Wozniacki got paid $ 90000 more than Djokovic

Fedexeon

Hall of Fame
But try to have a look at the prize money distribution.

Quarterfinalists, 4th and 3rd rounders in ATP get paid more relative to WTA.
Well the total prize money is the same, just depends how they distribute them. To me its a good idea to spread it more widely, cause i mean $90000 difference to players like Federer, Nadal is not really that much, but those players who consistently lose in 3rd or 4th round, the fact that they can get some extra money, its good in the long run.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
The total prize/money for single and double:

ATP = $4,760,000
WTA = $4,500,000

Overall, the ATP players still get more pay.
 

kishnabe

Talk Tennis Guru
Child Suppport? I mean women are a majority in the world but treated as a minority...Even though the situation is much less that fifty years before. I believe women deserve for all they go throught and the effort of bearing children. Sure she is getting huge money but stop wimpering about the situation. It not like there is a million dollar differnce just a few thousands.

Men have got it good in society so stop trying to cry about and leave it alone. Doesn't change the fact that Novak and Caroline got a huge paycheck. No one is hurt, no one cares.
 

Fee

Legend
The women were paid more because their prize money structure for the premier events is different. For the men, IW is a Masters 1000 tournament, one of 8 similar tournaments on the tour. For the Women, IW is a Premier One event, but there are only 4 or 5 of those on their tour, so they got paid more money at IW.
 

bluetrain4

G.O.A.T.
I don't think the Masters "combined" events are like the Slams where there is a single pool of prize money.

These are truly "combined" in that a WTA event and an ATP event are being held simultaneously. It is not the same as the ITF holding a co-ed Slam.

Yes, there are sponsors for IW and Miami that sponsor the tournament as a whole, but there are also the sponsors that sponsor just the WTA tournament that is occurring and ATP sponsors that sponsor just the ATP tournament that is occurring. The decision regarding how to distribute prize money is left to the ATP and WTA respectively, just as if the tournaments would have been held separately. If the WTA wants to award their winner more than the ATP winner and has the cash to do it, that's not a case of the IW tourament, unlike the Slams, deciding that women must be paid as much as men.

Most non-combined WTA tournaments offer considerably less prize money than independent ATP events. The combined events are good for the WTA because the WTA it can get some money that it probably wouldn't if the event was women-only, namely sponsors who are willing to support a combined event but not a WTA event, and even WTA sponsors who might shell out a little more cash due to the increased visibility of a combined event. Sure, it can be seen as coattailing on the ATP, but it while it helps the WTA, it really doesn't hurt the ATP portion of the event, IMO.
 

Pozarevacka

Banned
That sounds like equal pay for equal work to me doesn't it?
So Wozniacki beating Bartoli was equal to Djokovic beating Ralph? Wozniacki wouldn't be able to beat Ryan Harrison.

The huge crowds during the women's matches must have been the reason.

Or the average match for the WTA lasting 50 minutes must get them their money.

This equality thing sounds great! Let's see the bottom line for each side, and then lets talk equality.
 

tenis1

Banned
The price money is the same it is just that the pot is distributed differently.

WTA gives a bigger share of the pot to the winner than ATP.
 

Devilito

Hall of Fame
So Wozniacki beating Bartoli was equal to Djokovic beating Ralph? Wozniacki wouldn't be able to beat Ryan Harrison.

The huge crowds during the women's matches must have been the reason.

Or the average match for the WTA lasting 50 minutes must get them their money.

This equality thing sounds great! Let's see the bottom line for each side, and then lets talk equality.
you make it sound like it's your tax dollars at stake.
 
OK I've had it with this equality BS, i can see how they'd justify it in the best of 3 sets tourneys but in grand slams?? equal pay for equal work my ass! they get paid the same for half as much time spent on the court! you want equal treatment? do equal amount of work, ohhhhh wait, you want equal treatment AND you wanna remain women... riiiight... smells like blatant ubiquitous double standard they re taking full advantage of. blehh
 
So Wozniacki beating Bartoli was equal to Djokovic beating Ralph? Wozniacki wouldn't be able to beat Ryan Harrison.

The huge crowds during the women's matches must have been the reason.

Or the average match for the WTA lasting 50 minutes must get them their money.

This equality thing sounds great! Let's see the bottom line for each side, and then lets talk equality.


Say pay for the same work, haven't you ever heard that. We have to keep things equal, not fair when the men make all the money right...
 

Fee

Legend
The women were paid more because their prize money structure for the premier events is different. For the men, IW is a Masters 1000 tournament, one of 8 similar tournaments on the tour. For the Women, IW is a Premier One event, but there are only 4 or 5 of those on their tour, so they got paid more money at IW.
I guess some people couldn't find the first page of this thread.
 

bluetrain4

G.O.A.T.
OK I've had it with this equality BS, i can see how they'd justify it in the best of 3 sets tourneys but in grand slams?? equal pay for equal work my ass! they get paid the same for half as much time spent on the court! you want equal treatment? do equal amount of work, ohhhhh wait, you want equal treatment AND you wanna remain women... riiiight... smells like blatant ubiquitous double standard they re taking full advantage of. blehh
I really don't think the Slams or those parties encouraging equal prize money at Slams base their position on "equal work" at all. This comes up every time we debate equal prize money -- the issue of equal pay for equal work. I don't think the movement for equal prize money was ever been about that.

And, for good reason. Everyone knows as an initial matter that the women don't "work" as hard as the men. At a Slam, the minimum sets a woman can play is 2, the minimum a man can play is 3, thus women's minimum sets is approx 66.67% of men's. The maximum a woman can play is 3 sets, the maximum a man can play is 5 sets, thus women's maximum is 60% of men's. Let's average those two numbers and say that women's workload at Slams is approximately 63% of men's. Those numbers are fact. No sane person would attempt to argue equal prize money because of those numbers. In fact, that number (63%) would dictate that prize money for women actually be decreased. For years before there was equal prize money at some of the Slams, the women made 80%, even up to 92% of what the men made, which was too much under the "work" theory of prize money. The "work" theory has never been a reason behind the push for equal prize money, though it seems to be the main reason to argue for against equal prize money.

I think the push for equal prize money came out of what I will call the "achievement" argument. This argument inherently recognizes that men and women are not the same. Men are stronger, faster, etc., and male players would beat female players of the same level all the time. The achievement argument accepts up front that men and women are not the same and even accepts that the work they put in (in regards to official match time anyway) is not the same. Instead, the argument is simply focused on the fact that, accepting that men and women are different, it's a remarkable achievement for either sex to be the best in the world at something, to win a sport's biggest prize. Thus, they are rewarded similarly. It's simply valuing being the best woman at a particular thing the same as being the best man at a particular thing (regardless of time spent doing it), when due to physical differences between men and women, they don't compete against each other in that context.

Whether you agree with equal prize money or not, I'm just amazed at how many people still argue about "equal work." We can all do the math. The Slams have known for decades that the workload isn't the same. It's not an amazing revelation that men and women don't usually play the same amount of sets or play the same amount of time. The Slams have had decades to consider this, yet have still moved towards closing the gap either partially or completely in regards to prize money. I don't think equal work is an issue.
 
Top