively speaking) but the principle that - in an optional entertainment driven business fueled not by public sector funds but by private assets - the investors (those who own the stadiums, those who pay to mange the tours, and all the investors behind them - which will include some non-wealthy investors) can be told by those - who have no stake in the risk of investment and spend nothing to make the business happen from a supply end - what they must do with their money.
Tennis is entertainment. It’s not school teachers and firemen and police officers or even doctors and lawyers - wherein pay based on gender is obviously unjustified.
It is a sport in which the very best athletes - the fastest and the strongest - are always men. And therefor the tennis is always played at a higher level. And therefore the tennis is - in general - clearly better from the standpoint of athletic performance.
If I have a $ 1,000 to spend on a tennis match, I want to go to the best one.
If no one is going to force me to spend my $1,000 on Ostopenko and keep me from Rafa, then who am I to tell the lady who invests in the IW tournament and pays for its management what she has to do with her revenue that she earned by paying for the tournament and soliciting ticket sales I was free to buy or reject.
What gives you or me the right to control her money?
Clutching at straws here? They only play BO5 in Slams. BO3 everywhere else.
Men are physically stronger i.e. they have better endurance. That's by design. Strangely, they all just cry at the slightest pain - forget about pain of childbirth. The game they pay is the same. The rules are the same. It's not like they are allowed two ball bounces or use a chair with wheels. That's a completely different tennis. BO3 is not a rule made up just now. It has been for generations. Their game is designed to prevail in BO3. Not everyone wants to sit through a 5-6 hour long match. Only tennis nuts do.
Silverbullet96
Hall of Fame
You have no arguments left it looks like. Spare us the sob story please, poor you must feel so oppressed while accusing organisations of sexism based on 0 evidence.
Federev
G.O.A.T.
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?!?
I don’t understand how you’re bringing anything to the debate.
And honestly - I’ve never seen you post any threads or posts celebrating about wheel chair athletes.
And - no disrespect meant - your argument does nothing to answer the question. You are just labeling the arguers as oppressive without dealing with the question itself. (Which I think can be it’s own form of intellectual bullying in some cases.)
Are you going spend equal time viewing and paying for tickets - or spending equal money in other ways - to support wheel chair tennis?
Are you going to tell others who spend their money making tennis happen what they must do with their own money?
Last edited:
If you go back at the time of Steffi or Henin or Hingis or Seles, women's tennis was more popular than men's. Why were they paid less? Why was men's tennis sucking the money then?
Match becomes interesting not because of BO5 or BO3 or how physically strong the players are. If you get Fed to play no 100 and the poor guy loses 6-0, 6-1, 6-2, is that interesting? A match becomes interesting when there is competition. It brings money when there is star power which I admit is lacking in WTA at the moment. Men's tennis had Fed, Nadal and Djokovic - plenty of star power. But that's just a moment in history. Remember the lean times in men's tennis?
Fastest and Strongest don't make it exciting. Let's have a slugfest between two baseline bashers with long rallies in every point. How exciting is that? Creativity, skill and mental strength are the qualities what we are looking for.
Federev
G.O.A.T.
You really just ignored the reality that the men’s game is stronger and faster and that in athletic entertainment that translates for many to a better viewing experience.
But nonetheless, I’m all for pay justified by revenue. If the women’s tour can generate the same revenue as the men’s tour than I would advocate for them receiving the same pay out.
Otherwise it’s just me (or you) telling others what they have to do with their own money and property in an optional entertainment industry.
Which - believe it or not - is not freedom, but unjust control.
Last edited:
Azure
G.O.A.T.
I actually think women's tennis is in a fairly good place. It is the only global female sport that continues to attract some of the best female athletes. It is the men's tennis that is losing it especially since American representation has significantly fallen. Yes, tennis is too super star driven. Heck I am not so invested in watching challenger tournaments. Why would I purchase cable tv to watch it? At the end of the day if there are many such Azures not willing to buy cable tv to watch a particular sport, it will fall.
Federev
G.O.A.T.
If what you say about the earlier era is true than I think it’s wrong they were paid less. I think the pay should be based on the revenue.
As to what “we are looking for” - the revenue streams and tickets sales and endorsement payouts will pretty much reveal that.
I saw the empty seats in TX for the WTA finals. So … that’s my answer for what’s happening currently.
But if the revenue justifies it then - for sure - the pay out should reflect it.
Azure
G.O.A.T.
If you think its a bait thread, well thats on you. Frankly Federev is a good poster and I sincerely believe this thread is pretty well intentioned. The first few posts on this thread are good until you and another poster started bickering. If we have more conversations with an open mind on these topics it actually is good.
Azure
G.O.A.T.
Sure it has not been the case because the last couple to three decades for men's tennis have been virtual gifts - first you had the Americans dominating and then the Fed-Rafa duo brought in the crowds. This will not continue for long. Apart from Alcaraz I do not see anyone on the men's side. Today if you pit Alcaraz and Osaka/Raducanu next to each other, there is no doubt who is drawing the crowds. Heck in the US, Gauff or Stephens will draw a huge crowd.
I think the thread is not about whether women should be paid equal or not, it’s about the wheel chair users. I believe women should be paid the same as men only because of diversity and inclusion. There is no commercial logic for it. And for the same reason, consideration for wheel chair users should be first so they should be paid equal too
It is exactly how I am saying and we can only agree to disagree, and so would anyone else you will discuss it with.
WeekendTennisHack
Hall of Fame
The bigger problem is all tennis players are overpaid (I mean top prize money) and all pro sports athletes are overpaid for that matter.
Federev
G.O.A.T.
There it is!
100% agree.
If - within manageable metrics - we can predict interest and revenue streams fairly well - then the fair way to treat investors and athletes alike is that revenue levels should be reflected in the pay outs to athletes, regardless of gender.
That’s what’s fair (to me anyway) in an optional entertainment industry.
And yes - just for the record - I would watch Emma (in 2021) or Petkovic or Halep or a bunch of ladies over many ATP players. But that pretty much stops when it’s the top 5 in the men’s game because the tennis is just more powerful and therefor more entertaining to me.
Silverbullet96
Hall of Fame
So I guess you would agree that there shouldn't be equal pay in slams since the rules are different for men and women ?
NAS
Hall of Fame
I think wta need to do more, relying only on female superstar is not right, they had to go for more advertising, I am not talking about some challenger but second biggest tournament after slam
RaulRamirez
Legend
But aren't you complaining that women players (at slams) get the same money as men? Who are you (or I, or anyone) to do so?
travlerajm
Talk Tennis Guru
If the wheelers can reach the ball in one bounce, then I say pay ‘em!
This thread was forked from Shapovalov thread which was about Women's day and equal pay (https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...quality-in-tennis.746089/page-4#post-17192099). The "whataboutery" led to creation of this thread.
Not just because of diversity and inclusion but because they also deserve it. As I've said before, Women's tennis was more popular than men's when Henin, Steffi and the lot were playing. Why were they paid less? Commercially, people paid more to watch women then. 2001 Wimbledon - I doubt many turned up to watch Ivanisevic defeat Rafter. They were more interested in Venus vs Henin.
I could say BO3 is more exciting. They should get paid more. I'm not here to watch 6 hour long slugfest. I need entertainment. I'm not here to watch Djokovic style boring tennis for example. It would help if you didn't cherry pick posts.
Federev
G.O.A.T.
I don’t agree with your conclusion - because this is an optional entertainment sports industry (not school teachers, doctors, etc) wherein the product is the athletic performance and the quality of the product is very different between men and women and wheelchair athletes.
But I applaud you for your consistent argument and the integrity of it.
Your values - diversity and inclusion - are the source for your conclusion and they are transparently consistent. That’s often not the case on this thread, but you dealt with it in a straight forward way and your conclusion makes perfect sense with your values.
My values in this case - freedom from the state’s attempts to control people’s property or personal decisions concerning what belongs to them - drives my conclusion that a private optional entertainment sports business whose revenue is generated by the freedom of spectators to buy according to their own pleasure should be free of outside control over payout decisions and that investors should not be told -by those who spend nothing to create and offer the product to buyers - what the investors have to do with their own assets and property. That drives my conclusion. (Athletes and ticket buyers can likewise leverage their interests via collective bargaining and ticket purchases.)
But again - I applaud you for your honesty and consistency - for real.
Last edited:
Currently, yes. It is just a moment in history. Men were paid more .. a hell of a lot more when women's tennis was bringing in more people and money? Henin, Steffi etc. Back in the days, it was worse for women. They can't keep adjusting the pay package depending upon commercial revenues every year. I don't think that would be viable.
Federev
G.O.A.T.
Very good and astute question.
Actually … No - I’m for investors and owners paying whatever they want - based on their return on investment.
I’m not fine with them being told what they must do with their money when it’s not someone else’s money.
If the IW tournament director wants to pay women more that’s fine! It’s their money!
Who the crap are we to tell him or her what they have to do with their money?
They’re not forcing me to buy their tickets or watch their matches. Why should I force them to pay the women more or less or the same as men?
It’s not public school teachers - it’s a sports entertainment business.
My point is that - if you want to make an “equity” or social Justice argument for women regardless of revenue or actual interest then you better do it for the wheel chair players or else you’re just being hypocritical.
Last edited:
jm1980
Talk Tennis Guru
The sane solution is to completely segregate the tournaments by gender, and stop holding combined tournaments altogether
That way sponsors, tournaments, TV networks, etc. can make financial decisions with the most objective numbers possible. Right now it's all very muddled together outside of the finals
Men and women should be paid equal prize money only if they played the same event (i.e.: they competed directly against each other)
That way sponsors, tournaments, TV networks, etc. can make financial decisions with the most objective numbers possible. Right now it's all very muddled together outside of the finals
Men and women should be paid equal prize money only if they played the same event (i.e.: they competed directly against each other)
Federev
G.O.A.T.
Yeah - 100% - if the women were generating more revenue they should rightly argue for more pay than the men.
Every year may not be viable to adjust pay based on revenue, but every 3-4 years?
I mean - heck - they are adjusting gas and groceries prices by the week where I live.
Anyway - you’ve made some good arguments I can agree with.
Thanks for not just writing “way to go sexiest bigot worker-oppressing hater!!!”
Azure
G.O.A.T.
Yes, this is my view on this subject as well.
RaulRamirez
Legend
Agreed, let alone mid-tournament.
I believe that there is still more prize money overall in men's tennis for 1000 level tournaments, perhaps, by a fairly significant margin.
Silverbullet96
Hall of Fame
Well unfortunately it doesn't depend on only what you deem as exciting. If enough people considered WTA more exciting than men, then naturally they'd get more pay, unless there's any discrimination or unfairness involved.
I didn't cherry pick anything, you argued that Wheelchair Tennis has different rules than Men, so implied that that's the reason why they shouldn't be a part of equal pay. Then when someone brought up Grand Slams where men and Women have different rules and still get equal pay, you then showed hypocrisy and said that rules don't matter and it's all about entertainment.
Regardless, ny stance is similar to the end part too, it's an entertainment industry so it makes sense that they will earn proportionately as much as the revenue they generate.
RaulRamirez
Legend
You know, I would contend (with much more intellectual honesty) that those who constantly grouse about "wokeness" are the idiots.
Most can't tell you what it even is, and if/when they do, often expose themselves as misogynists, racists and xenophobes.
All tennis tournaments are seperate for ATP and WTA. They have different prized money based their seperate revenues
Only 4 grandslam have same prize money. And that also did not happen in day but over the course of years. Why? Because people were questioning it. It was far easier for grand slams to have equal pay and negate the negative publicity. It was getting harder and harder defending unequal pay.
It's not only about revenues.its about maintaining the image of the tournaments
Only 4 grandslam have same prize money. And that also did not happen in day but over the course of years. Why? Because people were questioning it. It was far easier for grand slams to have equal pay and negate the negative publicity. It was getting harder and harder defending unequal pay.
It's not only about revenues.its about maintaining the image of the tournaments
Federev
G.O.A.T.
Good point.
Those who own and control the slams made a decision based in their own sense of morality and / or long term economic viability.
As long as the state did not force them I’m fine with that.
If this was the medical care or utility industry I can understand state interference to assure equal access and fair compensation, but in a sports entertainment industry - which is not a necessity but a luxury - let the owners, investors, and athletes work it out.
Azure
G.O.A.T.
Ha! Its a word I learnt very recently! Still haven't understood what it actually means or even "Karen".
RaulRamirez
Legend
I don't use either. "Karen" has kind of deviated from its original connotation and , in my opinion, has been used so often that it's become meaningless to the point where people just shout "Karen" (not Khachanov) at each other.
"Cancel culture" and "wokeness" has been demonized (in my opinion) by people who either are just parroting what they've heard without thinking about it critically or perhaps, more troubling, people who want to go on being racists, sexists and xenophobes. You can see how this plays out at times on this forum -- even when these words are not used.
Now, honest disagreement without labeling is fine, but when people resort to this, it tells you a lot about their thought processes.
Indian wells also has equal prize money.
At Indian Wells, men and women receive equal payouts. That means, for example, that a quarterfinalist in the men's tournament receives the exact same cash prize as a quarterfinalist in the women's tournament. Miami does as well. And Madrid.
Indian Wells, Miami, Madrid offer equal prize money
Though the ATP and WTA Tours are staging more joint events, prize money is not always equal. The BNP Paribas Open in Indian Wells, which begins on Wednesday, Miami Open and Madrid all offer equal prize money.
Rafa4LifeEver
G.O.A.T.
Your call, sir.
Rafa4LifeEver
G.O.A.T.
Good to know. Again , no common decision for all the masters. Each tournament deciding for itself. I guess it's the revenue, may be few extra sponsorship and cost of equal prize money vs managing negative publicity on equal pay
I'm not sure of the exact reasons. But all masters are not the same size or draw the same crowds ect either.
NeutralFan
G.O.A.T.
Had women tennis organised their slams separately they would have met the same fate as women's football and other women's sports. ( not American football).
TTMR
Hall of Fame
Show me the figures demonstrating lower ratings, ticket sales and revenue for women's tennis. People acting here as if this is somehow a proven fact.
The events make more money combining men's and women's tennis together in the same tournament. More players, more matches, more ticket sales, more concession income, more parking income, etc.
The events make more money combining men's and women's tennis together in the same tournament. More players, more matches, more ticket sales, more concession income, more parking income, etc.
One more point to consider how much percent revenue of the tournaments is provided as prize money to men and women. Suppose men and women get 5&3 percent respectively, it will be a cost of only 2 percent of total revenue to bring women on par. However if it's 25&15 percent , then it will take a huge cut of 10 percent tournament revenue to bring women on par.
Silverbullet96
Hall of Fame
Similarly the people pushing for equal pay for women don't have the overall figures demonstrating same ratings, ticket sales and revenue for Women's Tennis compared to Men.
Similar threads
